, on Amazon.com’s MP3 store. No DRM, just plain, high quality MP3 files.
I wish I had the time to write a longer piece about this, but I’ll have to write it by proxy. I’ve tried several times to put into words why I’m planning on voting for Barack Obama in a few weeks. On policy grounds, criticisms that he is all rhetoric without substance seem unfair to me, as he has outlined his policies on his websites in similar detail to Chris Dodd or Clinton (the two I’ve looked at the most). These seem well thought out and reasonable to my preferences. Also, his emphasis is on transparency in government and he is very specific on these grounds. It’s hard for me to take claims that he is not substantive seriously.
He may not talk about this in the speeches that get the most TV attention, but the speeches that many are reacting to have been recent ones post-caucus or post-primary or in the final hours of campaigning. Folks, policy wonkishness has no place in post-election speeches, and if you’re talking to voters who might be swayed by a last minute speech, general likability and bullet point speechifying is better than too many details. That’s just my instinct on this one.
On my reasons for voting for Obama, I present to you Hilzoy’s take at ObWi, where I think she nails one key problem I have with Hillary Clinton’s campaign:
My main concern about Hillary Clinton has always concerned foreign policy. On the domestic side, I think that the proposals of the three main Democratic candidates are pretty close to one another, close enough that their differences will be swamped by whatever changes have to be made to them in order to get them adopted. On foreign policy, however, I think that she and Obama are quite different, for reasons I hope to explain later. Moreover, as Matt Yglesias and Tom Schaller (see also Ari Berman) have pointed out, her advisors tended to support the war in Iraq, while Obama’s tended to oppose it, and this worries me a great deal.
The way they have approached talking about Iraq and explaining the way America fights the war on terror has been pretty different. In fact, it’s a big reason I’m uncomfortable with her candidacy. I actively prefer Obama’s terrorism/foreign policy stances here.
I mostly agree with Hilzoy’s remaining criticisms, with some reservations. Read it for yourselves, and I’d be curious about your takes on this.
The second thing that draws me to Obama is described in comment over at Balloon Juice:
Bobby Kennedy famously said, “Some men see things as they are and ask, ‘Why?’ I dream of things that never were and ask, ‘Why not?’” His brother promised to land a man on the moon. That was some pretty lofty rhetoric too. So we should aspire to the possible, to a limited vision of what we can safely accomplish with the least effort? It’s the so-called realists that have us in Iraq and who, when asked when we’ll be out, answer “Some day.” It was Hillary Clinton who said, in 1964, “I think you have to view the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.” The world, Hillary, and our nation in particular, sucks in many ways at the moment. So we’re just supposed to accept it?
I’ve said this before to folks that have asked me personally, but I think Obama has a potential for greatness that Hillary Clinton doesn’t. When I used to hire folks over at ESPN, I always tried to follow the mantra “Hire for talent, train for skill.” This meant given two candidates, one experienced but average talent vs. an inexperienced candidate who might one day be a superstar in your organization, you take the latter every single time.
Obama is that guy. He’s not as experienced at the types of issues Presidents grapple with, but he brings with him a good team, good advisors, and his judgement and talent screams of superstar ability.
He’s going to be faced with a world with a lot of challenges. I’m convinced that Hillary Clinton will navigate them competently. But I’m also convinced that Obama may knock most of them out of the park. I like his ideas on government transparency, and I hope that he’s able to enact the most obvious and helpful of those changes.
Anyway, this is my quick brain dump on this for now. If you’re leaning toward Clinton or another candidate, leave your opinions below. I’m happy to be challenged on my choice.
Update: Eep, this wasn’t supposed to be an FM Wire post… sorry!
January 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I’m supporting Hillary. For both policy and gender reasons. The one issue I have with the Balloon Juice comment above is that it says she made it in 1964. She was 17 years old in ‘64. Do you think she actually has the same philosophy now?
January 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Amy, for what it’s worth, I think that’s a typo. At the Huffington Post, they have it cited as 2004:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html
January 13th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Huh. Well that’s no good. I really disagree with that type of outlook. Crap. And I thought I had finally made up my mind. It’s really been exhausting choosing between these two. I like certain policy aspects of both of them, but then something else crops up that makes me re-analyze everything. This keeps happening and it’s making me tired. But not tired enough to vote Republican.
January 13th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
The source looks to be a Jul 28 2002 AP article about the DLC meetings that year… the articles are behind a paywall, and I can’t seem to track down a free version I can read. So, it’s fuzzy, but it’s a relatively recent quote regardless.
I wouldn’t get too hung up on a single quote unless you think it’s part of a pattern of behavior…
Obviously, to me it is, as it is what I think people are otherwise calling “calculating.” Even Bill Clinton didn’t move the needle much on public sentiment for whatever issues he was fighting for.
This was the practical outcome of checking the polls and focusing on passing bills rather than passing perfect legislation. It’s good and bad.
I think (dare I say, “hope”
) that for Obama, it’s different. He won’t pass perfect legislation, either, but I think he can move the needle of public sentiment and, more importantly, will try to do it, too.
It’s one anecdote, but the police interrogation bill he got passed in IL gives me reason to hope:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012841.php
January 13th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Hillary Clinton has always been a bit too hawkish for me. I first winced at her way back when she was explaining her Iraq Resolution vote by saying something along the lines of ‘my state of NY was more affected by 9/11 than any other, what was I supposed to do’ (wish I had a source handy). You’re right about her advisors. In NH, when she thought she’d get rolled over by Obama, she threw out a little fear mongering:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html
In other words, beware of that certain other inexperienced guy; you want someone who’ll handle those terrorists when they strike, and that someone is me.
I agree completely that Obama can unite and inspire in a way Clinton just simply cannot do. In choosing a president, we need to look beyond slight variations in the shades of policy and ask ourselves, who do you actually want to lead you? Electing Obama would also send a message the world couldn’t ignore. His campaign’s slogan, “Change you can believe in” sounds a bit corny, but is actually precisely on-point. That seems to be the difference between Obama’s brand of change and all the others.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Interesting take on things… I’m still trying to decide between Edwards and Obama. I’m not even sure why — I haven’t taken the time to delve into the candidates’ policy positions enough to give a logical basis for it, but for some reason Edwards just seems appealing to me as a general election candidate.