Cup of Cha
This is China

Before I get to the endorsement, January 31 is the last day Americans living abroad can sign up for the global primary election. If you would like to do so you can register electronically here. As you go through the form you will become entirely convinced that it is an application to get an absentee ballot. Don’t worry. You don’t need to print anything out, and you’re ballot will be e-mailed to you in about a week. I know the application is confusing and cumbersome, but hey, the Democrats put it together. The only thing worse would be if the GOP did it–in which case it wouldn’t work at all (Republicans have no option to vote from abroad except using snail mail. I assume it’s because top GOP officials don’t know how to use the inter-tube.)

Now that you know how to vote, you’re ready to make a decision.

Endorsement

Cup of Cha enthusiastically endorses Barack Obama. He is the one person in the presidential field ready to move this country toward a higher level of political discourse. There are some concerns about Senator Obama, in particular his experience, but his outstanding intellect, proven judgment, and ability to appeal to Americans across political affiliations puts him in the best position to implement a progressive agenda from day one. Before I identify the specific reasons why Mr. Obama is so uniquely positioned to implement a positive agenda, I would like to take a look at the unusually talented Democratic field.

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York brings much to the table as well. On many of the important domestic policy issues of the day she is extremely close to Senator Obama, as well as former Senator Edwards. Ironically, the perception of her as a left-winger does not reflect the moderate record of either her or her husband. The fact that a genuinely centrist candidate is nonetheless so polarizing deeply troubles our editorial staff (me). Some of the criticism of Senator Clinton is sometimes unfair, and she has proven to be reasonably good at reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans, and is generally respected by both parties for her ability to handle legislative matters. Yet her ability to pass sweeping reform from the White House is dubious at best.

Putting aside the deeply troubling tone of Senator Clinton’s campaign, which itself is a legitimate concern, the accomplishments that she can point to tend to be on the minutia of legislation. The only time that Ms. Clinton proved to be a bold visionary was during the health care debacle of the early 1990s. Unfortunately, the apparent lesson that she and her husband seemed to have learned from this was that focusing on small initiatives is the best way to govern, rather than the fact that it is important to present issues in an appealing way (not providing a 1,400-page book that outlines how to get health care).

When evaluating her record, Cup of Cha is forced to look not only to her own, but also that of her husband. This is necessary and fair since Ms. Clinton frequently cites ‘35 years of experience,’ which seems to rely heavily on her husband’s political career. President Clinton had a strong presidency, leading the country through extended peace and economic prosperity. Yet most of his governance victories were either minor, or dictated by the right. The earned income tax credit, for example, was a strong achievement that helped many poor people, but it was not a broad agenda. Instead, the most sweeping piece of legislation that President Clinton oversaw was welfare reform. Without evaluating the merits of this law, it is clear that this passage was the result of Republican initiative rather than presidential leadership.

Senator Clinton has led a similar career in the senate. She has shown an ability to push through small pieces of legislation, but her style of constant compromise looks more like that of Tip O’Neill or Bob Dole, rather than that of a true leader. Elected in 2000, she would have eight years of elected or appointed government experience on the day of her inauguration, hardly a big contrast to Senator Obama’s four years of national service. Mr. Obama served another eight years in the Illinois State Senate, actually giving him more legislative experience than Ms. Clinton. Even dismissing this latter fact, the experience argument seems minor–particularly since Ms. Clinton likes to remind voters that she is on the national stage, not her husband.

Former Senator John Edwards seems to have a genuine concern for poor people in the US, an important and rarely-seen quality in American politics. Unfortunately his grasp of international economics is based more on wishful thinking than reality. Furthermore, he has shown a willingness to cast aside most of his purported beliefs from just a few years ago as his mood has shifted. He has become a marginalized figure in this race, and there is no need to spend much time on him. [update: less than two hours after posting this John Edwards has notified the press he will drop out of the race.]

Senator Obama has shown an ability to appeal to voters who are much more conservative than he is. This may partially be based on a misunderstanding of some of his views. Many people believe that he is much more conservative than he is, much as many people misjudge the liberalness of Senator McCain. However, dismissing his wide appeal to misconception is slightly condescending to much of his support. He is a figure that people deeply admire, and not only because of the color of his skin. In so many ways he represents what is good and idealistic about American possibility.

His father was an immigrant from a poor country, given a chance to study in the US on a program that JFK began, ironically enough. In the US he met a Kansan with whom he had little in common , but they were able to forge a family nonetheless. Senator Obama grew up in Hawaii for most of his childhood, excelling in school and earning himself a place at Harvard Law School, and eventually served as the president of the highly prestigious Harvard Law Review. At every stage of his life he has distinguished himself as a step above the smartest that our country has to offer.

Senator Obama has been able to inspire, not because people think it is time to see a black man in the Oval Office, but because he helps people see beyond his race, to the words that he says. In 2003 he was not only right because he was against the war, but also because he opposed it for the correct reasons. Here is what he said in 2003, a statement which we unfortunately now understand to be extremely prescient:

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Senator Obama is not simply running on the issue of the war, for if he were he surely would be near to sewing up the nomination. Instead his clarity on the rush to war, in an environment of confusion in the aftermath of 9-11, shows a uniquely deft ability to ignore the tendency to be afraid to take a position that can be cast as unpatriotic, no matter how principled. He understood that Iraq was mistake not only because the country posed no imminent threat, but also because it would make us ignore all other issues for years to come.

When Mr. Obama pointed to Ronald Reagan, he correctly argued that the former president received so many Democratic votes not because his ideology match those of the voters, but rather because Mr. Reagan gave people hope, and led in a way that allowed people to ignore their differences. There is no guarantee that Mr. Obama will be able to reach the status of a transcendent American leader, but he has shown significant signs that he could. He vision and eloquence help voters understand the importance of policy initiatives in a way rarely seen in American politics, and his agenda is far better than that of ‘The Great Communicator.’

Were Ms. Clinton able to win the general election against her likely opponent, John McCain, she would surely be an adequate president. But with a likely 51% of the vote and a mobilized movement against her, it is unlikely that she would be much more. Senator Obama can reach people in a way that could potentially provide the political and moral high ground to push through an important Democratic agenda. After seven years of mismanagement, and a country that has lost its way, America should not be afraid to reach for its full potential, and cannot afford a plodding, even if effective, presidency. There is too much at stake to be held back by convention and caution.

It is time for America to cast aside the shackles of timidity and move out of the shadows of fear and into the sunlight of a new direction. It is time for bold leadership.

Share This

Tags: hillary, mccain, obama
Follow Comments via RSS Feed
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.