For all the heated disagreements between the Democratic
frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the policy differences
between the two senators are pretty minimal. This can easily be missed
while watching (and, for a lot of excited Democrats, participating in)
the most interesting nomination fight in a generation. But the fact is
both candidates support the urgent, fully defined, and popular
Democratic agenda that has emerged after eight years of George W.
Bush’s catastrophic presidency.
Under Bush, the number of Americans without health insurance has
soared from 39 million to 47 million; the gap between rich and poor has
reached an unprecedented and precarious divide thanks in part to Bush’s
top-down tax cuts, with the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans now
earning nearly 25 percent of all income; and the $275-million-a-day
fiasco in Iraq continues with nearly 4,000 American troops and 700,000
Iraqis dead.
This would seem to be a political environment in which it would be
impossible for Democrats to lose. But we have felt this confident, and
been burned, before. Thus, the crucial question facing the Stranger
Election Control Board was this: Which candidate is best suited to take
on the formidable and conniving GOP—and Fox News, Rush Limbaugh,
and America’s cowed “liberal” media—in November? The SECB
believes the answer to this question is Barack Obama.
* * *
It is hard to believe today, but as recently as three years ago the
Democratic party seemed in the midst of a crippling identity crisis.
Its leaders could not figure out how to connect with a country that had
become unrecognizable to most liberals. Now this same
party—having won control of Congress in 2006—is speaking to
a voting population that has, by and large, caught on. Democrats are
advancing a focused agenda to achieve universal health care, end the
occupation of Iraq, combat global warming, reestablish the United
States as a respected international leader, reverse the erosion of
civil liberties at home, and make the economy work for the middle class
again.
Obama, a once-in-a-generation political orator with a bold message
of unity, is the best bet for moving that agenda into the Oval Office.
For starters, he would be better against the GOP on the campaign trail
than Clinton. The SECB admires Hillary Clinton, and not in a
damning-with-faint-praise sort of way: She’s a wonk, and she can be a
tough, even ruthless campaigner. But we have reservations about
nominating a candidate who’s so polarizing. If we were
Republicans—which we’re not, because Republicans are always
fucking over people who live on SECB
wages—we’d be terrified
about having to take on a superstar like Barack Obama.
An Obama candidacy would be buoyed by his inspirational life
story—a mixed-race kid abandoned by his father who made it to
Harvard Law and the U.S. Senate, with a stint as a community organizer
on the South Side of Chicago in between. His candidacy will also be
buoyed by his charisma. A single, profound speech about unity at the
2004 Democratic National Convention made him a sensation. And the
eloquence has continued with goose-bump moments during his “In the face
of impossible odds” speech in Iowa, and his “It is not about black
versus white… it’s about the past versus the future” speech in South
Carolina.
What encourages the SECB most about Obama’s oratory is that he uses
his gift to open people’s minds, unify them around progressive values,
and challenge them to do better. At his Martin Luther King holiday
speech in front of a black congregation in Atlanta, for example, he
condemned the scourge of homophobia and anti-Semitism in the
African-American community. By contrast, Clinton sticks to the standard
politics of shameless pandering, telling interest groups only what they
most want to hear.
On the less impressionistic side of things, there are the numbers.
Where Clinton rallies support from staunch, partisan
liberals—people whose votes are already firmly
Democratic—Obama appeals to an all-important category, given the
closeness of the last presidential election: the nearly 30 percent of
America’s electorate who identify themselves as independents.
Nationally, Obama has an 11-point lead over Clinton among independents.
These independents are infusing energy into the Democratic
primaries—and were it not for Obama drawing them there, they
might otherwise drift to John McCain.
* * *
At first, Obama’s appeal for unity put us off. In his efforts to
reach across old divides, he sometimes mimics GOP rhetoric about Social
Security. He put out a mailer in South Carolina proclaiming himself a
“committed Christian.” He refused to cancel appearances with an antigay
gospel singer. The SECB is not interested in “reaching out” to people
whose political goals are inimical to liberal values.
But all we had to do was look at Obama’s record and policy proposals
to realize that he’s committed to a liberal agenda. (Shhh—don’t
tell the Republicans.)
He has a 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters
and cosponsored a righteous and aggressive proposal by Senator Bernie
Sanders (VT-Socialist?) for an alternative cap-and-trade
proposal to curb global-warming emissions. He has eloquently defended
abortion rights on the campaign trail, and his votes in the U.S. Senate
have earned him a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. He
wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and he denounced
the pandering flag-burning amendment.
Most significantly, Obama was openly opposed to the war when that
position was unpopular, warning in 2002 that “even a successful war
against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at
undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He’s voted for
withdrawal timelines and he voted to restore habeas corpus.
As for Social Security, he’s not raising alarm bells because he
wants to privatize it. He’s raising alarm bells because he wants to
extend the payroll tax to tap fatter incomes. And while his health-care
proposals look slightly more cautious than Clinton’s, he’s thinking
ahead. Where punitive mandates may very well derail Clinton’s proposed
program before it gets off the ground, Obama’s more palatable,
incentive-based program could muscle through Congress and immediately
expand access to quality health care.
Obama’s liberal voting record, his position on the war, and his
campaign priorities are firmly progressive. His promise lies in his
ability to appeal to a wide cross section of Americans, and hopefully
persuade them that these and other long-standing Democratic goals are
mainstream no-brainers. It just might work.
* * *
Polls have found that when Hillary Clinton supporters are asked the
main reason for their choice, almost as many point to the fact that
she’s married to Bill Clinton as cite her own experience. (An
embarrassing 58 percent of Hillary Clinton voters in New Hampshire said
that if third terms were allowed, they’d prefer Bill to his wife.)
These stats point to a deeply troubling aspect of Clinton’s campaign.
She has a legitimate claim to an historic candidacy, but she has
undercut it by playing up nostalgia for the 1990s. By rewarding old
loyalties, Clinton is inflaming old ideological battles—battles
that some of us on the SECB find dull. If she’s able to squeak past the
Republican nominee and secure the White House—and that’s a big
if—she could find herself paralyzed by the same partisan warfare
she used to secure the nomination in the first place.
And about John Edwards: His shrink-wrapped anticorporate rhetoric
sounds more like a campaign tactic than a firmly held belief. We like
that he helped to focus his rivals on poverty and the environment, but
a quick glance at his voting record in the U.S. Senate is all you need
to understand that he’s either a dilettante or a schizophrenic. We
don’t think Edwards—with his dismal showing in Nevada (which was
supposed to be his populist union turf) and South Carolina (where he
was born)—is much of a campaigner.
The election of Obama to the presidency would be a jump cut in
American history, something the up-and-coming generation is clamoring
for. President Bush’s ugly politics have felt like a culmination of
divisive culture wars dating back to the 1960s. Obama, who was born in
1961, represents a chance to move on, finally.
That’s the energy of this election, and Obama, not baby-boomer
Clinton, is the one who best represents our interests. Certainly, the
SECB recognizes the history-making value in the possibility of a woman
president, but Obama offers the chance for a truly seismic shift. And
no, it’s not about race (although we don’t underestimate the
symbolism—to the rest of the world—of electing a black man
after eight years of cowboy diplomacy). It’s about transcendence.
Barack Obama, with his rhetorical appeal to the center, is poised to
make the Democratic Party the mainstream political voice in America.
If you live in Washington and want to help choose the Democratic nominee, you have to caucus in person on Saturday, February 9 at 1:00 pm (handy caucus-finerfind your caucus site here). You can register for the first time or change your address at the caucus site, and you’re eligible even if you’re 17 now but will be 18 on November 4, 2008. The results of the separate presidential primary later in the month are being used by the Republican Party, but they’ll have no impact on the Democratic race.
