Why I Support Senator Obama
Senator Obama is falling victim to a disease that seems to strike down promising Democrats all the time: the media narrative is wiping out his candidacy by fundamentally misleading the public. This is despite his natural gifts as a politician and despite the sympathy that many individuals within the media have for his campaign.
Obama has fallen into two traps in particular. First, because he is eloquent and because the leading Democrats have no serious policy disagreements, he is being portrayed as someone who doesn't know or care about policy. Second, because he is black and because the race has become racially polarized, he is seen as the "black" candidate, the one who only does well because black people and guilty white liberals irrationally support him. I could write a lot more about how these narratives get generated and why they are false, and maybe I will, but for now let me explain why the narratives are so unfortunate: Senator Obama is the best candidate for president, and right now the media narratives are crushing his candidacy.
Let's start with substance - why he would make a good president. This is admittedly guesswork, based on limited data, but to me it is clear that Obama is likely to be the better president. First, his experience is arguably better than Clinton's. Sure, she's been in the Senate for four extra years, but she didn't achieve any striking legislative accomplishments. Obama served for 7 years in the Illinois senate, where he did push through some difficult and groundbreaking legislation (see below).
Meanwhile, here's an educated opinion about Clinton's policy skills, written by Brad DeLong, who served in Bill Clinton's treasury department. In fairness, I believe he has moderated his stance on the prospect of a Hillary presidency, but the point is that an intelligent, liberal, high-ranking Clinton treasury official had this to say about Clinton in 2003:
But isn't Obama short on accomplishments? Isn't he just an empty suit? Actually, though you won't find the media reporting on it very much, he has accomplished quite a lot. Please click that link - it tells a very different story than the one you'll usually hear from the media.
Of course, even if Obama would make a better president than Clinton, that alone isn't reason enough to nominate him. You also have to believe that he could win in November. But actually, Obama is far likelier to win in November than Clinton. Bill Clinton said that with Obama the Democratic Party would be rolling the dice, but in fact nominating Clinton is a very risky move at a time when there is a lot at stake.
I don't agree with everything Obama says. He's too far to the left for my taste (ironically, because he uses moderate rhetoric, he's been savaged by some left-wing pundits). The thing to remember is that no candidate will ever perfectly represent your political viewpoint. Ironically, Bill Clinton came pretty close to perfection for me as far as ideology goes. That's why, on top of the prospect that Obama will lose because the media doesn't care about the truth, it's deeply depressing that Bill Clinton has lowered himself into the role of vicious, dishonest attack dog.
We can't elect Bill Clinton again, and at this point I wouldn't want to. We can elect someone with the potential to be an even better president than Clinton ever was, and we can do it while minimizing the risk of losing in November. That's why Senator Obama is the right choice, and that's why he deserves your support.
Obama has fallen into two traps in particular. First, because he is eloquent and because the leading Democrats have no serious policy disagreements, he is being portrayed as someone who doesn't know or care about policy. Second, because he is black and because the race has become racially polarized, he is seen as the "black" candidate, the one who only does well because black people and guilty white liberals irrationally support him. I could write a lot more about how these narratives get generated and why they are false, and maybe I will, but for now let me explain why the narratives are so unfortunate: Senator Obama is the best candidate for president, and right now the media narratives are crushing his candidacy.
Let's start with substance - why he would make a good president. This is admittedly guesswork, based on limited data, but to me it is clear that Obama is likely to be the better president. First, his experience is arguably better than Clinton's. Sure, she's been in the Senate for four extra years, but she didn't achieve any striking legislative accomplishments. Obama served for 7 years in the Illinois senate, where he did push through some difficult and groundbreaking legislation (see below).
Meanwhile, here's an educated opinion about Clinton's policy skills, written by Brad DeLong, who served in Bill Clinton's treasury department. In fairness, I believe he has moderated his stance on the prospect of a Hillary presidency, but the point is that an intelligent, liberal, high-ranking Clinton treasury official had this to say about Clinton in 2003:
My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.
But isn't Obama short on accomplishments? Isn't he just an empty suit? Actually, though you won't find the media reporting on it very much, he has accomplished quite a lot. Please click that link - it tells a very different story than the one you'll usually hear from the media.
Of course, even if Obama would make a better president than Clinton, that alone isn't reason enough to nominate him. You also have to believe that he could win in November. But actually, Obama is far likelier to win in November than Clinton. Bill Clinton said that with Obama the Democratic Party would be rolling the dice, but in fact nominating Clinton is a very risky move at a time when there is a lot at stake.
I don't agree with everything Obama says. He's too far to the left for my taste (ironically, because he uses moderate rhetoric, he's been savaged by some left-wing pundits). The thing to remember is that no candidate will ever perfectly represent your political viewpoint. Ironically, Bill Clinton came pretty close to perfection for me as far as ideology goes. That's why, on top of the prospect that Obama will lose because the media doesn't care about the truth, it's deeply depressing that Bill Clinton has lowered himself into the role of vicious, dishonest attack dog.
We can't elect Bill Clinton again, and at this point I wouldn't want to. We can elect someone with the potential to be an even better president than Clinton ever was, and we can do it while minimizing the risk of losing in November. That's why Senator Obama is the right choice, and that's why he deserves your support.
posted by James | 12:17 AM
3 Comments:
I support Obama as well, but I always hesitate to blame the media. They talk about the horse race because that's what people most urgently want to hear about; a candidate's records and policy positions are easy enough to find for those who are interested.
Also, I actually don't think we're seeing the press inventing narratives in this election cycle. For the most part, what you see is reporting on how the campaigns are positioning themselves. So you've seen a lot on reporting on Giuliani's record, on Romney's CEO experience, on Edwards' populism, on Bill Clinton's remarks...and on Obama's message of hope. I don't think it has anything to do with race. I just think these media outlets are frightened by original thoughts, engage recklessly in groupthink, and repeat each campaign's biggest, most obvious message over and over again. Obama's tagline is "HOPE", not experience. I bet if he wanted to change that, the media would be easy enough to manipulate. But you only get one tagline, maybe one and a half.
Hello,
I read the link you have on your post to the article about Barack Obama's legislative achievements in Illinois. I have no doubt that his efforts to compel the videotaping of interrogations will save a few innocent people from being beaten, and that is a good thing. However, I'm not really sure what the point of that article was. How does that make him the most suitable candidate for president? I doubt you would find any politician in favor of beating people to compel them to confess.
Dear Anonymous,
Perhaps you'll find a point in this part of the article: "[T]he challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the 'heart and soul' bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person's character and ability."
Prevailing over partisanship and pandering - especially as an outsider and a newcomer - takes a lot of political deftness. Obama's got it.
Love,
DD
Post a Comment
<< Home