For President: Barack Obama

Readers of this blog will probably know that Nicholas Beaudrot's preferred candidate for President is Barack Obama. The question to answer, then, is why. The answer is straightforward: Hillary Clinton has repeatedly accepted a more cautious foreign policy that hews closer to the status quo. And that status quo isn't doing America much good.

Hillary Clinton would quite likely make a successful President. And I think polls taken today don't do a good job of representing what an election nine months from now would look like. A campaign geared towards Clinton's strengths might not appeal to me, but that's not a fundamental problem. Her rhetoric and proposals would likely appeal to many other Americans: single women, working-class married women, and others who the Bush Administration has ignored in its economic policymaking.

On domestic policy, Clinton's rhetoric and proposals have been modestly to the left of Barack Obama. Clinton has stood firmly for a truly universal health care proposal, though her unwillingness to comment on the enforcement of the individual mandate "shared responsibility" component of her plan suggests that her ideas in this arena is not fully thought through (though Obama's is not either). But the number of Democrats in the Senate will have more impact on future health care proposals than the specific campaign platforms of either candidate, making distinctions between candidates' plans less important.

The more pressing issue is foreign policy, where the President has much more freedom to implement his or her own agenda than in the domestic realm. On issues of international relations, there is a consistent pattern wherein Clinton tends to accept the status quo of foreign policy, where "looking strong" is important in an of itself, without consideration of whether "strong foreign policy" successfully protects vital national interests. On questions of dealing with Iran, on Cuba, and on resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Obama seems to have taken the somewhat less cautious position that is higher "risk", but also higher "reward". It's higher "risk" in the sense that the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela and Iran might do something we dislike. But the "risk" there is minimal; the idea that Iran, a country with a GDP equivalent to Alabama, would have the capacity to deal severe damage to the United States borders on the absurd. The reward, however, is large—reducing tensions with Iran or reaching an equitable two-state agreement between Israel and Palestine has the potential to greatly reduce the Central & West Asian animosity towards the US. We won't be able to do this without some alteration to our posture towards the rest of the world, and I doubt that Team Clinton is interested in rocking the boat to the degree that Team Obama is.

To an extent, I admit that I'm a victim of demographic destiny: as a well educated young man, I'm more likely to back Obama for aesthetic reasons. And I don't how to disentangle these factors from my support for Obama on policy grounds. Nonetheless, I think he would make the superior President, if only by a small margin.

My original plan was to attend today's Washington state caucus, stand for Edwards, and then, upon his non-viability, cheerfully walk to the Obama corner. Unfortunately I'm travelling for work and unable to vote. So I feel the pain of those who have been disenfranchised by the in-person nature of caucuses.

Comments

[Ari]

Thrilled that you're supporting Obama, of course. And agreed that Hillary will, should she win the nomination and the general, make a great presdient. But you've buried your lede. A lot. Which (the buried lede), I think, speaks to how good both candidates are. It's a lovely year to be a Democrat. And yet, still so much hand-wringing. We're an odd lot, I guess, missing the triumphalist rhetoric gene and not easily given to what some folks call the audacity of hope.

Anyway, I'm not skilled enough to embed links, but here's Hilzoy's endorsement of Obama. I include it here not to detract from yours, Nick, nor even to buttress it, but because Hilzoy's is totally built on Obama's issue profile. In other words, it's the best antidote I've found to the poisonous claim that Obama is all about fluffy rhetoric and ponies and that his supporters are part of a personality cult.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

So, what's the lede?

[litbrit]

Nick: YEAH!

I am finishing off my citizenship papers this weekend (I swear I'll do it, too) in order to be a citizen in time to vote in November.

For either wonderful candidate, but hopefully for Obama, whom I admire and whose first book I'm re-reading for the third time, if you can believe it.

Go Big O!

(I will write a proper endorsement post once I know for certain I can vote myself. Until then, I'll just stand here on the sidelines and cheer and get all misty.)

[litbrit]

(I should have said, Whom I admire and whom I support for the reasons you state above.)

AND I'm a well-educated, forty-seven-year-old feminist mother.

All I can say is, Don't pigeonhole me, pundits and pollsters. Don't even bother trying.

[low-tech cyclist]

'Big O', huh?

I mean, I'm excited about his candidacy too, but not that excited.

Or at least, not in quite that way.

[tom.a]

I'm for Obama as well, mostly due to foreign policy issues. Domestic policy I see more as a party driven issue rather than candidate driven. I do like Hillary's healthcare policy better and I think Obama will throw her that bone should he win, might as well let her do all the work on it as he'll have bigger issues to tackle.

[litbrit]

ltc, (hold on--must remove tongue from cheek before continuing). Where was I?

Oh yes, excitement levels. Consider, for a moment, the exhilarating heights--the sparkling, snow-covered pinnacles of bliss--to which we've soared in response to other candidates. Present and past, for that matter.

It has been a while. A long enough while that some people will have forgotten what a leader thinks and sounds like; they will have forgotten what it feels like, this recognition.

[Sir Charles]

Obama scratches my itch too if you know what I'm saying.

And I'm a 48 year old white man, albeit of dubious maturity. See e.g. above.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Don't pigeonhole me, pundits and pollsters. Don't even bother trying.

Well, I had been thinking that the crucial "Zappa Moms" voting bloc would lean Obama...

[Ari]

Sorry, I only meant that it took until the third graf to get to foreign policy -- or really to Obama at all. Anyway, I was just messing around and using the buried lede line to open up the revealing nature of your post's slow build. Regardless, after writing a nasty comment on Stephen's post the other day, I should probably be more careful about at my tone this site.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

No no that's fine ... I just wasn't sure what you were getting at :).

[ikl]

Your comment on Stephen's post was warranted if it is the one that I think that you were refering to . . .

[Ari]

It might have been, ikl, but nobody likes a troll.

[Petey]

I voted Clinton.

I literally held my nose in the privacy of the polling booth as a joke for an audience of no one.

UHC uber alles.

[Stephen]

Regardless, after writing a nasty comment on Stephen's post the other day, I should probably be more careful about at my tone this site.

Nothing you wrote bothered me. People either develop a thick skin or they stop blogging.

Also, while I'm not the biggest fan of contrarianism for its own sake, sometimes I do write specifically to provoke - though I don't write completely against my own opinions, either. For example, you'll never see a piece from me that says the Confederate states were somehow justified in committing treason.