Obama For President

Who we choose

by The City Paper Staff

Michael T. Regan

Just over a year ago, before John McCain's campaign for the presidency seemed (rightfully) doomed to humiliating failure and before it was (absurdly) resurrected, McCain had this to say, to The New York Times, about the war in Iraq:

"I have no Plan B."

The candidate has, of course, made numerous frightening statements about this country's current sin. He complains now that his "100 years" quote has been taken out of context, but even if we put it aside, we still have other, disconcertingly childlike sentiments — like, "We're succeeding, I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground" — to suggest that McCain views foreign policy not as a careful business in which costs and benefits must be measured and the greater good pursued, but as a forum for boosting some all-important national ego. Such steadfastness in pursuit of honor may help make admirable individuals, but it's no way to run a country, and we fear that, were McCain elected, many more good volunteers, and quite possibly some conscripts, as well, will have to die for his misconceptions (and remember: Foreign policy is supposed to be this man's strength).

Fortunately, the Democratic Party has two candidates just itching to keep the Republican nominee from the White House, both of whom are far superior to its recent offerings of John Kerry and the 2000-vintage Al Gore. But while it's great to see a wealth of talent in a party that was, just four years ago, left for dead, the time has come to choose just one, and we here in Philly (!) get a substantial say in making that choice. With some regret, City Paper is recommending that voters reject Hillary Clinton in next Tuesday's primary. And we're enthusiastically endorsing Barack Obama for president.

We should acknowledge up front that one reason for supporting Obama at this stage is a strategic one. The candidates are not coming in to Pennsylvania tied at zero; Obama has a non-negligible lead, and while Clinton could still pull out a win, the more likely outcome of a successful showing by her in the Keystone would be a long, drawn-out primary that ends with Obama victorious, but weakened. Philly's choice, then, is not so much between Clinton and Obama as it is between Obama and more of this primary. Meanwhile, McCain tours the country making his twisted case, and no one concentrates on refuting it. Pennsylvania would do well to end this undercard, and make itself the launching site for the fight against McCain. Call it the war against perpetual war.

If you feel, however, that a strategic vote is too cynical for you, never fear: Even without strategery, Obama should still be regarded as the preferable candidate. His track record is more assuring, and, at this moment when the country seems prepared to rebuke the Republican party, his ceiling so much higher.

We respect Hillary Clinton. We admire her grasp of policy and procedure, and, should she be elected, we like her chances of making major changes to America's obscene health care system (in fact, in an election where there are few actual policy differences between the candidates, Clinton's advantage on health care is an important one, and a real reason to consider choosing her). It should also be noted that she's made great strides in a society where women are still not comfortably received as executive figures, of breaking down those boundaries, and establishing new, better norms.

But we have major concerns with Clinton, too. She is, in many ways, a creature of the late 1990s and early 2000s — a Democrat who believes herself to be naturally in the minority, and who has to play defense by running to the right when threatened. She exhibited this tendency when she staunchly supported the war in Iraq, and she's exhibited it several times in this campaign. And though it's not necessarily Clinton's fault that she reacts this way — she was raised in that political environment — there is a legitimate concern that her name and history could mobilize the conservative base and take the country back to that unfortunate era.

Which brings us to Obama. It's true that some supporters of the Illinois senator can go a bit overboard at times, and also true that Obama is, in fact, not the messiah — witness his disappointing "Annie Oakley" comment, or the more general fact that, upon arriving in the Senate, Obama transformed from a progressive community activist to a broadly mainstream politician, in terms of his voting record.

But to say that someone isn't the messiah doesn't mean that he can't offer something new and different, and we believe Obama does. On questions of foreign policy — where the president's agenda is implemented most directly — Obama seems to be of a new era, in which Democrats can exhibit "toughness" not by offering fake tough talk or advocating for more war but by standing for diplomacy and the pursuit of peace, even when doing so seems politically risky. Not for nothing, but electing a candidate so steadfastly committed to cooperation could do wonders for America's troubled international relationships (his success in managing a huge national campaign — which he'd never done before — helps ease our concerns about his "experience" in these matters).

On domestic policy, there's not as much space between the candidates. But in assessing what they'd mean for the country, it's worth considering the role of communication in politics. It's often observed that Obama is good at making speeches, but the more salient point about him is that he's philosophically advanced. He has shown the ability, when faced with challenges like the Jeremiah Wright controversy, to stand his ground, explain himself, and appeal to our better angels — in that case, taking a stage in Philadelphia to speak honestly of the racial divide, and, yes, to treat Americans like adults.

There was a time in this country, quite recently in fact, when it would have been hard to imagine such a politician succeeding — the cable news shows would have ignored the significant pieces of his speech, instead splicing a few excerpts in with clips from Wright's sermons. And indeed, that's what the news shows did. But today, as information continues to democratize, it's becoming possible for a leader to truly bypass the filters, make reasoned, well-intentioned arguments, and ask Americans to make this country a better place. It's a place we want to live. And more than any politician out there today, we believe that Barack Obama has a chance to take us there.