Choosing a candidate…
The Economist has as one of its leaders this week a caution to American Democrats considering giving Barack Obama their party’s nomination.Their main point is that the country cannot be led by charisma alone. Yet I think perhaps they underestimate the value of charisma. In fact, I think one of the lessons we have learned over the past eight years is that the President is only as good as the people who are advising him. And, based on the quality of campaigns run by Obama and Clinton, I think it’s safe to say that Obama has in this case chosen (or perhaps motivated?) the best team.
A secondary argument made by The Economist is that Obama is, by voting record, quite liberal–something that seems to go against his conciliatory campaign theme. While they appear to point out hard examples, Steve Benen gave a good discussion a few weeks back on why the voting record argument is dangerous. In general, Obama and Clinton have similar platforms–for example, health care reform appears to be a priority for both and their plans are similar. This makes it tough to choose between the two, especially as someone who was hoping for a strong showing from, say, Bill Richardson. In the end, I’m forced to fall back on the Iraq war argument. Even though both candidates discuss their strategy for ending the war, only Obama voted against the illegal invasion in the first place. In the end, this means I have to trust him to act according to what is best for the country and not just what appears expedient. Somehow I just can’t see Clinton’s hawkishness appealing significantly to independents and moderate Republicans.
While I think most people would agree that either McCain or Clinton would bring an improvement over the current administration, I really believe that we’re at the point where we need the disciplined idealism of Obama.Of course, living in Kentucky, I have until May to make up my mind…we’ll see what things look like then.
