The Dems' Big Decision

My pessimistic streak thinks that given the political headwind, the Republicans could well be nominating a Washington General to the Democrats' Harlem Globetrotter, which means that it becomes very important which Harlem Globetrotter gets nominated.

That's not to say that the general election will be lopsided either way, but much does ride on the Democratic primary-goer's decision and a very difficult one it is. I have difficulty choosing between Obama and Clinton - do you go with a known quantity (Clinton) who is running as a grown-up concerning defending America? Or do you go with the unknown quantity who seemingly has so much more potential than Clinton?

Obama reminds me of a 1991 Bill Clinton in terms of charisma. I recall thinking very early on, before the primaries, while watching C-Span: "Gees, I hope the Dems don't nominate that Bill Clinton fellow. Even I like him."

Indeed, a good test for a candidate is whether someone on the other side can stand to listen to him or her. I could listen to Obama indefintely now, just as I could Bill Clinton in 1992 (by '95 that was all over).

So who could a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat listen to without barfing? McCain surely. Giuliani maybe. Huckabee probably. I would say those three are the most electable based on this crude test - even though it's unreliable since I can hardly imagine what a liberal Democrat thinks of the Republican candidates. It's not that you'll ever get those votes - as Bill Clinton never got mine - but the moderates, the people sway-able, will go for them.

It just seems like you get so much more with Obama. You get a fresh start. You get a chance to symbolically put a wooden stake in the great vampire of our country: racism. It's heady stuff. As David Brooks writes:

Barack Obama has won the Iowa caucuses. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel moved by this. An African-American man wins a closely fought campaign in a pivotal state. He beats two strong opponents, including the mighty Clinton machine. He does it in a system that favors rural voters. He does it by getting young voters to come out to the caucuses.

This is a huge moment. It’s one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.

Iowa won’t settle the race, but the rest of the primary season is going to be colored by the glow of this result. Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.

And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?

Obama has achieved something remarkable. At first blush, his speeches are abstract, secular sermons of personal uplift — filled with disquisitions on the nature of hope and the contours of change.

He talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. He seems at first more preoccupied with changing thinking than changing legislation.

Yet over the course of his speeches and over the course of this campaign, he has persuaded many Iowans that there is substance here as well. He built a great organization and produced a tangible victory.

He’s made Hillary Clinton, with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He’s made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over.

Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too.

From my limited knowledge, Huckabee and Obama seem very similar, except Obama would appoint much worse judges. Both have no foreign policy experience and both govern mainly by feelings.

Not that Huckabee will get the Republican nomination - I don't believe he will. But if Huckabee won that and the general you wouldn't get the benefit of feeling to right an ancient wrong, that being slavery. I'm probably naive in thinking that an Obama presidency would end the bitterness, end the calls for slavery reparations, end the whole "us versus them" of black/white relations. No one seems to care that Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell or Clarence Thomas are in or have been in some of the most powerful positions in the country. But maybe it takes the top job to do it. Likely Obama would be called an Uncle Tom if he tried to bring us together. But you can hope, and you can not leave anything on the table in trying to bring about that hope.

Sure it's a huge risk to nominate someone so inexperienced. But anyone like Obama is like unrefrigerated milk - by nature they have a very short-shelf life. You simply can't wait for them to gain experience because experience will harden them. It will make them ideologues, or it will allow them to make mistakes for which the other side won't forgive them for. Not that it's better to make those mistakes as president, but I think the Iowa choices of Obama and Huckabee say one big thing: "Experience is overrated. We had eight years of experience in the form of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and look what it got us."

Of course Obama and Huckabee would be in exactly the same position as George Bush eight years ago. They'd be forced to pick very experienced advisors. So, paradoxically, by choosing inexperience we're actually voting for experience.

Will Democrats have the guts to roll the dice? That's what is so interesting. No once can accuse Democratic primary goers of being able to read the electorate very well: I couldn't stand Gore or Kerry which, to use myself as an indicator, means that a majority of the nation either disliked them or were indifferent to them. But I liked Clinton in '91 and I like Obama now.

The Dems played it safe the last two elections but this election they really can't do so. Obama's best friend is Hillary, since Democrats have to trust the country to elect a minority this time (thank God John Edwards is pretty much out, proving the Democratic party is at least sane). So will they nominate a black man whose middle name is "Hussein"? Since they tend to see everything in terms of race and gender, you can imagine what's going through their minds: is America more gynophobic or blackophobic?

My gut tells me they should go with Obama, but because his candidacy is something of a Rorschach test my brain isn't so sure.