Posted January 30th, 2008 at 1:37PMCame online to make this post, noticed that Edwards finally dropped out. Along with Kucinich about a week ago, the field is only getting narrower. New York has closed primaries, and since I’m registered Green, I can’t vote this primary season. But I feel like it’s important to take a stake in the campaign, and at this point I’d much rather see Obama win the nomination than Clinton.
I’ve come to this conclusion after contrasting both his words and actions to Hillary’s. Although I’ve complained before about both of them lacking authenticity, I think Obama’s facade is more a result of running for president than an artificial, lifelong political persona. Hillary Clinton has always come across as triangulating and self-serving, from her run for the Senate in NY and every move since.
Authenticity or charisma aside, Clinton is also just as hawkish as many of the neo-cons currently in the White House. Her cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq cannot be understated, especially in the face of Obama’s early opposition. Despite political snipes charging otherwise, Obama did indeed oppose the Iraq War early on and for all the right reasons. Being anti-war has never been politically expedient for a politician here. Many have ridden the tired “this war was done wrong,” but few say that it was wrong, and fewer still correctly explain why it was wrong. We invaded and subsequently occupied a nation, killing hundreds of thousands. Clinton only beats around the bush about misinformation, refusing to acknowledge this mistake. And lest we forget, it was during her husband’s tenure that more than one million Iraqis died as a direct result of the sanctions against that country.
Obama has since said dumb things about Iraq, Iran, and various other topics. He’s said what has been politically expedient, and he’s a frontrunner in the 2008 presidential race for it. Pandering to voters is hardly a huge crime, especially when differences actually do exist between the panderers. This is the lesson of 2000, where we had Gore and Bush who, on the face of it, looked to be two sides of the same coin. We now know otherwise.
It’s not all about foreign policy. Obama’s healthcare plan is probably as close as we will get to nationalized healthcare. In the press releases, it even sounds good. Time will tell whether or not he’s able to push it through, and whether or not such a half-hearted attempt at insuring everyone succeeds.
His economic policy is the traditional “closing loopholes” and “repealing tax breaks for the richest.” He says nothing revolutionary here, it’s the same conservatism we’ve seen from Democrats for decades. But in the face of schemes like Huckabee’s Fair Tax, it’s a welcomed relief. Obama’s conservation policies echo many others: reducing foreign oil consumption, investments in renewable energy, and a cap and trade system for dealing with carbon emissions. All sound plans, if any can be accomplished.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton might sound similar on any number of issues. But Clinton comes across as more of a faceless, political automaton than Obama. She’s polarizing and just as triangulating as Bill. Looking at prospective cabinet appointments, Obama’s team makes a better case for a progressive, brighter future in America.
We already had a Clinton in the White House. It was OK. I’m hoping for better this time around. A few shed tears can’t save her now.
Barack Obama for President, ’08.
As a sign of the times, Wikipedia becomes the best place to learn about candidates.
Political positions of Barack Obama entry
Barack Obama entry
Tags: 
