Barack Obama for U.S. President

It is embarrassing to be endorsing one candidate for U.S. president so soon after I endorsed a rival. I still believe that Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) has the superior platform (of the viable candidates--bravely progressive Dennis Kucinich was never going to be the nominee, alas!) on all the issues about which I care most: ending the occupation of Iraq quickly (with all troops home and no permanent bases), moving toward a nuclear-weapon free world, a foreign policy based on human rights and international law, restoring the Constitution and rule of law, ending poverty, achieving universal healthcare, aggressively working to save the environment. But, after his distant 3rd place finish in New Hampshire, I simply do not see any way for Edwards to win the nomination. He's polling 3rd in South Carolina, where he was born and raised--and the only primary he won in '04! Nor does he seem to have enough money to purchase the high dollar advertising it will take to compete in the many states of "Tsunami Tuesday" on 05 Feb. where retail politics must give way to wholesale mass marketing. It seems to me, following NH, that Edwards and Obama are splitting the more-progressive-than-Clinton segment of the Democratic vote. Therefore, the only role that Edwards can now play is that of spoiler: siphoning off just enough votes from Obama to throw the nomination to Clinton, who, while an enormous improvement over anyone in the GOP field (which is setting the bar rather low, actually), is demonstrably the most conservative, even regressive, of the 3 remaining Democratic candidates. Therefore, in my view, Edwards should drop out of the race and work for Obama's victory.

Sen. Obama's platform is more progressive than Sen. Clinton's on most issues (healthcare is a major exception and I hope he can be pushed here) even though it is more centrist than I would like it. But there are other reasons why supporting him makes sense: Listening and reading remarks from rightwing pundits and GOP operatives since Iowa convinces me that the Right is terrified of Obama. They hate everything about Hillary Clinton (whom they are deluded into thinking is a "liberal," when she is centrist, triangulating, and a free trader and foreign policy hawk), but they don't fear her. They know that even if she becomes president they can use "Hillary hatred" to get contributions and rebuild the shattered coalition of the modern Rightwing-dominated Republican Party. The fragile Religious Right would come roaring back, too. When they thought she would lose NH, the Right was torn between whether to be gleeful at the downfall of their old nemesis or worried at the prospect of an Obama victory.

Why are they afraid of Obama? Because they are worried that he can actually succeed at his plan to widen the base of the Democratic Party, and create a new working political majority in this nation of Democrats and Greens, independents and moderate Republicans. Thus, an Obama election would not only be historic because he would be the first African-American president (Clinton rightly points out that the election of the first woman would be just as historic--and if affirmative action were at issue, then Condaleeza Rice would be the perfect presidential candidate!). It would not just change the way Americans see ourselves and the way the world sees Americans--as so many have rightly noted. But, IF Obama and his movement create a new working majority, then his election would be the most important presidential election since 1980. The GOP keeps trying to harken back to Reagan: Reagan shifted the political landscape and changed the terms of political conversation in this nation for decades. (For the worse, in my view, but change them he did!) If an Obama presidency would really succeed in that kind of tectonic plate shifting of the political landscape, then the Right wing would lose tremendous power and be in the wilderness for some time. The GOP could not rebuild without returning to the days when moderate Republicans (Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon, Minnesota Gov. Harold Stassen, etc.) ran the show.

Now, I am not sure that Obama really can do this. Iowa seemed to show such a shift, but New Hampshire called it into question. But if rightwingers like Tom Delay, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and William Safire are REALLY afraid that Obama can create such a new working majority, then it behooves Democrats and other progressives to back him and help prove them right!

Although she says that NH helped her "find her voice" (a phrase that baffled pundits, but which is familiar in feminist literature), I remain persuaded that Sen. Clinton's vision is a return to the '90s--although, doubtless she hopes it to be a '90s without Ken Starr, without Newt Gingrich and the '94 GOP Revolution, etc. But, although the '90s were so much better than the Bush years, they simply weren't good enough. The changes we need now are deeper and the break with the past must be cleaner.

For those reasons, I now endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for U.S. president. Hopefully, he can pick up some of the grit and moxy of John Edwards and some of the global vision of Bill Richardson(the latter would make a great Secretary of State!).

Meanwhile, we need to get the most progressive Congress elected, too. So, here in KY, help us Ditch Mitch, and support Andrew Horne for U.S. Senate.