22 January 2008
-plus a few updates-

Dear friends and acquaintances, please pardon me while I violate the usual ban on blatant political soapboxing because I feel so strongly about this upcoming election. Here's a note (to go with an email linking here) to try to offer some of my viewpoints on the campaign. I'd love to hear back from you.

The short version is that I believe deeply in the candidacy and the leadership of Barack Obama, and I want to urge you to consider voting for him in the presidential primaries. Twenty-four states are voting on "super-duper Tuesday", February 5, and it is fairly sure that the votes that day will determine the Democratic nominee. [oops! -ed.]

Here's an important point: in every one of those states, your vote "counts," in that it will go towards an outcome that is not determined in advance. That's because none of the states is "winner-take-all"; the delegates are apportioned by a complicated but sensible system (thank you, DNC chairman Howard Dean!) which has one feature I want to highlight: no delegates for anyone under 15% (Kucinich, Gravel, and in many cases Edwards) but an assured 40% of the delegates to any candidate polling 31%. That means that there are crucial distinctions to be made even in states like New York where the overall winner is probably clear.

Here's a little rundown on reasons to support Obama over either voting for Clinton, voting for someone else, or not voting.

The basics

Obama and Clinton (and Edwards for that matter) are extremely close to one another on formal policy positions. Outside of the issue of health care mandates, their health plans are similar (and welcome), and I do not think there is really daylight between them on environmental/energy policy, abortion rights, education, most gay rights issues, or basic economic positions.

Telling people what they don't necessarily want to hear. For me, this is one of the most moving, and promising, properties of Obama as a public figure. He does not always say what's easiest for his audience to hear. Here are a few examples.

  • Obama gave an amazing speech this week on MLK's birthday, at Ebenezer Baptist Church, MLK's church. Addressing a largely black and religious audience in Atlanta, Georgia, he made remarks about respect for "unbelievers" (10:10) and, in a very moving sequence, about homophobia, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia as problems recurring in the Black community (11:00-12:00, or so).
  • Obama endorsed a version of "merit pay" in remarks to teachers' unions, starkly against their party line. He has given honest assessments of the need for a high military budget to California lefty crowds, and about the difficulty of weighing Illinois business interests in coal against environmental concerns. In each case, he gives arguments for his position. This guy is not full of shit. I know this is hard to imagine in a politician.

Experience. As I read it, we are in the midst of a quiet constitutional crisis. Obama lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago for ten years, while holding down a day job in elective office. I take this to be much more relevant experience than the private practice of law, corporate or personal injury or what have you. He has a longer track record in elective office than Clinton, though of course he started at a lower level, as she would in all likelihood have done without her family connections.(*) So, to review, president of an academic law journal, community organizer, constitutional law professor, state senator with most of the time in the minority party (requiring bipartisan progress, which he delivered), US senator.

Religion. I have heard reasonable concerns about his overt religiosity, but in fact I consider his ability to connect progressive principles to Christian faith a big positive. This is an electorate with many practicing Christians and it's absurd that the Right has been so able to monopolize the rhetoric of faith that large numbers of Christians now support torture, war, Big Business, and demonization of gays in ways that feel fuzzily religiously righteous. Obama has a chance to change this, as when he invokes "the hungry that God calls upon us to feed." (Ebenezer speech, 7:50)

Electability and realignment

For many people I talk to, the main issue is tactical: getting Republicans out of the White House because of judicial and other appointments and broad policy outlines. If you hold this view, Obama's your guy. HRC is an extremely polarizing figure with a 51% ceiling in most any contested vote-- consider that in the not-really-contested Michigan Dem primary, where Edwards and Obama were not even on the ballot, she still polled 55%! (With 40% for "uncommitted.")

Obama polls stronger against every Republican candidate in head-to-head polls than Clinton does-- some polls even have her losing to Huckabee. (here or here)

He dwarfs her popularity with independent voters.($,+) In fact, he has secured an impressive number of endorsements from establishment Dems (eg, Kerry), conservative Dems (eg, Nelson), and sincere praise from some Republicans (eg, Sanford) that at least signals a core respect for his candidacy. He won't be easy to vilify.

In all states voting so far, the turnout has been at record levels, with Obama being the first to do what each of the last many Dem candidates has tried to do: finally get a youth vote mobilized. They turned out in big numbers for these contests so far, and they overwhelmingly support Obama. (The first-time voter effect is not just a youth phenomenon: in Iowa, 57% of all voters were caucusing for the first time!) Anemic voter turnout in the U.S. reflects an alienation with politics and a not-so-healthy democracy. Obama has a chance to change this.

"Hillary the uniter" Hillary Clinton is the last best hope of a fraying Republican coalition. She is going to be incredibly easy to run against, and can be counted on to raise funds on the Right and keep somewhat disillusioned Republican voters from jumping ship just yet.(#) And indeed one doesn't have to look far to see the movement conservatives drooling over the prospect of a Clinton candidacy:

  • "Hillary the uniter", a post from the (influential, right-wing) National Review blog saying "And as for who best to unify the various constituencies of the Republican party, we've already found that candidate: Hillary Clinton." A worried follow-up post reads, "But what if it's Obama?"
  • Already appeared on fundraisers for Hannity and NRO:
    ,

Foreign policy

Here, the relevant differences have to do with judgment and diplomatic inclinations. Let's stipulate that all the Dems will end the Iraq war in more or less the same clear-but-not-immediate fashion.

I care a great deal about Israel/Palestine, and in this arena I was really encouraged by Obama's remarks to AIPAC, which raised some eyebrows by straying from the usual script-- I think he has a chance to walk the tightrope of public opinion on this one and really engage diplomatically. Furthermore he's poised to offer a real "reset" with American standing in the Muslim world. He could turn the page on the Clinton/Bush years of differing emphasis on similar policy principles(&)-- of course, no American leader will in a vacuum revitalize Middle East peace prospects, as everything depends enormously on local leadership, but I want a president in place who can be a constructive broker, exhorting both sides to good faith negotiations.

[update: since I wrote this, he has positioned himself more hawkishly with respect to AIPAC and Middle East affairs, which disappoints me.]

Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan. Clinton supports the status quo on Cuba: maintaining the embargo. Obama supports immediate loosening of some restrictions, e.g., the travel ban. (Also, they differ on US support for radio propaganda there.) In fact, HRC is generally big on economic sanctions as key instrument of diplomacy-- for instance crediting the starvation-level, go-nowhere sanctions on North Korea with success. Clinton voted to label a wing of the Iranian military as a terrorist organization, which the other Dem candidates described as helping the Bush Administration position for war with Iran (though note that after the National Intelligence Estimate, this is probably happily out of the question for now). Obama opposed the bill (though he was not present to vote). Obama came out with a statement some months ago that we need to take a tougher line on Jihadism within Pakistan, with or without Musharraf cooperation. Clinton responded that Obama had made "a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime." If you've been following the career of Musharraf, you may well side with Obama on this one. Obama favors direct diplomacy with all sorts of problem nations; Clinton counters that this would be a propaganda coup for bad guys. That is, our president should talk to them as a reward once they substantially agree with us.

Summary: Clinton does not present a break from the last few administrations' foreign policy-- if anything, she is more in line with the saber-rattling Republicans than the first Clinton administration was.

Human rights, transparency and the role of the executive

A big deal. Many of us are probably stunned by the recent policies of rendition, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, kangaroo military courts, and so on. I'm absolutely horrified by it all. Of course, Clinton and Obama both say we will not torture-- but Bush says "we do not torture," Guantanamo inmates were "scooped up off a battlefield," and other falsehoods that have probably been legally vetted. The Clintons' track record (it's hard to separate them here, since hers was mainly in his administration) is one of minimal disclosure, maximal secrecy, and dissembling via narrowly defensible but misleading statements. (^) This is where candor isn't just nice, it's essential.

We currently have hundreds of detainees in custody who are denied basic access to lawyers, family communication, and even to the evidence against them. Many have been cleared of all charges but won't be released because of bad publicity.(@) Volunteer lawyers for the detainees have endorsed Obama because of his advocacy and clear stands on their behalf.

Disclosure. Obama favors disclosure of "bundlers" raising money for campaigns, and disclosure of earmarks in legislative bills. He says he won't take campaign donations from lobbyists, which may be making an arbitrary distinction but at least is drawing a line somewhere in terms of influence purchase. Clinton is, in the main, on the other side of these issues.

Why does this matter? Bush's legal team has declared him able to use signing statements and executive orders to avoid having to follow the laws of Congress. He has pursued maximum secrecy and opacity in all affairs of government. Every sign about HRC's temperament says that she won't move towards transparency. For instance, it's well known that she won't release her papers from her years in the White House. But also there's a mountain of little things-- for instance, she was the only candidate among the 10 in the Congress who not only wouldn't reveal her earmark requests, but would not even comment on the decision. And never mind her private correspondence with her husband in his administration-- consider her Cheney-esque refusal to release records of decisionmaking meetings (including her vaunted health care task force!).

HRC in 2003: "I'm a strong believer in executive authority. I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."
HRC advisors in 2007 attributed to her the notion that "the president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority," and used this line to defend her war vote.

Rhetoric, narrative, and political machines

The Clintons are running a tag-team smashmouth campaign-- which I guess is why some people like HRC the candidate, the idea being that she'll do this in the general election. But it's ugly, a sort of trench warfare model, and I think it's clear that if this can be avoided, that benefits the American political process broadly. Obama has a chance to inject some graciousness into the campaign, still get his message out, and still win. More importantly, he can create a new narrative: he's an extremely effective ambassador for progressive ideas, and his spokesmanship will likely resonate in a way that hasn't happened since Reagan, and before him, Kennedy. We can turn the page on the Decider and bring in the Persuader.

You'll note I've said again and again in these remarks that Obama "has a chance"-- for a realignment of voters to the Democrats including a whole bloc of new voters, to change the tenor of political discourse from the top, to make a fresh argument on religion and politics, to win the general election in a landslide, to be a statesman president. Furthermore, he has the temperament, judgment, and experience to make common cause and make it happen. Please give him your support.

Cheers, Moon

I hope you'll write me for clarifications, to correct me or suggest improvements, or just to react: mduchin@gmail.com.
Please feel free to forward this URL.

FOOTNOTES

(*)The feminist argument. I don't see it. In much of the world, every woman head of state has ascended to power as the wife or daughter of a powerful man, and with his memory or his participation as a strong rationale for her candidacy-- in those countries this has not in fact broken any glass ceiling and remains the sole path for women into office. This trend can be observed in much of Latin America, Asia, and parts of the Middle East (See: Aquino, Bhutto, Gandhi, Chamorro, Bandaranaike, Kumaratunga, Wazed, Zia, Peron, Jagan, Kirchner, and plenty more). In a completely disjoint set of countries, the model has been that of women offering their independent credentials and narratives (See: Thatcher, Weil, Meir, Merkel, McAleese, Dreifuss, Halonen, Bachelet, Johnson-Sirleaf). This alone isn't a reason not to support HRC, but I do think it largely negates the path-breaking argument for her. She has treated herself as an extension of her husband precisely when it is politically convenient.
P.S. I am a committed feminist -- shucks, I even have a degree in Women's Studies, so I'm certified -- and am looking forward to the woman candidate I can wholeheartedly support. It's not that far off. And check out Bhutto's interesting analysis of this dynamic in this interview (2nd to last question).

(#)No, the shrill partisanship she arouses in the Right is not merely a function of her femaleness, viz. her invocation of a "vast Right-wing conspiracy" to explain recurring allegations of sexual hijinx against her husband. No conspiracy was necessary to explain it, it turns out.

(&)This is way too glib, but I'm trying to be brief. In saying there wasn't a big policy shift, I don't mean to deny that Bill Clinton expended much more political capital and placed a higher priority on negotiations, for which he certainly deserves credit. But if he gets credit for the Oslo Accords, then he takes some of the blame for the collapse at Camp David, which left the West with a discredited negotiating partner in Arafat.

($)Percentages of independents.

  • 41-31 or 40-34 in various New Hampshire exit polls (link, link)
  • 41-17 Iowa exit polls (link)
  • 47-33 Nevada exit polls (link)
  • 42-26 South Carolina exit polls (link)

(+)Some data points on electability.

  • I asked a two-time Bush voting friend (a great bellwether in the past) which candidates she would seriously consider supporting in this election. She said the only ones she knows she'll take seriously are McCain, Romney, and Obama, and the only ones she will never vote for are Huckabee and Clinton. I read this as being a frequent attitude among moderate Republicans-- key in any potential realignment.
  • BO has some crossover appeal to libertarians while HRC is anathema to them. See for instance: health care mandates. (I don't think that pointing this out is having it both ways: he gave up something not very important to me, and there's a constituency that appreciates it.)
  • CNN says Obama puts in play Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Clinton obviously does not.
  • The Clintons' smearing of Obama has alienated many people enough to threaten her appeal even more than before. I'm a data point here.

(^)I don't just mean Lewinsky, of course-- for just one example of dissembling, take both Clintons' characterizations of the miltary gay ban and the Defense of Marriage Act (baldly dishonest on both counts, spinning disasterous policies as though they were harmless or even helpful).

(@)Please check out this radio program to hear more about the Habeas disgrace going on these days.