The Case for Obama

Let me preface what I'm about to say by assuring you that I do not work for and am in no way affiliated with the Obama campaign. I'm just an attorney who blogs in my free time.

But I'm also a Democratic voter and a person who follows politics very closely. And after watching Obama's campaign kickoff speech yesterday, I'm more convinced than ever that Obama is the strongest candidate in the field.

Political observers from across the ideological spectrum agree that Obama is, hands down, the most charismatic and engaging candidate either party has to offer at the moment. Charisma, of course, is not in and of itself a qualification for president, but its importance is often under-appreciated. Presidential contests are, in large part, referendums on the perceived character of the candidates. Many voters, including a large percentage of so-called "swing voters," rely on visceral or emotion criteria every bit as much as intellectual criteria. They often vote for the candidate they "like" better.

And it's not just about getting elected. The more talented and charismatic a president is, the better his or her chances are of actually accomplishing something meaningful in office. For instance, all the Democratic candidates support universal healthcare in one form or another, but how many of them, if elected, would actually be able to make universal healthcare a reality? How many would have the political skills to sell such a plan, to overcome all of the systemic obstacles, to convince the public and Congress to support it in the face of withering attacks by the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies? These are the questions we need to be asking.

A presidential nominee is not just another Democrat or Republican. That person is, at least for a year or so, the face of the party. He (or she) is an ambassador, the public representative for a whole slew of policies and principles. Whether fairly or not, these policies and principles become associated with the candidate. A poor ambassador can do a lot of harm to otherwise meritorious ideas. Conversely, a talented ambassador can breathe new life into ideas that have been unfairly vilified and marginalized in the past.

The same is of course true of the presidency itself, times a thousand. A talented president can not only get a lot accomplished, but can shape the way an entire generation thinks about key issues. On the other hand, ineffectual presidents, like Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush, can cause lasting damage to the policies and principles which the public associates with them.

This is my roundabout way of making the following point: in determining whether a candidate is "qualified" to be president, you can't just look at his resume. Charisma and communication skills are every bit as important as job experience.

Obama's opponents will no doubt focus on the fact that he is a one-term Senator. But his two principal opponents, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, have only marginally more Congressional experience. And our last two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, had no national political experience prior to taking office. Along these lines, Andrew Sullivan makes a compelling point:

There's no question that Obama needs major work in foreign policy. But he is obviously better informed at this point than, say, George W. Bush was in February 1999. And Obama's internationalist pedigree seems to me a golden opportunity for the United States.

I don't think many Americans have fully absorbed yet what the Bush administration has done to America's soft power abroad, to the moral reputation of America, to the respect that many around the world once had for America's democratic institutions, even if they differed from U.S foreign policy. Bush's torture and detention policies, his cringe-inducing diplomacy, his proud lack of interest in other cultures and societies has deeply weakened this country's international clout. Electing a half-African president, with Hussein as a middle name, who attended school in a Muslim country: it's almost a p.r. agent's dream for America. It would instantly give this country a fresh start in the world after the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years. It isn't enough: Obama will need skills and determination in the terror war. But soft power helps; and Obama would put it on steroids.

What should be clear to anyone who has paid any attention to the slow-motion trainwreck that is the Bush presidency is that judgment and intelligence matter far more than anything else. Presidents are not islands unto themselves; they surround themselves with advisers of all kinds, most of whom have far more experience in their area of expertise than the president can ever hope to have. A good president is someone who has the judgment to surround himself with a qualified and diverse group of advisers, who has the intelligence to understand what his advisers are telling him, and who has the curiosity and discipline to ask the right questions, challenge assumptions when necessary, and go wherever the facts lead him.

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. Trust me when I tell you that only an exceptionally smart and keenly analytical person can accomplish such a feat. It's hard to get into a good law school. It's even harder to distinguish yourself from the pack once there. Obama is more than qualified when it comes to intelligence.

Obama has also shown good judgment in the past on key issues. In late 2002, in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, it seemed like everyone went collectively nuts. The press, including most liberal pundits, were accepting everything the administration was saying at face value. They were failing to ask obvious questions and vilifying those who did. Amidst this hysteria, Obama got up in front of a crowd in Chicago and said the following:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

Now some will say that it was somehow easier for Obama to say this in 2002 because he was not in the Senate. But Obama clearly had higher ambitions at the time. He had his sights set on national office. And had he been wrong, this speech may well have kept him from attaining higher office. What he said then was not only incredibly astute, it was politically courageous. It's easy to forget how few people were willing to say anything like this in public back then.

Being right from the beginning also has its political benefits. Obama's position on the war is as clear as can be: he has always thought the war was a mistake and he has submitted a bill calling for a staged withdrawal of troops. By contrast, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, we can look forward to endless discussion among pundits and journalists regarding just what her "position" on the war is. It will be a replay of Kerry in 2004. That's not to say this is fair to Clinton. Her position is actually pretty clear and not all that different from her opponents, but our political pundits seem to collectively lose their minds whenever they talk about Hillary.

Which leads me to another reason why I think Obama would be a stronger general election candidate. Obama is younger than his opponents and has been in the national political spotlight for less time, which means that opinions about him--both in the general public and the press--haven't yet fully formed. This gives Obama far more latitude than his opponents to win people over and to make a favorable impression. It also allows him to run against politics as usual, to present himself as something totally fresh and different. He can tap into the public's cynicism about politics without being cynical himself.

It's pretty clear that no one, on either side of the aisle, excites people the way Obama does. No one electrifies a crowd the way he does. Obama will draw people to the voting booth who normally stay home. And more than that, his candidacy has the potential to captivate the nation in a way few others have. As I've written before:

I think Deval Patrick’s success [in Massachusetts] hints at an even more interesting dynamic that will arise if Obama’s should manage to secure the Democratic nomination. If that should happen, it will be THE story. And not just here in the U.S., but around the world. Obama would be the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination. He’d be just one momentous day away from becoming the leader of the free world. No matter what else happens in the campaign, no matter who his opponent is, that single story line will dwarf all others. Throughout the campaign, media coverage will be dominated by discussion of the historical significance of the election. Newspaper and magazine headlines will scream “Is America on the Verge of Making History?” Throughout the country, there will be a pervasive sense that we are on the cusp of a dramatic and important historical event, that we’re about to take a bold new step forward as a nation. And believe me, people will get caught up in it. It will be a potent political phenomenon. Obama’s opponent, whether it be McCain or Romney or whoever, will have to try very hard to counter the sense that he is standing athwart history yelling “stop.”

This same dynamic played out in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, albeit to a lesser degree. You could tell that people just liked the idea of Deval Patrick. It wasn’t about the issues. People just liked the way Patrick made them feel. They liked the idea that they were making history by voting for him. They liked what his candidacy said about their state and how far it had come. And they liked the fact that Patrick represented something new, different, and hopeful.

This is the great promise of the Obama campaign, the hope that this won't be just another presidential election, the possibility that future generations will look back at this moment and see a key turning point in America's struggle to become the country it has always wanted to be.

Obama is certainly not perfect, and he has a lot to prove over the next year if he wants to earn the support of Democratic primary voters. Between now and then, there are all sorts of things he can do to prove himself either more or less worthy of the honor of being the party's nominee. And he'll of course have to overcome some very serious and capable opponents. But, in case it's not obvious by now, I find it very hard not to root for him. He intrigues me in a way that few politicians have, and I very much want to see him succeed.