I can describe the evolution of my support for Senator Obama, but I begin with the caveat that I was never a true believer in the Clintons. I do not look backward to the 1990s as a time when everything was wonderful because of Bill Clinton. Throughout there was a patina of sleaze to the Clintons: Whitewater, Travelgate, renting the Lincoln bedroom, accepting money from Asian businessmen, flat-out lying to the country about Monica in the Oval Office, and so forth. Furthermore, it is puerile to think that Clinton created the economic prosperity of the 1990s. He had little to do with it. Life was good because the Cold War ended, the Soviet Union imploded, there was a "peace dividend" that boosted the economy, and most importantly the Internet took off like a rocket and drove the economy forward. Clinton had little, if anything, to do with the prosperity of the 1990s, but he and his Treasury Secretaries failed to act to slow down the badly overheated stock market bubble of the late 1990s that inevitably burst, leading to recession. Clinton had a muddled foreign policy. He marked time vis-à-vis Iraq instead of working toward a long-term solution, got us needlessly embroiled in the Balkans when we should have told the Europeans to handle it, and he failed, in my opinion, to mobilize the nation against the growing threat of radical Islam. We forget that he was not a great success, because he looks good compared to the village idiot from Texas.
Back to Obama. Like most of us, I first noticed him when he spoke at the 2004 Democratic Convention. He has charisma going through the roof and into the stratosphere. I first became seriously interested in him when I learned that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq in October 2002, before the attack. He explained his reasons in detail (it's on his website) and he was right on every point. He had the good judgment to get it right; Clinton did not. But it was more than judgment. It took moral courage to oppose the war in October of 2002 when Bush's approval rating was 70% and everyone, including Clinton, was climbing on the war wagon. Clinton voted for war without ever reading the National Intelligence Estimate that cast plausible doubt on whether Iraq had WMD. Clinton's vote for war was a cynical move aimed at protecting her political future. It backfired, and she has never given an honest, convincing explanation for voting to support the dumbest war we ever got into.
When I decide to support a candidate, I put more emphasis on the person than the issues. Issues come and go, and circumstances change, but a person does not easily change her character. I look for four things in a candidate. 1) I want a person with intellectual depth, who can think below the surface of an issue and does not think only in 20 second sound bites or slogans. 2) I want a person with a strong work ethic. The duties of a major office require a huge amount of work. A lazy person like Fred Thompson, for example, is not a good choice. 3) I want a person with moral courage. When the chips are down, I want a person who will do what is best for the country and the Constitution, not what is best for the person's self-interest, political future, or legacy. 4) Finally, I have my foxhole test. It is highly subjective. I ask myself, would I want to share a foxhole with this person and face the enemy? For me, Obama passes all four tests. The Clintons flunk items three and four.
On the issue of Hillary's experience, early on the news media anointed Hillary as the candidate with experience, but the media has never critically examined Hillary's supposed experience. Taking a hard look, her experience is no better than Obama's and, in fact, I think somewhat less impressive. It is true that she has four more years in the Senate than Obama, but she is not an old hand like McCain or Biden. I subtract most of her "experience" as First Lady" and first lady of Arkansas. As first lady, she was not in office, had no responsibilities, and was not doing the peoples' business. Hillary has refused to disclose the records of her tenure as First Lady. Why? If a person refuses to disclose relevant evidence, there is a well-established presumption that the evidence would be unfavorable. I discount Hillary's First Lady experience. Obama, on the other hand, was a state senator for 8 years actually representing constituents and dealing with the Republicans and the governor. He had real experience. Before that, he worked in tough Chicago neighborhoods and had to deal with big-city politics.
Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership ability and executive skill throughout the campaign. He created his campaign and the organization himself from whole cloth. It is an amazing accomplish that leaves no doubt about his ability. He had no famous father to lean on. He could not rely on Bill Clinton and the Clintons' machine. He took on the Clintons' machine and has them running scared. It is remarkable.
Obama can transform the politics of the country in a way that the Clintons cannot, and that is why Senator Kennedy will endorse Obama.
We can make history. Yes we can!!!
