I Just Voted for Barack Obama...

I just voted for Barack Obama in the California primary.

It has, this year, been an embarrassment of riches on the Democratic side--a half-dozen or so candidates any one of whom would have a reasonable shot of being in the top 20% of American presidents if elected, compared to zero on the Republican side. Now we are down to two: Barack Obama and Hilary Rodham Clinton.

The arguments against Barack Obama are:

1. He has no administrative experience running a large organization.
2. He is too liberal.
3. He is Black, and thus vulnerable to the politics of personal destruction, and will not get elected.

The arguments against Hilary Rodham Clinton are:

1. Her performance running Clinton-era health care reform in 1993 and 1994 gives no confidence in her ability to run the large organization that is the U.S. government.
2. She is too centrist.
3. She is female and a Clinton, and thus vulnerable to the politics of personal destruction, and will not get elected.

The response to (1) for both sides is by this point very convincing: both have now demonstrated an ability to run an excellent political campaign. Running a successful presidential political campaign is not the same thing as governing a country, but both have demonstrated substantial administrative competence over the past two years--and neither has betrayed the moral failure of telling big lies or making themselves hostage to special interests in the way that, say, George H.W. Bush did and thus crippled their presidency in advance. A Barack Obama who was just a pretty face who could give a nice speech could not have run the campaign he has run over the past two years. And the Hilary Rodham Clinton who made such an administrative mess of health reform in 1993-1994 could not have run the campaign she has run over the past two years. Thus I am now confident that either has a reasonable shot of being in the top 20% of American presidents.

The response to (2) is that the policy differences are incredibly minor, and are being amplified by both campaigns as they play a negative-sum game for the party and for the country as a whole. Barack Obama is a more liberal senator than Hilary Rodham Clinton,^[1] and yet the big policy difference is that he is to the right of Clinton on health care? Our experience with auto insurance mandates tells us that HRC's individual mandate to purchase health insurance would get us close to universal coverage only if it were administered through the tax system--and maybe not even then. Barack Obama's "pay or play" requirement that employers either offer health insurance or kick in money to the system is very close to being an employer mandate if the "pay" component is set at a serious level. Either plan could produce effectively universal coverage. Either could fall short--with the devil being in the details.

What is going on is that, as Matthew Yglesias wrote somewhere I cannot find right now, both campaigns are magnifying their policy differences on health care and Iraq in order to have something to talk about. But what policy differences there are are insufficient to push anybody toward one rather than the other.

And as for (3), it is also not a consideration. The Republican Party is very good at the politics of personal destruction, and the press eats it up--no matter who the Democratic candidate. When draft-dodger Dick Cheney can impugn the patriotism of WWII bomber pilot George McGovern without any journalistic pushback--well, we already knew that America's Washington village journalists are completely without honor. And we already knew that the only Republicans with honor are those who are openly and publicly committed to the radical transformation and reform of their party. We do live in Romuli faece, and not in Platonis πολτειαι. We have to deal with it.

So none of the arguments against either candidate seems to me to weigh one way or another. So why did I vote for Barack Obama rather than HRC? Because he gives a really nice speech.

---

^[1]Barack Obama is not, however, the most liberal senator. The National Journal, which claims he is, has for some reason gone into the tank on this one, and is now downgraded from "reliable" to "must be verified."

---

Comments

[Matt]

Good for you. Giving "a really good speech" is underrated, both as political asset and as indicator. As the latter, it tells one a lot about qualities of thought and mind.

I think you left off one good reason not to vote for HRC--discomfort with dynastic sucession.

[robertdfeinman]

I second the "good for you". People on the left are reluctant to admit that an emotional appeal can be a deciding factor in making a choice. They need to hide this aspect behind a barrage of rationalizations to make their choice sound "rational".

No one knows how a president will act when faced with an unprecedented event and thus people fall back on their gut feeling or trust in the candidate. This is as valid as any other criteria when there is no good information available.

Compare the response of Clinton to the first WTC bombing and GWB to the second. One could have predicted their approaches given their overall view of the world. In this case a gut feeling would have told a lot.

[Joe]

I am once again (after reading a number of public intellectual/internet blog celebrity endorsements) amazed at the inability or unwillingness to make obvious distinctions on the basis of character or leadership qualities. Maybe everyone in the public eye has something to protect.

I agree that both candidates are highly skilled and capable, but thinking there is no real difference between the two is like saying there is no real difference between Bill and Hillary. Or maybe it;s just that Bill makes a pretty good speech and Hillary does not. I thought it was something else.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. I look forward to your less cautious musings in the future....

[dpink]

No discussion of the "having Bill as de facto Vice President" issue? Seems to me that it cuts a lot of different ways, but I think we have to come to terms with it.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"It has, this year, been an embarrassment of riches on the Democratic side--a half-dozen or so candidates any one of whom would have a reasonable shot of being in the top 20% of American presidents if elected,..."

A little exaggerated methinks.

"compared to zero on the Republican side."

That is true for certain.

[jerry]

Healthcare was the issue for me. I had a choice of advice from the Shrill One that must not be named, or from Brad.

I chose the Shrill One.

[Paul J. Reber]

I just voted the same way in Illinois. For me the deciding issue was Iraq. I believe Obama has less invested in past support of the war and his administration will move just slightly more quickly and effectively to disengage than a Clinton administration will.

Here's a funny thing:
I had intended to vote for Edwards because I favored his overall policy focus on poverty. I didn't love all the details of his anti-corporate rhetoric, but I think the pendulum has currently swung a bit too far and to achieve solid social democracy, we need some pushback in the other direction (pro-worker, pro-safety net, ideally without protectionism). But right before he dropped out, I tried to picture myself in the voting booth and realized I didn't think I would be capable of walking out without having voted for either the black man or the white woman. You want to not be affected by these things, but it's impossible to ignore how much racism and sexism continues to run deeply in this country. How could I not be part of such a potentially major symbolic indication that we are (slowly, slowly) getting better?

And as it was, I stared at the ballot for several minutes shaking my head that after campaigning for women for office for so many years, I was passing up my first real chance ever to vote for one who could get elected and make a great president. Amazing.

I'm going to be thrilled to count my vote towards either one of them come November.

[Adam]

For me, it is a distinction of judgment.

HRC voted for the AUMF because she was either making a craven and cowardly political judgment, thus sending off troops on an unnecessary war to die so that she wouldn't appear "weak," or because, as she says, she trusted George Bush to go back to the UN and re-negotiate. In which case she has worse judgment of character than many.

And she didn't even read the NIE made available to senators.

BHO spoke out against said unnecessary war when doing so was unpopular.

HRC stood to applaud Bush's declaration in the SOTU that the surge was working; BHO sat silent.

I don't trust her judgment, and I don't trust her judgment to end this mess quickly.

I would, of course, hypothetically vote for her in the general.

[Adam]

For me, it is a distinction of judgment.

HRC voted for the AUMF because she was either making a craven and cowardly political judgment, thus sending off troops on an unnecessary war to die so that she wouldn't appear "weak," or because, as she says, she trusted George Bush to go back to the UN and re-negotiate. In which case she has worse judgment of character than many.

And she didn't even read the NIE made available to senators.

BHO spoke out against said unnecessary war when doing so was unpopular.

HRC stood to applaud Bush's declaration in the SOTU that the surge was working; BHO sat silent.

I don't trust her judgment, and I don't trust her judgment to end this mess quickly.

I would, of course, hypothetically vote for her in the general.

[sfguy]

Living in an open primary state, I just voted for Huckabee (he's second in all the polls in my state). I like both Clinton and Obama, will be happy to vote for either, and hope McCain is not their opponent. Hence my vote.

[sfguy]

Living in an open primary state, I just voted for Huckabee (he's second in all the polls in my state). I like both Clinton and Obama, will be happy to vote for either, and hope McCain is not their opponent. Hence my vote.

[p.wilmington]

I voted for Obama for all of the reasons cited above, plus I believe we could use a little inspiration right now and he, not Hilary, could provide the inspiration.

I could not possibly vote for Hillary. I believe she is profoundly dishonest - look at her campaingn's distortion of Obama's abortion record. Second - her judegement is either very bad or she is just plain cynical - witness her votes for the Iraq war.

[Neal]

Lifelong and always Democrat, but went to a R___ P____ speech last night. Some observations and questions:

It completely filled the largest auditorium on the UoMN campus. Old and young.

When is the last time you saw marijuana legalizers at the same political rally as the home schooler brigades with denim skirts and doilies on the head?

When was the last political speech you went to when the biggest roar came from the crowd when a "return to Austrian economics" was called for?

When was the last time you heard instructions for attending a Republican caucus including the admonition to "dress conservatively"?

I would love to be a fly on the wall at a Republican caucus where R___P____ supporters run up against McCain or Romney people.

Let me say, I am torn. I am a pragmatist stuck left of the Democrats. But saying that, I wish I were confidant about the Clinton or Obama desire to dismantle the unconstitutional and illegal over-reaching of the executive branch (including war making powers). For me, I am confidant that R___P____
is entirely serious about making that change. Given that those changes are entirely within the power of the president (by definition) we need a president that is actually committed to that goal. Come on Clinton, or Obama, give me some hope here...

As for all of the other R___P____ positions---the president can't make those sort of unilateral changes.

So, give me some hope...

[Movie Guy]

DeLong - "So why did I vote for Barack Obama rather than HRC? Because he gives a really nice speech."

I don't care whom you support and vote for to serve as U.S. President as that is your personal choice as an American citizen. But if that is your reason, I am personally and professionally disappointed. I thought you were smarter.

I put your reason in the bottom 40% of registered American voters.

I like his speech material and delivery as well, but that's not why I would for him or any other candidate. It takes more than that to secure my American vote.

[One of Delong's Students]

Good work Professor DeLong, I wish your vote was worth more than one--it will probably be negated by a misinformed youth as myself who thinks Chelsea is too attractive to not be the daughter of the President once more :)

[Kevin Miller]

Oddly, perhaps, I've been more impressed than you seem to be by your 2003 discussion of her role in the health care debacle (echoed by a friend who also participated on a staff level), particularly as it seems to be playing out in her campaign this year.

Does this not sound similar to what you wrote:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=75e41edb-784d-4f9a-ba6e-08cab93d09ae

not sound similar to your discussion of events circa 1992:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=75e41edb-784d-4f9a-ba6e-08cab93d09ae

Not to mention the hubris behind the claim of being "ready from day 1." That sounds like the first act of something by Sophocles?

For what it's worth, here's my take:

http://www.timelysnow.com/2008/02/02/who-could-possibly-be-ready-from-day-1-to-be-president/

[Economists for Obama]

We're happy to have you aboard as an Economist for Obama!

http://econ4obama.blogspot.com

[Gene O'Grady]

Well, since I live in Oregon where I don't think the primary is until 2009, I can't comment on voting, but I did like the snazzy iota adscript!

[wmmbb]

Good for you, also. Now for the problem of the count, or so it seems. Assuming, as one should, that Obama will be elected, is there anyone to play the role of former President Eisenhower to President Kennedy? Answer: there is no one.

[wmmbb]

Good for you, also. Now for the problem of the count, or so it seems. Assuming, as one should, that Obama will be elected, is there anyone to play the role of former President Eisenhower to President Kennedy? Answer: there is no one.

[Queequeg]

Brad, can I ask a favor? Will you please spell Hillary Clinton's name correctly? I know you don't mean disrespect, but it's disrespectful, anyway. She has been in the public eye since 1992, man.

[divF]

I am happy to say that I voted for Hillary Clinton (in Northern California, no less).

For me, the determining issues was which candidate understands the scorched earth political tactics of the Republican party on the national level, and will be sufficiently ruthless to counter them. Obama seems to think that, based on his experience in local and state politics in Illinois, that it is possible to negotiate with the opposition. That can work on the local level, since government at that level is more accountable, and more democratic (all votes count equally). Local politicians win or lose based on the ability to deliver government services. On the national level, the republican party is motivated by a core belief that government action, outside of national security, is wrong. Consequently there is no scope for negotiation - there is nothing they want from government. Combine that with a reliable geographic electoral base in the South that subscribes to these views, the undemocratic form of the Senate, and ruthless party discipline, and you get a Republican party that will throw bombs and stop any progress towards solving the terrible messes we are in. Then they will say that the trouble we are in just proves that they are right, that government is ineffectual.

Clinton understands this as the core problem, while Obama pretends that the problem doesn't exist. That is why Clinton got my vote.

[Scott Martens]

πολιτείαι, not πολτείαι

But... Bacon paraphrasing Cicero describing Cato stuck to Latin through and through: "...loquitur enim tanquam in republica Platonis, non tanquam in faece Romuli."

And - having the great privilege of not being able to vote in US elections - that strikes me as an excellent reason to vote for Clinton over Obama. True, I probably agree more often with Obama, and his ideas are probably better, and he is probably the more personable character and more genuinely caring sort. But not by any large margin. But you see, the proof is in what can't be known: the actual capacity to get bills passed, to make it happen. Both - like all presidents before they're elected - are more or less unknown commodities in that respect.

Clinton, however, is very much the candidate for life in faece Romuli. Because I can know in advance that seeing her in the White House will cause extraordinary pain and suffering to those I despise. She strikes me as the kind who might well be prepared to order the purge the Federal government so desperately needs, to assist the Republican Party on its path to self-immolation, and, in my wildest dreams, to order trials for the Tsar's ministers once the revolution is secured and then send them to the gulags they so patently deserve. She is definitely the sort who has it in her to play hardball with the press and the right-wing talking heads. Whoever the next president is, is going to need a touch of Joe Stalin in him or her, and Clinton... she has that touch. I don't want a presidency of reconciliation. I was a Goddess of Death to rain frogs and fire on the people responsible for the last... 7 to 30 years. For me, this trumps her votes on Iraq and ideological differences.

Clinton for Goddess of Death in 2008. I rather like that.

[FP]

You've just made a mistake! Luckily, it won't matter!

[FP]

You've just made a mistake! Luckily, it won't matter!

[Robert Waldmann]

Not to mention "McGovern was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving his crew by crash landing his damaged bomber on a small Mediterranean island." Not just a pilot but a hero pilot.

[federalist]

Agree that either Obama or Hillary is far better than what the GOP will offer. BUT if running a campaign well is a good predictor of managing the government well, why is W such a managerial disaster?

[I would give four reasons: (i) Nino Scalia, (ii) the Washington press corps in the tank working as hard as it could to keep from telling America what he was like, (iii) Ralph Nader, and (iv) the depth of the Republican political bench. A lot of people assured me in the summer of 2000 that George W. Bush would just be Queen Elizabeth, and that moderate competent professionals would be Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. I more than half believed them. Silly me.]

[Colin Danby]

Good grief, Scott.

[low-tech cyclist]

In six days, my turn to vote arrives. As an Edwards supporter until his recent withdrawal, I'm leaning towards Obama, but it's not a done deal.

They are awfully close to one another from a policy perspective. The two significant differences are on Iraq and health care, with one difference favoring each candidate. (Don't bother telling me either difference is trivial. I've already read all the arguments, and find them insufficient.)

The remaining major differences are of approach. And here, I agree with our esteemed host that Obama's ability to inspire with rhetoric is a nontrivial asset.

It's hard to quantify how much it might be worth this fall in (a) winning big rather than small in the main event, and (b) winning an additional Senate seat or three. Nor can it be quantified how helpful it will be in rallying the country to his side when 41 or more GOP Senators try to obstruct his entire legislative agenda.

But I have no doubt that it will be valuable.

[Q the Enchanter]

And Scalia is a delightful raconteur.

[Colin Danby]

A touch of Stalin, huh? Do we think Scott Martens is a clever parodist, or in need of counseling?

[Colin Danby]

Sorry for the double-snark. Brad, yo, your site is busted and stuff's not showing up.

[Rose]

I chose not to vote yesterday. The choice wasn't "none of the above" it was "both of the above." I like them both for different reasons so I wouldn't cast a vote against either. And I think they both give a good speech!

[2slugbaits]

You forgot the possible coat tails effect that Obama could bring along. Hillary's trading range is very narrow and it is unlikely that she would do much to help the bottom of the ticket. Obama gives the Republicans a reason to stay home, which would help the bottom of the Democratic ticket.

[j]

"Because he gives a really nice speech." I hope that was tongue in cheek or that both candidates are so superior that a mere speech was all it took to tip the balance for you. If not, what's the point of all this intellectual dissection if at the end you merely go with your gut feelings?

For me the distinction between Obama and Hillary is that of style and substance. Hillary knows her stuff, she's had over a decade of immersion in it, but it seems that all I've heard from Obama is nice oratory.

The nuts and bolts of retrieving our global credibility as a moral positive force rests more on intelligent policy and the ability to execute it, rather than inspired intentions. If Obama were a nice car I'd buy him over an '08 Hillary, but not for President. . .

[Chester]

Why do folks think Hillary will be "ruthless" against the inevitable Republican onslaught? Bill's presidency was shut down and he was impeached! Where was Hillary then?

[Gary Farber]

Brad, you maybe should update this, since it's being cited in places.

[corvid]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Obama voters don't bother to look at his sorry record in Illinois politics. That majority, even more unfortunately, includes Illinois voters (which may be why our state is one of the three most politically corrupt in the nation--and that's saying a lot).
.
Please spend 15 or 20 minutes reviewing the Obama archives at beachwoodreporter.com, a well-respected blog in Chicago that specializes in politics and media. Obama gives a nice speech and that counts, I'll grant you, but there's absolutely no backbone, follow-through or will in this guy--and integrity seems to be in alarmingly short supply. Discounting his pocketful of ambition, he truly, truly is an empty suit.
.
I don't much care for Hillary Clinton, either, but all her shortcomings are more or less on the table, aren't they? Obama's many sins and failings, though reported in various mainstream media, are somehow just not a subject of discussion. It's a mystery.

[overseas observer]

This is all a great media circus for us over the pond! So much time spent flying, talking. So good to divert attention of the masses from the state of economy or climate changes. Rome comes to mind here, but it is more the one from the days of Pompey and later.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[Joe Ray]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned one of the biggest negatives concerning Hillary: she's a widely disliked figure among many republicans and democrats alike, to the point were people will actively go to the polls to vote against her.

This is certainly true of many conservative Republicans who, though they would rather just sit out the election than vote for John McCain, will gleefully go out of their way to take down the hated and reviled Hillary, Ann Coulter not withstanding.

And there are many democrats (I hear them calling into talk shows and read their postings on blogs every day) who would cross party lines and vote for John McCain before they'd ever vote for Hillary.

She's an incredibly polarizing figure who doesn't stand a chance of winning against a perceived "moderate" such as McCain, never mind that he's the most militant warmongering candidate that's come along in years. The image of being a moderate and reasonable guy that the press has helped McCain craft still sticks in people's heads, as do the negative images of Hillary that the right spent most of the nineties manufacturing. Whether either image conforms with reality or not hardly matters. I don't see any way she can win against him. Pragmatically, it's better to give Obama a shot.

[Grace]

I voted for Hillary. I did research into Obama's record and I didn't like what I saw so, for reasons similar to others above, I voted for Clinton.

I also trust her to guide us through the economic disaster we are facing. I don't know if Obama or McCain could do that as well. (My second choice on this is going to have to be McCain though, if it ends up being Obama versus McCain in the end.)

But I do agree that Obama gives nice speeches. Just not nice enough to make me vote for him.