Obama Veepstakes (been sittin' on this for a while)

I had put off this post as I was worried about jinxing the race but as it looks like we’re pretty safe I feel good finally posting about this. Perhaps its being a product of Tobacco Row but for some reason my picks seemed to naturally fall into brackets. So here are my thoughts on Obama’s picks for his running mate.

Nuclear Option: Sen. Jim Webb (VA), Gen. Tony Zinni (VA), Gen. Wesley Clark (AR)
These are some of the popular picks in the media. They’re great guys and I understand the argument that they shore up his perceived Foreign Policy problem, but they undercut his message that Dems can articulate a strong message on National Security without trying to out flag-wave Republicans. If we’re always running to men in uniform then we’re not doing that: this is the thinking that got John Kerry the nomination and lost us the 2004 election. There is the added regional argument in that they’re all from the south but I think Webb is the only one that can safely be said to put a state in play and I don’t think his personality will lend itself well to the role. I term them the Nuclear Option because I understand the reason we have them but think it would be disastrous for us to actually consider using them
Bracket Winner: Sen. Webb (VA)

Women: Sen. Clinton (NY), Gov. Sebelius (KA), Gov. Napolitano (AZ)
I hesitated to include this bracket as a) I think it’s kind of sexist to give them their own corner and b) I don’t think he should pick Clinton as she is a polarizing, overbearing figure. She’s got too much baggage and will undercut his new politics message. That said I don’t think he would pick another woman because that would be even more insulting to her supporters, rather than bringing them in it will lead them to ask, “If you wanted a woman what was wrong with Hillary?” All that said I think if he were to pick a woman there’s one that fits best with the campaign theme.
Bracket Winner: Gov. Sebelius (KA)

Statesmen: Sen. Joe Biden (DE), Sen. Sam Nunn (GA), Gov. Bill Richardson (NM)
Again these guys are great and would help address the Foreign Policy deficiency, or would they? Wouldn’t it just highlight that Obama thinks he has a problem with this if he picked one of these guys? Doesn’t that again undercut his message that judgment not experience is key? I’m sure all three will play important roles in an Obama administration but not as VP. Biden and Nunn can’t deliver a state and well Richardson clearly didn’t resonate with anyone as a candidate in his own right, like Bayh and Strickland I would say he’s someone with a great resume and not a lot else (though his speech at the Obama endorsement made me wonder where that Bill Richardson had been for the last year).
Bracket Winner: Sen. Joe Biden (DE)

Trending Blue: Sen. John Edwards (NC), Gov. Mark Warner (VA), Gov. Brian Schweitzer (MT)
These are the guys from Red States with great personalities that might be worth picking for the regional argument and their enthusiasm. However Edwards had his shot at no. 2 and couldn’t put NC into play. I think that we need Warner more in the Senate at the moment. And Montana doesn’t have enough electoral votes to make the regional argument strong enough.
Bracket Winner: Gov. Mark Warner (VA)

Peacemakers (s): Gov. Ed Rendell (PA), Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), Gov. Ted Strickland (OH)
These are the guys from Clinton’s Short-List that could help unite the party. They’re popular statewide officials from large red/swing states with impressive resumes. However I think Rendell is the only one worth any real consideration here, the other two are about as engaging as belly button lint.
Bracket Winner: Gov. Ed Rendell (PA)

Dark Horse: Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), Mayor Michael Bloomberg (NY), Rep. Adam Smith (WA)
These are my long-shot picks. One Republican, one Independent who used to be a Democrat before he used to be a Republican, and one guy you’ve probably never heard of (yeah he’s not that Adam Smith). Hagel would certainly feed well into a message of new politics and have crossover appeal; he’s also had a lot of nice things to say about Obama recently. Bloomberg also has a lot of independent appeal (and billions of his own money to spread that appeal) but is still questionable. However I think the one that emerges here is Adam Smith. An early Obama backer and effective surrogate he’s shown he can handle himself well with the media. An effective campaigner he was able to turn a Republican district into a safe Democratic seat. As a long serving member of the House he has served on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committee and is chair of the Subcommittee on Unconventional Threats (which might be handy if your administration was facing an unconventional threat like say…terrorism). This is a solid background on Foreign Policy that compliments Obama’s rather than overshadowing it. And what says “new politics” quite like picking someone that’s completely off the radar of the mainstream media?
Bracket Winner: Rep. Adam Smith

I know…a final six, not quite the NCAA but well it’s just a metaphor. In the end for me it comes down to two in the finals.

Finals: Gov. Ed Rendell vs. Rep. Adam Smith
I think these two represent the best choices depending upon which route Sen. Obama decides to take with his running-mate. I think Gov. Rendell offers a safe option on a number of fronts. As a Clinton supporter he can help reconcile her camp, he’s got solid experience that compliments without overshadowing, and he’s from a critical swing-state. Rep. Smith is clearly my favorite though, not just because I’m the only one that has him on their radar (though it doesn’t hurt). I think that it is good to reward those that backed you early and eagerly. I think he is a dynamic campaigner who will complement Obama’s strengths and shore up his weaknesses well, and while Washington isn’t exactly a swing state they did have a pretty tight Gov. Race last time out, and could have some appeal in other Northwestern states. In the end he would be my pick.

The Product Placement Candidate

Following the Democratic debate the other night a lot has been made of Sen. Clinton’s “Change you can Xerox” retort: It was a lead balloon, it was too rehearsed, is this really the only line of attack she’s got? And so on.

It seems perfectly clear to me what the true significance of the statement was though. When you combine marketing folks incessant quest to fill every aspect of a consumer’s day with increasing "brand-awareness” with the recent news that Sen. Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million of her own money and it becomes almost self-evident. The Clinton’s have never turned down a chance to make a quick buck, and advertising has pretty well invaded just about everything we do in America, you can’t even go to a public restroom without seeing some brand-awareness promotion while you do your business. So why not extend brand promotion to the people’s business?

You couple increasing participation of the coveted 18-40 demographic with the disproportional participation of upper-income voters that’s been noted in most of these contests and what do you get?

Cha-Ching!

Really I think the Xerox comment was just the beginning, to help promote my idea I’ve taken the Libertymutual™ of rewriting just a few of Senator Clinton’s recent statements from her Feb. 19th speech to supporters following the Wisconsin primary to show their missed “brand potential”:

“Well, hello, Youngstown. How are you ‘Tonight [Show with Jay Leno]’?”

“You know, when I think about what we're really comparing in this election, you know, we can't just have speeches. We've got to have [Bausch and Lomb ReNu multiplus ™ contact] solutions.”

“But this election is not about me or my opponent. It is about you. It's about your lives and your dreams and your future. And I can't do this without all of you here in Youngstown and across Ohio. It is going to take an effort from all of US [Weekly ™]”

People [Magazine ™] are struggling. They're working the day shift, the night shift. They're trying to get by without health care. They're just one Paycheck [starring Mel Gibson, on sale now at your local Bestbuy™] away from losing their homes. They cannot afford four more years of a president who just doesn't see or hear them at all. [We need a president that can hear so clearly he can hear a pin-drop, like if he were using Sprint ™ long-distance.]”

“I don't want to leave anyone out. I am not running to put Band-Aids ™ on our problems; I'm running to solve our problems.”
Wait, that last one didn’t need an insertion, oh she’s good.

The beauty is this doesn’t have to be a one-way street. Just about any celebrity no matter how minor has some kind of endorsement deal these days, why shouldn’t one of the most well-known figures of American life have some?

I can see the commercials now:

“Hillary runs on Dunkin”

“Despite losing ten states by an average of 33 points, something that would have people calling for any other candidate to drop out of the race…Hillary keeps going, and going and going…Energizer ™”

“I’m Hillary Clinton; I shake thousands of hands a day. I don’t worry though, because I use Purell ™, it kills 99.99 of germs that make you sick without water or towels.”

I mean these really just write themselves.

And why stop with just the campaign. If she were to get elected we could get sponsorship deals for public events and holidays.

The State of the Union, brought to you by WesternUnion ™

Perhaps, or even:

Independence Day brought to you by Independence Bank ™

These are just a couple of possibilities, there are endless others that could represent a new revenue stream not just for campaigns but for our government as well. I mean unless anyone can come up with a reason why corporate sponsorship of the government is a problem.

Lighting a Torch

So make no mistake: the choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we’re going to seize this moment to write the next great American story. So someday we can tell our children that this was the time when we healed our nation. This was the time when we repaired our world. And this was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity, and liberty, and hope on our doorstep.

One of these travelers was my father. I barely knew him, but when, after his death, I finally took my first trip to his tiny village in Kenya and asked my grandmother if there was anything left from him, she opened a trunk and took out a stack of letters, which she handed to me.

There were more than thirty of them, all handwritten by my father, all addressed to colleges and universities across America, all filled with the hope of a young man who dreamed of more for his life. And his prayer was answered when he was brought over to study in this country.

But what I learned much later is that part of what made it possible for him to come here was an effort by the young Senator from Massachusetts at the time, John F. Kennedy, and by a grant from the Kennedy Foundation to help Kenyan students pay for travel. So it is partly because of their generosity that my father came to this country, and because he did, I stand before you today – inspired by America’s past, filled with hope for America’s future, and determined to do my part in writing our next great chapter.

So I’m asking for your hands. I’m asking for your help. And I’m asking for your hearts. And if you will stand with me in the days to come - if you will stand for change so that our children have the same chance that somebody gave us; if you’ll stand to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice; if you're ready to stop settling for what the cynics tell you you must accept, and finally reach for what you know is possible, then we will win these primaries, we will win this election, we will change the course of history, and light a new torch for change in this country – and “the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

-Barack Obama, American University, Washington, DC 1.28.2008

Demographics and Low-hanging fruit or why a loss is a loss and a win is a win

A lot of the story out of the SC primary has focused on demographic analysis and whether or not Senator Obama got enough of the "White vote" to stay competitive beyond SC. First of all, as I noted in an earlier post you can't necessarily compare numbers across states, a point that was borne out once again as the demographics of the race changed dramatically from one state to another, and so did the results. Because Obama won women in Iowa didn't mean he went on to win them in NH. Just because his share of the white vote went down in SC doesn't mean white voters from earlier states have changed their mind, it means less whites voted for him in SC. It's a fallacy to present a change in votes between Iowa to New Hampshire to Nevada to South Carolina to be representative of any national or temporal trend. These aren't shifts in the overall electorate overtime, they are how the electorate in a particular state voted. Despite how media analysts present it, this ain't the same kettle of fish each time.

The other story coming out of SC, along with every other primary, that casts some doubt on the demographic analyses is that turn out on the Democratic side is up remarkably (my entry into the understatement of the year awards)...with every group. A lot of this is thanks to President Bush's incompetence and a lot is due to an exciting race. Either way, my point is that demographic analysis of the party based on past races doesn't really work. Furthermore the demographic breakdowns based on things as broad as race, gender, and education level don't get into nearly enough detail about the micro-targeting that these campaigns are doing (which can get as specific as what church a voter goes to, where they shop, where they get their news, what shows they watch, and more). Part of the reason the polls were so wrong in New Hampshire is that women supporting Senator Clinton turned out in unexpected numbers. What matters in these races is not the demographics of who's registered as a Democrat or even who has voted in these primaries in the past. The only demographics that matter are the demographics of the people that show up on the day. And with turn out up as high as it is across the board, these demographic analyses based on past numbers and broad groups don't have as much validity.

There's another reason we could be seeing these demographic shifts in the vote from state to state, it could be that the race in each state is different (I still believe Tip's adage, crazy right?). Notably the strategy of each campaign in each state is different. In a campaign where you have limited resources, your first goal is to turn out the lowest hanging fruit. For Senator Clinton she saw her support in the African American community, which at the end of last year she competed for fairly evenly with Senator Obama, erode dramatically along with her substantial lead. A combination of his win in Iowa, viability in the other states, and her campaigns tactics. From her campaign's perspective they decided to refocus on capturing other non-black voters where they were still competitive. For Senator Obama, in an electorate where upward of 50% of the vote was expected to be African American and that was breaking for him upwards of 80% (based on polling before the election), it makes sense he would have invested more heavily in turning out and appealing that favorable vote, and that being competitive in other demographics is just a bonus. It's that bonus that made his margin so huge last night, he tied Senator Clinton on white men, won women overall, and appealed to young voters across the board. Rather than it being a dramatic drop in Senator Obama or Senator Clinton's support among this group or that group from one state to the the next I think these changes represent particular strategies in each state contest. On that front I see a lot of reason to be happy about the results out of the early states as an Obama supporter.

The measure of success in these contests is not based on demographics but how effectively the campaign is appealing to those people it needs to appeal to in each state, and on that front the Obama campaign looks pretty good heading into February 5th. His message has cut across a lot of divides, it wasn't African Americans that won him Iowa by a large margin, or kept him in a close second in New Hampshire or Nevada. His campaign has shown an ability to analyze each state to figure out who they need to turn out, and to do so fairly effectively. After four races he's had two big wins and two close losses (one of which he actually came away with more delegates). That is not an attempt to spin those losses as nothing, a loss is a loss. My point though is that in the bigger picture; the delegate count, which is determined by proportional vote...the SIZE OF THE VICTORY MATTERS. I think New Hampshire and Nevada were important and hard-earned victories for Senator Clinton, but at the same time if the trend continues, if the Obama campaign can keep this targeting up and Obama wins big and loses little in the right places, a nomination is a nomination.

Mitt Romney and evidence of life in the world of journalism...

Yesterday while at a campaign stop in SC, Governor Mitt Romney had a "heated" exchange with AP reporter Glen Johnson. The video can be found here.

Johnson interrupted Governor Romney's pontification on not having lobbyists "running" his campaign. Johnson observed that Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist and is a Senior Adviser to the Romney Campaign. Romney defended his point, not contesting that Kaufman was a lobbyist (he undeniably is) but saying that if Johnson had listened he said that there were no lobbyists "running" his campaign, citing his campaign manager and deputy campaign managers were not lobbyists. Romney later continued the confrontation and his staffers told Johnson that he should "Be Professional".

Last night on some news commentary show I was watching on MSNBC (I forget which) this had sparked a debate about journalistic professionalism and politeness. Personally I think its commendable that anyone would stand up and refuse to let a candidate for office put forth outright falsehoods, and do so right then and there on the spot. And for a journalist I would say its part of the job description.

Although on my second viewing of the video I decided maybe Johnson could have done with being a bit more polite. Just when Johnson cut Governor Romney off from completing the sentence "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...". Now had Johnson been a bit more "polite" we could have heard the end of that sentence which I would speculate is ""campaign". In fairness though there is innumerable ways that sentence could have ended that would not have undercut his iron-clad "I said running not advising" argument. He could have been about to say "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...upper campaign staff". Or perhaps "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...campaign staff which has some form of 'deputy' appearing in their title". How about, "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...dog". Maybe he was going to go with, "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...wagon". Or finally my personal favorite, the one I was hoping he would end on: I don't have lobbyists tied to my... hitching post." Clearly any one of these could reasonably be assumed to be an ending to Governor Romney's statement, and would be a testament to his principled leadership. Sadly due to Glen Johnson's rude behavior...we'll never know.

“The Folgers Challenge: Hillary R. Clinton or George W. Bush”

We secretly removed who said each of these statements, let’s see if you notice:

“They [Islamic Terrorists] watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…”1

"There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence [in Iraq], and we're heading into an election...”2

“When it comes to better securing our homeland and fighting the forces of terror, results matter. And when it comes to choosing a President, results matter.”3

“Let’s not forget you’re hiring a President not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a President to be there when the chips are down.”4

“So, you know, words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.”5

“You see, it's not enough to advocate reform. You have to be able to get it done.”6

“My opponent has good intentions, but intentions do not always translate to results.”7

“You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality.”8

“The murders in Madrid are a reminder that the civilized world is at war.”9

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new Prime Minister”10




1. Senator Hilary R. Clinton, New Hampshire 1.7.2008
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4092530&page=31.9.2008)

2. President George W. Bush 10.20.2006 (http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/10/20/021.9.2008)

3. President George W. Bush, Springfield, MO 7.30.2004 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127583,00.html 1.9.2008)

4. Senator Hillary Clinton New Hampshire, 1.7.2008
(http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html 1.9.2008)

5. Senator Hillary R. Clinton, NH Debates, 1.5.2008 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4092530&page=3 1.9.2008)

6. President Bush, Springfield, MO 7.30.2004 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127583,00.html 1.9.2008)

7. President Bush, Springfield, MO 7.30.2004 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127583,00.html 1.9.2008)

8. Senator Hillary R. Clinton, NH Debates, 1.5.2008
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4092530&page=3 1.9.2008)

9. President Bush, East Room, White House, 3.19.2004 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040319-3.html 1.9.2008)

10. Senator Hillary R. Clinton, New Hampshire, 1.7.2008: (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html1.9.2008)

How'd Clinton Pull it Off

There are a few theories going around this morning as to how all the polling got it SO wrong. Election morning polls showed Obama with anywhere from a 4-12 point lead, the average was around 8. The results came in last night and we see a Clinton squeaker. So how'd she do it?

Over at the Rothenberg Report it's suggested that it may because of John Edwards dip, citing his drop from support in Iowa to New Hampshire he suggests that those that broke from Edwards, who we would think would break to Obama, instead went to Clinton. The problem is this treats the results out of two different states as if they were from the same set of folks. I don't think this explains the Clinton surprise as John Edwards finished at 17% which is consistently where he's been in polls out of New Hampshire since Iowa. In fact John Edwards is the one thing the polls got right, so I don't see how we can say that there was a "collapse" of Edwards explains Clinton's success, in NH there was no break from Edwards he finished right where he always was. I think Edwards may have played a role, but I'll get back to that at the end.

The next explanation I've heard is the contrarian nature of NH, and their desire to stick it to the media. I suppose this could have played a role but don't really know a way to test it other than anecdotally and I've not found anyone doing so. It's an interesting thought and I think it may be part though not all of the answer.

The other explanation I've heard was from Chris Matthews this morning who thinks that what happened was "The Bradley Effect" in which white survey respondents tell a pollster that they're voting for an African American candidate as they don't want to appear racist but when they are alone in the voting booth don't do so. It's interesting because it was while watching MSNBC that I saw this dismissed prior to NH, pundits citing Harold Ford's race in Tennessee as an example where an African-American got a vote percentage beating his poll numbers. It was suggested that this wasn't a factor in Iowa, as the Caucuses involve voting in public.

I think though, looking at the exit results vs. the poll results it's hard to make the Bradley Effect argument. Among white males we find that they broke for Obama. These are the people that I think are most likely to have lied to a pollster, for a white male it seems to be more progressive to be voting either for a minority or a woman. Had we seen this number break more in Edwards direction I'd be ready to call foul, but it didn't.

This leaves us with a final explanation, one that holds up with the exit data. Where the real surprise break for Clinton occurred was with Women. I'm not inclined to believe that women would not be proud enough voting for a fellow woman that they would lie to a pollster. Also I'm not quite ready to call white women liars, I mean, my mother is one. What this indicates to me is that there was a large block of women who changed their mind late in the game. Was it the "cry"? Was it President Clinton? Was it the fear-mongering by the Clintons? Was it John Edwards attacks at the debates? Was it Obama's muttering "you're likeable enough"? Or just the general media pile-on? I think the answer is probably yes to all of these, combined they made Senator Clinton seem like she was surrounded on all sides, vulnerable, but still out there fighting. That's something that must have gotten to a lot of women in the last couple days, and whether it just turned out more or changed their minds it doesn't matter. Through the Clintons' political skill and missteps of the other campaigns women sided with Clinton in force and she was able to pull off the upset.

So it begins

Senator Clinton has been out of the campaign trail in NH today with this gem:

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

Now the thing that first strikes me about this statement is that it sounds like it was crafted by Karl Rove, perhaps there was more to those reports about Bush advising the Senator than we thought.

The next thing that strikes me is her analogy to the UK transition from Prime Minister Blair to Brown, which coincided with the unraveling of a terrorist attack in London. The attack was discovered and dealt with by the UK security forces with little direction from the Prime Minister. I'm sure he was kept briefed and was ready for any development but there was a contingent of personnel at all levels, trained and ready for just such an occurence. His most prominent role in the event was in giving his nation's defiant response that they would not be threatened by such acts.

In the US our security apparatus, from the National Security Council and Joint Chiefs, down to the Police Officer out on beat are designed to provide some permanence in our security structure even in times of transition and crisis. I mean, the US security apparatus is designed with nuclear holocaust as it's worst case scenario, I think that we can endure another attack. Saying otherwise is somewhat of a denigration to our security forces at every level.

Having said all that I do agree that who is at the top of that apparatus is very important, and whoever the next President is they will have quite a challenge undoing the damage that the current Administration had done to it. In the end though, the most important role that a President plays as the head of that apparatus, is in being our nation's figurehead and in articulating our response as a nation. So if the worst should happen on January 20th 2009 or any day thereafter, I want the person who is deciding on that response to be someone who when they are put on the defensive will act with courage and wisdom to lift our nation back up and not someone who will react out of hubris and desperation to incite our worst fears. We've had enough of that.

The President’s Next War:

Today’s press briefing by President George W. Bush has garnered a great deal of attention due to his non-comments on the ongoing investigation of destroyed CIA torture videos. While this is an important issue which warrants our continued vigilance and outrage, what has largely gone unreported is the President’s blatant steps to engage our country in yet another war. It’s unsurprising that the media which failed to live up to it’s responsibilities in the run-up to the last disastrous war that the President started would once again be caught unaware as the President sought to fire a new Tonkin torpedo at his next target: Christmas.

"I hope you all enjoyed the holiday reception at the White House as much as Laura and I enjoyed it."

And just in case that were too subtle he went on to say:

"And we wish you a happy holidays."

I don’t know how the President thinks he will get away with this again, this time he’s been just a bit too blatant in his warmongering (clearly the departure of Karl Rove is having a thankfully deleterious affect on the Administration) but it will still take the commitment of concerned citizens to keep our nation from getting needlessly entangled in another war once again. Since I'm sure you all watch the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News you'll know that we have a stalwart defender in this war, and a journalist who knows the importance of the media in checking an overreaching Administration. I'm sure like me you eagerly anticipate his comment on this latest affront.

Leaving the Sidelines

Despite the half-hearted attempt in my previous post to do an unbiased analysis of the facts it is probably clear that I have come to support Senator Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary for President. This may come as somewhat of a surprise to some of you as I have long been a supporter of home-state boy Senator John Edwards and to be honest until recently I was torn between the two, and thrown into the mix was an outside hope that Al Gore who I’ve supported for even longer, and would really be my first pick, might get back in the race (an outside hope to which I still hold).

In the world of political junkies it is fairly surprising that I’ve held out this long. While this contest started much earlier than any other we are now only a few month from the beginning of primary contests (which may begin as early this December this cycle) so I think it’s time to get off the sidelines. I think what ultimately made my decision is my belief that it is principles, more than ends which matter in politics. I am not looking for and am quite frankly tired of the approach to politics in which a candidate seeks to put together the biggest possible coalition by patching together the right batch of policy ends.

Barack Obama is the only candidate that I have seen that is articulating a vision that it focused on the change of process, not just policy. He has proven himself to be effective at working with and gaining the respect of people from conflicting viewpoints, a far cry from the railroad politics that currently seem to dominate Washington in both parties. This approach is not based on moderation, compromising principles where convenient, which I detest in politics. It is instead rooted in the principle of pluralism. Simply put that there is no way that we can be certain that what we believe is correct, but that through open discussion and pursuit of that viewpoint we can arrive at a solution with others. It is based on respect not just for difference but for the republic which the founders of our country built. And it is an approach which the Senator seems to bring to all issues, and shows a kind of confidence that is rare in politics. Contrast it instead to the Bush Administration which has sought to cloak its insecurities in simplistic policies, hyper-masculinity, and the projection of “certainty”. That’s why I can’t think of anyone better to fix the mess President Bush has made (and continues to make) of not just our country but the world.

It was ultimately this contrast between the two front runners for my support, Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama, which tipped the scales. In an appearance on the Reverend Al Sharpton’s Radio Program last month John Edwards was quoted as saying,

“Compromise is not going to get us there, triangulation is not going to get us there, being careful is not going to get us there. We need somebody who's used to fighting these people and beating them and I've been doing it my whole life.”

While this quote was celebrated by some on left, it lost me. If I were shown this quote without attribution and were asked to guess who said it, I would probably say George W. Bush. It parallels exactly his attitude that I am right, you are wrong, and there is nothing to talk about other than your complete and utter surrender. It is this thinking that has lead Bush to be a failure as both a businessman and now as a President. Although the ends that John Edwards has in mind may be ones that I like a great deal more than George W. Bush’s that does not make it right to me. So despite my hesitation to abandon the man who I had supported for so long I finally realized what a friend who had also been a staunch supporter of Edwards had been telling me. It’s not that I’ve left the Edwards camp, it’s that they left me. Where this left me then is right where my heart had been for a long time, in Camp Obama.
I want the next four years and beyond in this country to be much better than the past seven, and to do that it will take a change not just in whose ends were pursuing, but in the approach we take in getting there. That is the fundamental problem I see in our country now and to paraphrase Senator Edwards “You can't simply replace a group of ideologue Republicans with a group of ideologue Democrats, just swapping the ends of one party for the ends of the other."