It’s primary day here in Wisconsin. First time in my life I’ve had the pleasure of voting in a contested election between two candidates I like very much.
After South Carolina, I had decided to vote for Senator Obama. I did not (and still do not) like President Clinton’s attack campaigning there, particularly the fairy tale comment about Obama. It doesn’t speak well of Senator Clinton that she thinks so lowly of the presidency to have a former president act as a rather vicious attack dog within her party. I also dislike her desire to change party rules midstream by seating the delegates from Michigan and Ohio after they voted for her. I hope that superdelegates choose to support the winner either of the national popular vote in the primaries or, in the case of elected officials who are superdelegates, the winner of the primary in their district (although within the rules, the superdelegates are, of course, free to vote as they please).
Moreover, I am very excited about Senator Obama’s candidacy. He has a powerful message that I think can bring people in to the progressive tent in a way that hasn’t happened since before the Reagan years. During the Clinton years, I always said that powerful rhetoric and an excellent speaking ability are not merely good party tricks; reaching out and convincing people of your viewpoint is a significant portion of the job description for any politician, particularly the president. Therefore, Senator Clinton’s campaign meme ‘results not rhetoric’ rings hollow.
Obama is a brilliant lawyer who will be just as ready on day one as Clinton, and her attacks there do her party’s potential nominee no favors against Senator McCain.
All of that said, I was impressed by the policy acumen of Chelsea Clinton when she spoke here in Madison last week. Yesterday, I saw both Michelle Obama and Senator Clinton speak. The contrast was striking. Obama’s speech was all about inspiration and the challenges we face in our day-to-day lives. Clinton’s speech was all about what she’ll do in office.
After seeing Obama’s speech, the nature of this race crystalized in my mind. Since Chelsea came to Madison, I’ve been hoping for a definitive, quantitative way to compare the two candidates. (I am a scientist, after all!) There isn’t one. It’s a choice between a dedicated community organizer who can motivate, inspire, and change minds and a policy wonk who has very specific, practical ideas on every issue under the Sun. There’s not much of a substantive difference between their plans for the country or their outlook on public policy, but there’s a striking difference in emphasis. Obama only mentioned policy very briefly and only in the context of the challenges we all face in life.
In the end, the president is not a legislator and her policies will not be implemented as listed on the campaign web site. A large part of me desperately wants to see Clinton remain in the Senate for decades to come, which probably wouldn’t happen if she gets the nomination.
But I voted for her this morning.
I particularly noted their tax talk. Obama’s policy booklet and message has nearly two full pages about tax cuts for the middle class, with a whopping sentence and a half on the tax increases necessary to pay for them. Clinton talks upfront about raising taxes on capital gains and raising the marginal tax rate for the upper few income tax brackets. Again, there’s little substantive difference, but Clinton’s emphasis is where it needs to be without falling victim to a Republican frame.
I’ll be thrilled to vote for and volunteer for either candidate in the general election, but I’ve cast my primary vote.
