I voted "Obama" this time, not necessarily because I support him, but because the alternatives are no good. Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn't taken public financing, I'd probably go for him (and who doesn't have a crush on Elizabeth?). But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him. I know his partisans have convinced themselves that this doesn't just not matter, but that it's a good thing! Good for them, I guess.
Process of elimination certainly sounds about right. No one has really thrilled me, and so deciding who to vote for becoming an intellectual argument based on process of elimination. I wanted Clinton to show me more progressive policies, and generally speaking that just didn't happen. I wanted Obama to stop rhetorically distancing himself from the left, and instead he seems to be distancing himself from the left even more so these days. I wanted Edwards to excite me, but I have to admit that never really happened. I wanted other candidates to show me that they could win the nomination or, failing that, at least that supporting them would increase progressive power. I was happy to work with Richardson on no residual forces, which did change the debate in a progressive direction. Otherwise, I haven't felt a strong attraction to the second-tier.
And so, it became an intellectual argument, where through a combination of policy positions and willingness to be identified with the left, I currently side with Edwards. I understand the electability arguments around Edwards and public financing, but they don't really resonate with me anymore. Edwards does do better in polling than Clinton or Obama, which will give him an edge, and there are ways to at least partially cope with the financial problems he would face from early February through late August. Further, February through August will actually be something of a lull in the campaign, where people will be paying less attention and we will see less poll movement. Overall, that could very well mean a wash on the electability front. I also just don't like the idea of not supporting someone because they supposedly can't win the general election. That isn't who I am.
I want to also explain why deciding to vote for Edwards, at least now, doesn't mean I'm excited enough to conduct activism on his behalf. The truth is, leaving all of these intellectual, process-of-elimination arguments aside, in my gut I always wanted to support Barack Obama. One year ago, I explained why:
I think Obama, simply in terms of his demeanor and his biography, strongly appeals to politicos from a new generation and a new socioeconomic class because he strikes them in some sort of gut, intuitive level as being from that class. Multi-ethnic, post-Vietnam, highly educated, raised in a major urban center--these are many of the cosmopolitan, self-creating, forward looking aspects of life for many younger professionals. As much as we may or may not like Bill Clinton, coming from a little town in Arkansas is not a story many Americans can relate to anymore, because we just didn't grow up that way. Even John Edwards's story of growing up in a mill town when the mill closed seems very, very rustic for a northeasterner such as myself, since our mills closed down sixty years ago to move to places like North Carolina. These rustic visions of America simply are not where people are at these days, especially news junkies and activists within the Democratic Party and the bluer parts of America. Those people instead look to places like Harlem, where Bill Clinton now keeps his offices. People moving into the gentrifying areas of Harlem probably like Barack Obama quite a bit, and probably feel some sort of gut-level, identity-based connection with him that they can't even quite put their finger on at this point.
I can't quite put my finger on it either, but the rise of Obama, I believe, is largely based on a new vision of personal identity that will inevitably come to impact our national political discourse. Whether or not his speeches and policy ideas continue to live up to that identity remains to be seen, but it does give him an edge on the rest of older, predominately Baby Boomer field that, generally speaking, will not trumpet their urban or multi-ethnic roots. If he can continue to tap into this new identity and socio-economic wave, his campaign will be difficult to defeat, especially if it is combined with strong African-American support. A coalition of African-Americans and the professional, creative class (both within the netroots and the party establishment), would be a devastating coalition in a Democratic primary that I am not sure anyone could defeat.
I have written far longer posts about Obama than any other Democratic candidate. I did this because he interests me more than the other candidates, and I was always looking for an intellectual argument that worked for me enough to support him in the primaries. It just didn't happen, however. Over the past four years, I have consistently worked to try and build progressive power, and to stop Democratic tendency to distance itself from the left. As such, in a contested primary where other candidates are either equal or superior on policy, I'm not going to work for the candidate who does more to distance himself from the left than all the other candidates in the field. That conflicts with my sense of pride, my political goals and with simple intellectual consistency. In short, it is a predominantly emotional response that cancels out my predominantly emotional, gut-level excitement for Obama..
And so, without a prevailing gut-level preference, I'm left with intellectual process of elimination. It is enough for me to favor Edwards both in theory and in the voting booth, but it isn't enough for me to spend time conducting activism on his behalf. In order for that to happen, I need my gut and my mind to work in concert. I'm not as excited about Edwards, but I'm not as disturbed by him, either. I know that isn't the most rousing endorsement of a candidate I can muster, but I'm not in the rousing endorsement mood this primary season. Hell, if I was in Iowa, I might even start the evening of January 3rd by caucusing with Richardson, because he did such a great service with the residual force argument and because he was willing to bring bloggers into the decision-making process on that issue (it really felt to me like a huge step forward for blogging when that happened). And then, once the second round of the caucus begins, I'd shift to Edwards whether Richardson was viable or not.
I wish my gut and my mind were working in conjunction this time around, as they did for Howard Dean in 2003-4, but it just never happened. It leaves a profoundly unsatisfying feeling, but after a full year of watching this campaign I don't think that will change now. That is the way it goes sometimes, I guess.
STATE BLOGS
