are we in it to win it, or what, Democrats?

I traditionally hesitate to get political pre-convention, because I've always felt that the only thing worse than the divisiveness of bickering down party lines in the US is the humiliating and self-defeating in-fighting that's wrecked the Democratic party for as long as I've been registered to vote—actually, longer.

But I'm dying to share my position in this primary with those of you who care, because I've seen so many smart Democrats lean in the wrong direction for precisely the wrong reason, and because I don't think I tried hard enough to convince some of my on-the-fence friends in New York to vote for Barack Obama before Tuesday—although I claim at least two Obama converts in two different states won by Hillary Clinton!

If you have no interest in reading my unqualified political opinions, at least check out these videos.

Barack Obama

Getting down to my supposed point, though, let's first acknowledge the fact that Obama and Clinton's official positions on major election issues are far, far more similar than different. A glance at this chart explains why almost no Democrat you talk to is citing campaign platforms as reasons for their choice in this primary.

Despite all the talk about experience versus change, the issue that should truly be at the forefront of every Democrat's mind is electability. No one can tolerate another four years of fear-mongering and hate.

Read on for why Obama is more electable.

update: Or, you could just read Peggy Noonan's article [thanks, Sean!] from The Wall Street Journal. She said it all a lot better than I did. And with fewer huge pics of Obama.

Barack Obama

For the record, there are other reasons I support Obama over Clinton besides his electability, but I keep on hearing young women and middle-aged people of both genders claim to support Clinton because they believe she's more electable than Obama, and I just have to articulate the absurdity of that stance, so that's all I'm going to cover here.

The idea that Clinton is more electable, which I find completely astounding, can be based on one of three precepts (or any combination of the following): 1) that, at the most superficial level, the bigoted/sexist conservatives they fear are more bigoted than sexist, more willing to accept a middle-aged white woman than a young black man, 2) that Clinton's wider recognition will necessarily bring her more votes, 3) that Obama's progressive politics make him less likely to appeal to moderates than Clinton.

In answer to absurd precept #1 (that bigoted sexists are more bigoted than sexist), I would quote Gloria Steinem's New York Times Op-Ed in support of Clinton:

Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

[....] Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

[...]

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

Although Steinem goes out of her way to say that the above-mentioned tribulations of our gender are not the reason she supports Clinton, they seem to be part of her rallying cry for women she hopes to win to Clinton's side, and indeed it's in that context that the article was passed on to me by a number of people.

At any rate, I believe she's right about the distrust of powerful women that clings to American culture. Obviously I hate this idea as a woman, but it stands as a reason for Democrats interested in winning to not support Clinton.

Barack the vote! by ekeisari

Obama, on the other send of the sexism/bigotry divide, has proven throughout his campaign his ability to "transcend race" and unite people who may have never, in theory, thought they'd support "the black candidate." While I do believe that some of even the most progressive men—and likely many progressive women—have lingering doubts about women's intrinsic leadership skills or lingering suspicions of women who've proven such skills, it would take the most rare and deep-seated bigot to listen to the inspiring speeches of Harvard- and Columbia-educated Obama and think him somehow intellectually inferior to a white man. And if you believe someone in that mindset would vote for a woman, I've got a bridge to sell you.

On absurd precept #2 (that Clinton's larger fame will garner more votes), I would say, on the contrary, that her fame is mostly infamy. Part of this infamy is through no fault of her own, but the truth is that she's forever wound up in the minds of the American people with a humiliating and absurd scandal that gives conservatives ever more reason to hate her.

Obama '08 Vote Change by xtrapop

If Clinton is nominated, Republicans will have a field day dragging her through the mud on the basis of everything from her changed stance on Iraq to an unflattering power suit.

Meanwhile, Obama has risen from virtual obscurity in 2004 to be in a dead heat with one of the most recognizable names in American politics—against the wishes of the most powerful members of the Democratic party. If that doesn't speak to the Democratic electorate's ambivalence about Clinton, or Obama's power to inspire the public he reaches, consider the fact that his campaign, which does not take any money from lobbyists (you might want to re-read that italicized part to make sure you've fully absorbed its significance) has blown Clinton's completely out of the water in fundraising dollars.

Barack Obama Headshot

In case you missed it, check the NYT for information on Obama's historic fundraising day of $3 million on the Wednesday after Super Tuesday and Clinton's last-ditch $5 million loan to her campaign because she simply can't keep up.

Absurd precept #3 (that Obama is too liberal to appeal to moderates) is even more absurd when you consider the above-mentioned point of their virtually identical platforms. If Obama is perceived as more liberal, it's only because he refuses to waver from his stance in debates, a quality that can endear him to the Democrats and unite the party in a way that Al Gore and John Kerry couldn't.

The Democrats made a huge mistake in 2004, by supporting the least charismatic candidate in our primary on the basis of his supposed appeal to moderates, which didn't materialize despite the dissent that was already rumbling in the Republican party. We can't make the same mistake again. The right candidate for this election can only be the one who will most energize and unite the Democratic party, motivating the apathetic to get out to the polls in November.

Ames Rally

In an attempt to convince you that this is Obama, the two videos below. First, his acceptance speech in South Carolina, for those with 17 minutes to spare, and the now-famous "Yes We Can" music video, based on his equally inspiring speech, for those with shorter attention spans.

Embedded video doesn't work in some RSS readers, so you may have to visit the actual post.

Victory Speech in South Carolina

"Yes We Can" Musical Interpretation

If you read this far, thanks for your patience. I promise a quick return to your regularly scheduled geekiness.