Which "Leap of Faith" Will You Take Tomorrow?

Hillary Clinton argued again this weekend that a vote for Barack Obama is a "leap of faith." She's right, but what she didn't say is this: So is a vote for her. Democrats don't have a choice between a candidate that's "tested" and one that's not. The question facing voters tomorrow is "which leap of faith do you want to take?" I've made up my mind.

The Democratic Party has already made the most radical and transformative decision it could possibly have made. With the withdrawal of John Edwards, it has committed to sending a high-risk candidate out into the general election. Make no mistake about it: This race is going to get ugly. We've already seen overt racism and sexism from the other side. It's only going to get worse.

And the media won't help. The racist attack came from Karl Rove's column in Newsweek. The sexist comments came from Bill Kristol, now comfortably ensconced at the New York Times. If Obama's the nominee you'll hear an endless chorus of "Barack Hussein Obama" and Muslim references. If Clinton's the nominee you'll hear replays of "Monica Lewinsky" and Bill's shady dealings with the Kazakh dictator -- morning, noon, and night.

The Clinton campaign is pushing the idea that she's "tested," just as they promoted the notion that her candidacy was inevitable. The fact is this: There is no safe choice. And as far as experience in a presidential role is concerned, neither candidate has been tried and tested. Neither, for that matter, has John McCain.

Obama's been a legislator all his life. As for Clinton, her only executive role before this year was leading the health reform effort in 1993-94. That initiative was mishandled politically in that she alienated Congress, but that's a lesson she absorbed brilliantly. Less-remembered these days, but far more relevant to the presidency, is the fact that that effort was badly mismanaged administratively. Committees worked separately from one another and produced contradictory or uncoordinated reports. People were unclear of their roles. She didn't display the competent management skills then that she now claims are her strong suit. While that doesn't preclude the possibility she's a talented manager, it's certainly not evidence in her favor.

The only other executive experience these two candidates have had is in the management of their presidential campaigns. Whether you support him or not, Barack's campaign has been close to flawless in both strategy and execution. It's a tight ship. As for Sen. Clinton: Since I respect her abilities and bought the notion that she was the inevitable nominee, I've spent much of the last two years joining the chorus of those who wanted her to make better campaign decisions. From the 2002 war votes to the counterproductive "Hillary won't back down" theme, from her refusal to rein in her advisor's business dealings to the use of Bill in a negative rather than positive role, it's been one wrong move after another.

I wrote earlier that I make voting decisions based on five factors, two of which I've already discussed. Here are the others:

What are their policy positions? Obama's and Clinton's are close, except that Obama has an end date for bringing troops home from Iraq and Clinton doesn't. That matters.

Who are the people they will they bring in to lead the nation? Obama has an impressive roster of supporters -- something that couldn't be said a couple of months ago. I agree with Hale Stewart that Paul Volcker's an impressive addition. And there is a mean-spiritedness from many Clinton supporters that I find disturbing.

Lastly, how strong is their character? Both candidates are good Americans, humane progressives, and responsible world citizens. They're both bright and hard-working. Both have played rough at times in this campaign. But the Clinton campaign has strayed across the lines a number of times, from gamesmanship with delegates to coded messages. The campaign has tended into mean-spiritedness even when it hurts them, as if it's a reflex they can't stop.

And about that war vote: Half the Democratic Senate voted against her. She voted against the Levin Amendment, which would've created another opportunity to slow the war momentum, and then misrepresented it in the debate. A senator who was present at the Democratic Caucus told me that many people spoke eloquently against the war before voting for it for political reasons. I don't know if she was one of them, but I know this: She knew better, or she should have.

She faced a moral test, a profile in courage moment, and she didn't step up. That is the sad fact.

But this is not about repudiating one candidate. It's about embracing another. Tom Hayden put it eloquently when he said that he was endorsing "the movement that Barack Obama leads." A president does many things: run a government, make decisions, inspire, lead. John Kennedy was in many ways a Democratic centrist. But he galvanized a generation, indirectly spawning everything from student political movements to changed career choices. I was only 10 when he died, but I doubt if I would be writing these words had he not lived.

My pre-adolescent godchildren are thrilled about Obama. They're the same age I was when I watched Bobby Kennedy seem to speak for me and everybody like me. The middle-aged neighbor who called my house for Obama last Wednesday was excited about the chance for change. The young Asian-American woman who rang my doorbell for Barack yesterday said she was so motivated by his candidacy that she was "doing something outside her comfort zone." Aren't we all?

Scarlett Johansen even called me this morning. She invited me to join "her and all the other young voters" in supporting Barack. Sure, it was robocall, but hey -- I felt like Bill Murray.

I'm kidding about Bill Murray, of course -- but it's all adding up to a movement. Movements matter. New generations deserve the chance to be inspired. And we all deserve the chance to see the gifted and idealistic among them drawn into public service. Barack Obama will make that happen. And his outreach to Republicans and independents is brilliant. He's shown no sign of compromising his principles to be inclusive. On the contrary: inclusivity is one of his principles.

After seven years of Republican abuse, many Democrats may be wishing for payback time. But, while bloodletting might be emotionally satisfying, there's no sign it will win elections. Although I supported Obama's healthcare position for largely technical reasons (and consider it misleading to say that Clinton's is more "progressive"), I was an Edwards supporter for most of last year. But I see now that there is something moving in this country. Something important. Something real.

Democrats have already made their leap of faith by narrowing the field down to these two world-changing candidates. Since faith is already on the ballot, I'm going to vote with a spirit of optimism and reconciliation. I don't know what will happen in December, but I'm voting for the ticket that will draw a new generation into politics. Someone like me isn't like to change anybody's mind, and no doubt whoever gets nominated will sometimes disappoint me and others. But for whatever it's worth, I'm voting for Barack Obama.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[KiwisCanFly]

Good on ya mate! Me Too!

[itmaybetoolate]

"After seven years of Republican abuse, many Democrats may be wishing for payback time." No, I don't want payback. I want bushie, cheney and all the rest brought to justice. I want real and substantive investigations. I want criminal charges. I want a return to the rule of law. I DON'T want some namby pamby idea about not getting stuck in the past but rather looking to the future. Someone needs to hold someone accountable for the damage done. Do I believe Hillary or Obama will do this? NO! John Edwards would have. So, no payback and no return to the rule of law, boys and girls. bushie will get away with it, if he willingly gives up power at all. We forget and let it go = a risk to our nation and the basis of our democracy.

[anelder]

just one comment on moveon.org.

Find myself in agreement often but not always. Also find myself in agreement with positions on the right to a lesser degree. From this you can see I'm faulting moveon for extremism to the same degree as the far right. (I do find them a little nicer though)

So here I am a moderate leaning left depsiring of both extremes. I find the biggest problem is those of us who are guilty, on both sides of the spectrum, of not accepting anything but our point of view. Since compatibility means giving and taking they are destined to always be disatisfied.

[jpopphan]

I cast my vote this morning for Obama. I believe that he has the best chance of defeating the Republican nominee in November and I feel that he will be the leader that America so desperately needs at this moment in history. I believe that Obama will be able to bring the country together in a way that Hillary Clinton can not. I also think that the long-term propaganda campaign against the Clintons by the GOP would make the race with Clinton as the nominee almost unwinnable. The visceral hatred that most "conservatives" harbor for Hillary Clinton is quite Pavlovian; there would be few, if any, crossover voters who would vote for Hillary - and quite frankly it won't be possible to win without such voters' support.

True, the GOP will pull out all of its racist and anti-Muslim ammo and will direct it at Obama, but Americans have reached a place in our cultural development where overt racism is not tolerated anymore. Obama will have a much easier time defending himself against the mud that will be slung than would Hillary.

It is my sincere hope that Obama wins big today and that voters propel him to the top. We could do far worse than Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States. He is, by far, the best choice for progressives this year and is the sort of leader that we need to pull this country together and to unravel the mess made by eight years of Republican mismanagement of our goverment, economy and our relations with the rest of the world.

[gemcando06]

Stop it - all of you! There hasn't been an election for the Dems like this ever!

Whom ever we vote for will be a fine candidate. And the enemy will attack the Dem candidate whomever. But the Dems never had their vote anyway.

Happiness is not having to vote the LESSER EVIL.

[PeaceCzar]

If this "Leap of Faith" is as crummy as the Steve Martin movie, count me out.

Vote for the old white guy with integrity!

VOTE MIKE GRAVEL

[zjr909]

Names matter. Repeating over and over "Barack Hussein Obama" absolutely will take a toll on his credibility. In 2004, Howard Dean was always referred to as Dr. Dean. Sounds innocent enough until it begins to morph into Dr. Death in people's minds. Stupid comment? I don't think so. Howard Dean was not the first and only "Doctor" to seek office. Did anyone ever call Bill Frist "Dr. Frist?" Does anyone ever call Ron Paul "Dr. Paul?" Yet everyone in the media called Howard Dean "Dr. Dean." Apart from the notion of a name's power to influence, I would only add that a black man is far more likely to be elected than a woman. After all, a black man is still a man; but a woman can never be. And I'm afraid sexism is a far stronger current in American culture than racism. That's the real reason so many people hate Hillary. Not that she's done anything wrong; but that, being a woman, she can do no right. The only greater anathama in a presidential candidate than being the wrong gender would be being on the wrong side of God.

[elkabong]

No matter who is elected, it is up to all of us to push progressive policies forward.

We should, all of us, have our Congresspersons' numbers on speed dial. How many of us do?

[vsign]

If it is between McCain and Obama - McCain will get everyone who wants experience and stability. It will show the generational divide we have in this country and in our own lives.

Young people unite and do away with the old people! Tear down the bridge to the past and follow me! I will deliver the power to you, you so deserve.

Who said this?

[balance]

So are you saying that a vote for Hillary Clinton can also be a positively transformative leap of faith a la Kierkegaard?

;-)

Look, no matter how you spin it, Hillary Clinton has faced, and is facing far more hostility and mean spiritedness from all corners: the MSM, the right-wing attack machine, and from fair-weather friends in the Democratic party.

There are so many punched pulled, so many more potential nasty rhetorical arguments that can be leveled at the Obama camp, -- which haven't come about from the Clintons, or from Clinton supporters -- and I hope it won't ever come about. And yet Hillary Clinton is indeed fighting in desperate straits for her candidacy.

She does not deserve the extreme vitriol that she is getting from her fellow democrats.
Yes, she is a moderate democrat, like Mr. Obama, but she has a longer voting record as a moderate -- which Obama supporters are using against her.
But: She is NOT a liar. She does have character. She is NOT a racist. She does NOT say or do anything to get elected. She is NOT mean spirited. Her decisions ARE based in reasons steeped in firm moral beliefs.

[Hilleluiah]

My gut feeling is Senator Clinton. She's smart, experienced, confident, and her strength makes me believe that she can be a great leader. She's taken a lot of heat from a relentless firing squad, and she's still standing. She's exactly the type of person that I want staring down Kim Jong IL or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She knows when to hold hands and when to put the smack down.

Senator Obama is inspiring, but I'm uncomfortable with how his supporters are a little sycophantic and I'm definitley leary about who the GOP thinks is a "better" candidate. After voting for Bush twice, I really don't care who they want. As a matter of fact, whoever they want is exactly who I don't want.

If the war is the issue why you're not voting for her, then I respect that. Fortunately, it's not my only issue and frankly, I may not believe in the war in Iraq, but I was not looking at it from her perspective as the Senator from NY who witnessed the results of 9/11 or attended the funerals of those victims. She clearly stated on the Senate floor that she was not authorizing war, but wanted to keep the option open to the
president after all measures were exhausted. She warned what would happen if the president did not head her advice, and everything she stated in that speech happened. Sometimes you have to make tough choices that are not always popular or can please everyone. I'm looking for a president, not a best friend. She'll get my vote of confidence tomorrow.

Hillary Clinton 08!

[eddiestardust]

I've said it before and I will say it again..
I get really upset when folks start telling me who I should vote for.

I've seen it to often this rush to judgement.

I will vote for Hillary & pray for her and our nation.

We don't need to replace one idiot Republican President with a democrat who is going to screw up or be shot big time.

[rwe]

either way its a leap of lunacy.... thank you dems and liberal msm for giving the Repubs a chance... another shot at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Gore , Kerry, and ???? The GOP is looking more and more like the Giants

[MizLiz]

There's no WAY Obama will take second place on Hillary's ticket. you know why? Because the Vice-Presidency will have all the influence of a doorstop. You-Know-Who will be hogging up all the oxygen in the White House, seeking to establish his Restoration. I don't trust him for one minute, and I don't think Hillary can control him. After all, she hasn't been able to for all these years, has she?

[legalclubs]

You said, "We've already seen overt racism and sexism from the other side." As proof you cited people calling Obama by his full correct name, discussions of Monica, and shaddy deals with a dictator.
Let's be fair. Using someone's full name is a far cry from "racism". Ficticious claims like this actually diminish real claims of racism. With respect to Hillary, mentioning concerns over what trouble Bill might get into as "First Husband" is legitmate, not sexist. It's not even really about a concern over gender, it is a concern that any "Bimbo" scandals that erupt during a Hillary Clinton presidency would distract Hillary from implementing the Democratic agenda. Let's face it, given his antics over the last few weeks its also clear that he is perfectly willing to state his opinion even if it reflects negatively on Hillary. This would also be a severe distraction. It isn't sexist to point this out. Think about it, if a male politician had a wife that was known to cheat on him in the past on multiple occasions and who most people believe will probably be doing the same in the future would anybody seriously consider him a canidate. I don't think so. As for the scandals involving the Clintons taking in millions of dollars from the middle east? Well it is a matter of public record concerning the deals and these types of things should be looked into whatever the sex of the canidate. Lastly, be honest, right now any real claim of sexism or racism is coming right from one set of Democrats against another set of Democrats. That's why your "other side" examples were so poor. Just keeping it real.

RJ REPLIES: No, I provided links to examples of sexism and racism. Neither is to a Democrat.