“When I was a boy, I used to get into it bad with my sister…
And when the time came to face the truth,
There’d only be tears and sides… tears and sides.
And my mother, my poor mother…
Would say, ‘It does not matter. It does not matter. Just stop fighting…’
Oh, do I feel… like the mother of the world. With two children… fighting…”

-Bill Callahan

I did something in late-January that I’d never done before: I gave money to a political campaign. I did something on Saturday that I’ve never done before: I spent several hours knocking on doors as a volunteer for a political campaign. I’m going to do something this evening that I’ve never done before: I’m going to go to a local campaign office to make “Get Out The Vote” (GOTV) phone calls in advance of the so-called Potomac Primaries. I have never missed an opportunity to vote in an election, but that doesn’t feel like enough this year, so I will get up early enough on Tuesday morning to be at the elementary school which serves as my polling place when the doors open. And when the campaigns have come and gone, when the votes have been tabulated and the focus has moved on to other contests in other states, I’m going to keep giving my time, my money, my effort, my interest, and my cell phone minutes. I’m doing things I’ve never done before because I’m feeling something I’ve never felt before. And it isn’t hope…

I’m a life-long Democrat. I’m a man. I’m an African American. I’m a patriot. I’m a feminist. I’m pro-military, pro-choice, pro-education and progressive. George W. Bush is the first President I ever voted against (twice). Bill Clinton is the first President I ever voted for… and I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that Senator Barack Obama is the second. Here’s why:

Enthusiasm & Exuberance

I’ve spent hour after hour listening to political candidates talk about what they intend to do if elected, but never before have I heard someone speak about empowering everyday people to become a part of the process. For my entire life, it has been a narrative of “write me a check, put a sign in your yard, buy a t-shirt, vote for me & go away…” Before Senator Obama’s campaign began, I never heard a candidate speaking consistently about the vital importance of citizens engaging in political processes on all levels at all times. After an adulthood filled with turmoil, lies, political scandals, and consternation, and after eight years of George W. Bush, vote suppression and disenfranchisement, fear-mongering, hate-mongering, and war, you couldn’t blame me one bit for feeling more cynical than ever. You couldn’t blame anyone for turning off and tuning out. Sometimes I wonder if that isn’t a vested interest of many folks in Washington. If no one is paying attention and the only requirement is to manipulate an all-too-willing media, all the better for the crooked, right? If we’re only left to choose between the lesser of two evils in every contest and few people display any interest in the political process, that’s just more money for the Enron-crowd and Big Oil. But instead of disillusionment and disinterest, what we’ve seen in the Democratic primaries to date is increased enthusiasm and involvement in every single state and a party that seems more energized than ever.

To be fair, I don’t attribute that increased enthusiasm to Senator Obama alone. It stands to reason that Democrats would be energized after having endured the second Bush administration. And it doesn’t hurt that there was a fantastic field of Democratic contenders at the outset of the race. John Edwards was an excellent representative of the populist issues that are so central to the Democratic identity. Senators Biden and Dodd are two of the most highly-respected members of the Senate, and two very outspoken critics of the Bush Administration. Governor Richardson, while not exactly the Presidential candidate of “Central Casting,” might well have been the brightest of the bunch. But it is quite fitting that this race came down to a contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Out of all the candidates, Senator Clinton most represents a repudiation of the Bush Administration by way of offering a bridge to a time before he came along to wreak so much havoc on the world stage.

Given that Bill Clinton is so inextricably linked with my personal political experience, it would seem only natural that Senator Clinton would be my candidate of choice. I have fond recollections of her transformation during her time in Washington, of her grace and poise while under the glare of the Washington klieg lights. But her candidacy inspires nothing in me because I’ve never felt as though she was speaking to me or about me. Every time I have heard Senator Clinton speak on the campaign trail, the message has been about her: Her experiences, her past, her vision, her battles, her desires, and her plans. When she listened in New Hampshire, she found her voice. But if the last sixteen years have taught me anything, it’s that the last thing I want from a President is for the entire administration to be focused on them and not on us. By contrast, when Senator Obama talks about his campaign, he constantly returns to a desire to include and engage all Americans in the process of determining the future of our nation. He seems to truly believe that power flows to and through the government from the people, and the people are his focus. When I went to the local Obama campaign office there was a steady stream of first-time volunteers ready to get trained and go canvassing door-to-door. It takes a lot of commitment to walk around knocking on doors in someone else’s neighborhood. Don’t let anyone convince you that it’s easy. I went with my best friend and we met several other Obama volunteers and supporters in the neighborhood we canvassed. Every one of them was enthusiastic and energized about this election. Is it any wonder that turnout has doubled in some states? Is it any wonder, that his campaign has attracted record numbers of donors and volunteers? In a time of increasing polarization, when we are told that things are only going to get worse and uglier, and more negative, is it any wonder that someone who speaks of a Presidency beyond partisanship is garnering such intense interest?

Beyond Division, Polarization, Excuses

I’m proud to be an African American, but I refuse to let race define me. I was raised with the awareness that the color of my skin would undoubtedly impact (positively and negatively) how some people viewed me. But more importantly, I’m thankful that I was also raised with the awareness that the content of my character and the meaning of my actions had a much greater potential to positively impact how other people view me and, over time, how people view other people who look like me. I strive to treat people, regardless of race, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, or other qualities, according to that same standard. Yet I can’t help but notice how when I turn on the television, a lot of pundits seem to be assessing this election through the simplistic narrative of the “onlys.” You’ve heard it, even if you didn’t recognize it: Whites only vote for whites. Blacks only vote for blacks. Women only vote for women. (I laughed when I heard a journalist ask how she and other African-American women will decide in this election; I’d been wondering how that calculus was supposed to work myself.) If the argument isn’t being framed as an “only”, it is usually being phrased as a “won’t” or a “can he.” “White men won’t vote for Hillary.” “Can Obama get ‘The White Vote’?” “Can he win in states without a large black population?” It isn’t just happening on television. I’ve heard people discussing these fallacies masquerading as facts in restaurants and on the subway. I can only wonder if people have ever heard of Iowa. Nebraska? North Dakota? Maine? Barack Obama can and already has reached across all sorts of demographic lines in gaining support and the reason is simple: He isn’t running as the black Presidential candidate. He’s a Presidential candidate who happens to be black. His skin color has undoubtedly impacted his experiences and his views, but it is not determinative of his thoughts, his positions, his tactics or his campaign. Isn’t that the way it should be?

One contrast between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton seems to be their personal style. I have the utmost respect for Senator Clinton, but she cannot help but be representative of the 90s for a number of people, simply because she has been so clearly defined by her husband’s term in office. Indeed, she has quite naturally been defining herself, her vision, and her experience in the context of the Clinton Presidency and there is undoubtedly a great deal of good will among Democrats for President Clinton, as well there should be. But it is difficult for me to square that conscious choice with her decision, after the Iowa Caucuses, to co-opt Senator Obama’s message in branding herself as “the change candidate,” quite simply because she is so inconsistent in doing so. It is difficult to conjure up the Clinton Presidency without thinking of what a divisive time period the 90s were. I don’t place that exclusively at the feet of Bill and Hillary, and I don’t consider it whining or complaining when Senator Clinton brings it up. She bares the scars of some bruising political fights, and she has every right to wear her experience, survival, and success in those fights as a badge of pride. But I don’t think you can blame me for wanting to go in a different direction after four straight terms of bitter, bitter division and polarization. A message of revenge doesn’t move me in the same way as a message of vision and bipartisanship does. In a battle of contrasting styles, Senator Clinton can’t help but lose a so-called “Change Election” in an environment where people are so clearly fatigued with partisan rancor. This election comes down to a choice between score-settling and course-setting, and I can’t help but be moved by someone with a clear idea of where they would like to take us, how they would like to involve us, and what they would like to see us contribute to the dialogue and the process.

I’ve also grown weary of excuses during this primary season. The Clintons have had the better part of 20 years to build a political machine on a national scale. They have had that strategic advantage over every other candidate in the Democratic field. And yet after Barack Obama’s surprising win in Iowa, what did we hear? Caucuses aren’t fair. After South Carolina, what did we hear? It’s no big deal. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. There are SOOO MANY BLACK PEOPLE DOWN THERE! After Super Tuesday, what did we hear? Well, he had more money to spend on television ads than we did… After the delegate gap began to close, what did we hear? Well, we should change the rules and seat those delegates I “won” in Florida and Michigan when you guys weren’t on the ballot.

Maybe caucuses aren’t fair, but the Democratic Party in Iowa and several other states decided that was the system they wanted to use. There is an active African-American voting base in South Carolina. They are not a monolith. You campaigned there. Many of them liked someone else’s ideas better than yours. Barack Obama did have more money than you on Super Tuesday. He raised it fair and square, $50 at a time, from hard working Americans who are also going to vote, volunteer, make phone calls, write emails, etc. The party organizations in Florida and Michigan are being punished by the Democratic National Party for moving up their primaries to “increase their importance.” And isn’t it a funny thing how that worked out: They would have been even more important if they had stayed in the same place in the election cycle that they’d traditionally held AND they’d have the benefit of having their delegates seated without so much wrangling and hand-wringing (and without the need for state conventions or additional caucusing as we’re almost certainly going to see in the weeks and months to come). My point is this: When Senator Clinton won elections, Barack Obama and John Edwards congratulated her on a hard-fought contest and pledged to do more going forward. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a candidate that changes their approach and makes an additional effort than one that changes the rules and makes additional excuses.

Purple States

Another important factor in my decision to support Senator Obama is his stated and demonstrated interest in winning elections “down ticket.” It is not enough for Democrats to take back the White House. As we have seen, it isn’t even enough to have a majority in Congress. If a Democrat is going to be our next President, I believe it is also vitally important that he or she be able to grow the Democratic majority. Let’s face facts: The mainstream media has been too cowed in the last decade or so to admit it, but since Democrats regained control of Congress, we’ve seen one Republican filibuster after another. You probably haven’t heard the word filibuster often since the “nuclear option” was being discussed back when Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist was conducting malpractice on the best parts of our democracy. But the truth of the matter is as long as the Democratic majority in Congress is too slim to overcome a GOP filibuster or a Republican President’s veto threat, our nation is in trouble. Presented with a choice between building a war chest and contributing money and other resources to help Democratic candidates in contested elections across the country, Hillary Clinton chose the former. Barack Obama chose the latter.

Taking a step beyond that, precisely because Hillary Clinton is so divisive, and because she is so likely to energize the Republican base and unite them against her, I do not think she is our best nominee. I believe Barack Obama is our best nominee precisely because of the unique nature of his candidacy. He appeals to independents and mainstream Republicans because he seeks to engage them in the discussion. It doesn’t mean he is going to moderate his ideas. It does mean he knows how to moderate the dialogue. That is vitally important. Telling the American people, “If I am your President, I will work to make government transparent, accessible, and accountable,” is exactly what people want and need to hear after eight years of Vice President Cheney sitting down with the oil companies to write energy policy in the Old Executive Office Building and shutting us out of the process.

I have friends who are Republicans. I have family members who are Republicans. I’ve dated Republicans (okay, just one). Republican is not a dirty word! There are plenty of intelligent, honest, gifted, courageous people around this country who happen to be of the other party. Does anyone remember Lincoln Chafee? If you had to choose a co-sponsor for a bill, would you rather work with Olympia Snowe or Joe Lieberman? We are not going to be able to move this country forward without Republicans. That is a fact. Bipartisanship does not mean capitulation. What we need in the Democratic Party is leadership with the ability to differentiate between independents and mainstream Republicans and the rest of the GOP. Barack Obama is the best candidate to marginalize the neo-cons, militant social conservatives, and the right wing fanatics and drive a wedge between them and the rational, reality-based wing of the Republican Party. His message is about giving government back to the People. His strategy is about offering appealing alternatives to centrist Republicans, moderates & independents with a combination of charisma and ideas. When he talks about seeing America on the campaign trail, rather than seeing blue states and red states, that’s what he means. It is vital to our cause that the GOP be forced to spend money contesting local, state, and national elections in every single state in this union. It is vital that the Democratic Party chooses a candidate for President that can “make Red States Purple.

Who’s afraid of Big, Bad Rove?

The last matter I want to address is the notion that Senator Obama isn’t ready to face John McCain, or the Republican slime machine, or the swift boaters, or Karl Rove and his nasty bag of tricks. I’ll answer that charge with a question: When did we become the party of fear? Did Karl Rove crash-land from the planet Krypton? Does he dress for work in a phone booth? Senator Clinton seems to want us to believe that if Barack Obama is our nominee, the Republicans are going to have some special voodoo waiting for him. Here’s a newsflash: Whoever wins the Democratic Primary is going to have a tough road ahead. Running for President is hard work, and there will certainly be slings and arrows at the ready, and dangers, toils and snares along the way. A good candidate should be confident that the road will be hard. An honest candidate should be confident that they have nothing to hide and anything that “just pops up” can be rightly deflected as a lie and a smear. I was raised to believe that if you went to class, took good notes, studied hard, and did your homework, the test would be just another step along the way. I was also raised to believe that the worst lie anyone could tell about you will always be less than a truth that stains your character. But it took a village to drive that lesson home.

Senator Clinton also wants us to believe that her experience is more valuable than Senator Obama’s, and that she will be ready to lead the country “on day one.” She wants us to believe that Barack Obama is too young and inexperienced, and that only she has the mettle to step into the Oval Office and rise to the occasion. Experience is incredibly important, but it is no substitute for hard work, good judgment and the ability to process information. In 2002, Senator Clinton’s judgment led her to vote to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq. Her “leadership” allowed her to do so without having read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq provided to her in advance of the decision. Education is important to me, and in a time of great peril, Hillary Clinton seemed to think that experience was more important than educating herself. In short, she was either outwitted by or she trusted George W. Bush. Was it experience or a lack of political courage to stand against populist calls for revenge in the wake of September 11th? Only a few short months ago, Senator Clinton voted in support of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, an amendment which declared Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Given President Bush’s saber-rattling on Iran and his propensity for “pre-emptive” warfare, that decision was tantamount to a carbon copy of her Iraq blunder. As our President is so well know for saying, “Fool me once… shame on you. Fool me… you can’t get fooled again.”

Experience does count, but so does leadership. So does judgment. So does a capacity to learn from your mistakes and to adapt your methodology to meet the circumstances you face. So does a capacity to remember the past but not be a slave to it. So does an ability to speak to people in a language that inspires them to do more and to be more, to expect more from themselves and also from each other. Senator Obama often gets criticized by Senator Clinton for not having enough experience, but she is not the sole arbiter of the value of experience and she is not the only person who can decide which experiences matter. America is not Washington, and Washington is not America. I find it offensive on many levels that someone is trumpeting their time being married to the President as being formative and significant while subtly denigrating or ignoring the experience of someone who served for eight years in a state legislature and worked, prior to that time, to help the poor and the disenfranchised find their voice and use it. That doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the nature of the Democratic Party. In fact, it seems to be in direct conflict with the values we claim to espouse.

In closing, let me say this: I don’t hate Hillary Clinton. She simply isn’t my preferred candidate in the Democratic primary. In large measure, I think she would make a fine President and would definitely be superior to Senator John McCain. If she is the eventual Democratic nominee, barring further campaign trail-shenanigans and race-baiting from Bill, she will certainly have my vote, if not my enthusiasm or my money on her side. But when I get up to vote tomorrow morning, I will be voting for Barack Obama. And in the days to follow, I’ll be doing everything I can to support his candidacy. I’ve felt hopeful before; I’m voting for Barack Obama because I feel something much more substantial than hope. I’m voting for Barack Obama because I know that from now on, when people say that the American people can’t do something positive, tangible, and substantial to make the world we live in better, I won’t be alone in responding: Yes, We Can!