"For they alone are enabled to call a thing hoped for a thing got, by the speed with which they act upon their resolutions."
- Thucydides, "The History of the Peloponnesian War"
Democrats should feel fortunate that for the first time in a while they have two competent and qualified candidates running a tight race for the presidential nomination. Of course, amid the hype surrounding this year's primary, it's easy to be distracted by the policy pledges of each candidate. But beneath the rhetoric and the rancor, there are three promises from Sen. Barack Obama that merit him this nomination - the promise of hope, the promise of change and the promise of unity.
Hope, the cynics have sneered, is the proverbial carrot dangled in front of a donkey to keep it plodding along, unthinking and uncomplaining. But people who give you hope are not merely peddling promises or capitalizing on dreams that have no chance of becoming fulfilled. Though Sen. Hillary Clinton would call it "all hat and no cowboy," for every doubting Thomas there is a Saint Peter, a rock of conviction and potential, holding firm against hesitation and suspicion. Obama offers something far more special (and more challenging) than simply hope.
Standing in front of more than 20,000 people in Austin Friday night, the senator from Illinois did much more than offer worthless platitudes to his adoring masses (though, of course, there were a few of those). He promised the assembled multitudes that, under his presidency, they will have the ability to make the world the way they would like. He offered no easy solutions for dealing with the catastrophes of the Bush administration. He offered no magic cure for "Libby justice, Brownian incompetence and Karl Rovian politics," aside from the antidote only our own heads, hands and hearts can provide. He offered nothing more than a "black guy named Barack Obama who's running for president," and a vow that he'll be "tough enough" to tackle the problems that face this nation. Hope, he reminded us, shouldn't spring from the president; it should spring from ourselves.
Change is more difficult to qualify. Clinton claims she is running on "35 years of change," and accuses Obama of using "change you can Xerox." Spectacularly scripted and unhumorous as those moments were, we must understand that Clinton does not come close to offering the change this country desperately needs. Those 35 years of change were filled with political horse-trading and favor-collecting with the same Democratic leadership that has passively stood aside as the Bush administration has run roughshod over the Constitution and the rest of the world. Clinton's appeal rests on her ability to make a smooth transition after Bush, but this is not the change America needs.
If Clinton were to win the presidency this and hold office for the next eight years, more than a third of the population would have never lived under a presidential administration that didn't include a Bush or a Clinton. Many voters, rightfully concerned for their future in today's faltering economy and unstable global situation, perhaps see this "experienced" monarchial stability as a good thing. But when Bill Clinton was fighting for his party's political life against Newt Gingrich's Republican takeover in the 1994 mid-term election, Obama was a community organizer and lecturing on Constitutional Law in Chicago. When Hillary was sticking by Bill Clinton as he was facing impeachment from the House in 1998, Obama was working in the Illinois Senate to pass strict campaign finance laws, an issue he has continued to champion in the U.S. Senate. Democrats may be willing to give the Clintons a pass for these indiscretions, but the redder half of America will not do the same.
Thus Obama's promise to unify the country is his most important, and difficult, undertaking. If nominated, Clinton, whose political competence, at least, has hardly been tainted by the scandals of her husband's administration, would come into a general election with an immediate disadvantage against a Republican. In most polls (including one Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll released Sunday), literally half of America's voting public have indicated that they would not consider voting for Clinton to be president. We have seen eight years of the disaster that can be wreaked upon a bi-polar country by a purposefully divisive administration; we cannot handle eight more.
Of course, if it were only the scandals of her husband's presidency that concerned America, Clinton could still make a fine choice. Unfortunately, it is the way that the Clintons have been running their campaigns that should give the Democratic electorate the most pause for thought as they enter the polls next Tuesday.
Hillary Clinton is the candidate of "gradualism," "triangulation" and "micro-trends." Her campaign has looked to slice the country into tiny slivers of competing interest, and it hopes to convince (or coerce) just enough Americans for long enough to gain the power she believes she's earned by patiently waiting her turn in the Democratic hierarchy.
That is one reason why Obama's recent streak of primary victories have been so important. He has proven to be a truly universal candidate by appealing to (and winning) voters of every age, race and ideology. He has survived attacks against his level of experience by letting his progressive legislative accomplishments speak for themselves (even when his campaign spokespeople can't). He has kept the high ground after having his unique background attacked from both the left and the right. Moreover, he has been honest about his failures and foibles, and realistic about how hard a fight it will be to undo the work of the Bush administration. And fight we shall. Not in four years, not in eight years, but in the only time we have left - the "fierce urgency of now."
Vickers is a Plan II senior.
Be the first to comment on this article!