As if my endorsement means more than the major newspapers in Texas (the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Austin American-Statesman, and the San Antonio Express-News have all endorsed Mr. Obama), I still recommend the junior Senator from Illinois for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
Much has been made of Senator Obama’s “lack of experience.” While it is true that his scant four years in the United States Senate means that he is less experienced than either his Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, or the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, experience does necessarily qualify people for the presidency. One of the most experienced presidents this country has ever had was Herbert Hoover, who entered the office with over thirty years of experience in politics and policy. Similarly, Richard Nixon had over thirty-five years in the political arena before being elected president in 1968. Hoover and Nixon were competent presidents in certain areas, but both failed spectacularly in others. Experience is never the ultimate arbiter of successful presidencies – Abraham Lincoln was a one-term Congressman and unsuccessful candidate for the United States Senate who was summarily elected president only when three other candidates fractured the electorate. Interestingly enough, no president has ever hailed from Illinois since Lincoln.
On matters of policy, there is virtually no difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Their major area of contention revolves around the issue of health care – Senator Clinton charges that Mr. Obama’s plan will leave up to 15 million uninsured. While the specific plan put forth by Mr. Obama may in fact leave out some people (although not the 15 million that the Clinton camp claims), there is no chance that these specific plans will be the one enacted by the Congress. Further, Mr. Obama’s (granted, limited) history in legislating suggests that he would be amenable to compromise with Republican adversaries in a way that Mrs. Clinton would not be. In her ill-fated 1994 attempt to pass a health care plan, the then-First Lady doomed her attempt by refusing to allow surrogates in the Senate to compromise with moderates and conservatives in order to pass the legislation. While she has made some attempts to create a bipartisan record since then (most notably in getting the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan, known as S-CHIP, passed in her husband’s second term), there is little evidence that Republicans in Congress would be willing to work with her on these issues.
On this note, it should be of critical importance for Democrats to maintain and expand their majorities in the House and the Senate. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s “fifty-state strategy” is a noble start in this area, something any nominee for the presidency should be expected to maintain and expand upon. Troubling in this is Senator Clinton’s seeming tone-deafness towards those in non-traditional Democratic states. When chief strategist Mark Penn, and even former President Clinton, suggesting that states that Mr. Obama has won are “not important,” Democrats everywhere should take pause and ask themselves whether or not they want divide-and-conquer politics, so famously promoted by George W. Bush master strategist Karl Rove, to continue for another four, or possibly eight, years.
Senator Clinton’s electability and ability to sweep in majorities is an issue Democrats should factor in. With eight years of a disastrous Bush presidency winding down, Democrats everywhere are almost frenetic with joy at the possibility of a major landslide victory this November. However, with Senator Clinton at the top of the ballot, the case can be made that down-ticket races will suffer. Recent polls have suggested that Senator Clinton would lose to Senator McCain in “Democratic” states such as Oregon and Pennsylvania by five and two points, respectively. With a critical Senate race in Oregon against Gordon Smith, a strong showing by Mr. McCain would almost surely doom the Democratic nominee in Oregon against the Republican incumbent. Elsewhere, Senate races in Colorado, Maine, New Mexico, Virginia, and even races such as Texas and Alaska being competitive, means that a strong Democratic nominee at the top of the ticket would be essential to maintaining Democratic control of the Congress.
With Mr. McCain’s “maverick” persona, he can attract the critical independent vote in a way that Senator Clinton just cannot do. However, Senator Obama has already shown the ability to attract a sizeable majority of independents and yes, even some Republicans, to his side in the primaries. Building a permanent Democratic majority requires this sort of ability. Senator Obama has the chance to become the Democrat’s Ronald Reagan, combining the hopes and dreams that have been developing in the four and a half decades since Camelot was ended on a November day in Dallas, with a pragmatic, results-based approach that makes him the ideal candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. Yes, Mr. Obama can.
