Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

I read an article in this morning’s New York Times about how Barack Obama went from describing himself as a skeptic to describing himself as a Christian believer. Not so coincidentally, this conversion from skepticism to religious faith took place at the same time that Obama began his political career.

Now, as I hear Barack Obama give his speeches, it seems that he’s trying to use religious tones to get citizens to give their support based on the power of feeling rather than the power of depth and sense. It all seems like a self-conscious put-on, like Obama believes what everyone else says about him, and loves the sound of his own voice.

Maybe Barack Obama has picked up the support of a lot of religious voters with this approach. I can say this for me, however. The more that Barack Obama goes along using religion as a prop in his campaign, the less I identify with his campaign. I would appreciate a genuinely skeptical candidate, smart enough to doubt when doubt is called for, rather than a candidate who is willing to surrender skepticism when the call to power is heard.

Over at the California Progress Report I read something that strongly resonated with me:

“The San Francisco Chronicle article in this morning’s paper, summed up the situation in a nutshell with the following paragraph which I think hit the nail on the head:

Parsing through both her speech and that of Obama, it is hard to find major differences on issues and policies, and most delegates were hard pressed to articulate the differences, except on the perhaps on the war in Iraq, where both candidates favor withdrawal and have voted for withdrawal of troops. When it comes to the issues of health care, education, the environment, there is broad general agreement.”

I felt this watching the debate, too: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama don’t really have that much policy difference between them. Senator Clinton emphasizes expanded health care coverage a great deal more, but Senator Obama does not disagree with that. Senator Obama likes to talk about how he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning,” which is really convenient because he was not in the position of having to do anything about it at the time, but now Senator Clinton has essentially moved to his position on the war (surprise, people of excellent minds reconsider and change).

The main differences between them are:

1. OK, I admit it, Barack Obama can be more fiery at times on the stump. He is a grassroots organizer. Hillary Clinton has extensive contacts within the political establishment and works well with the movers and shakers.

2. Hillary Clinton has a lot more experience, going back to the 1970s, in politics, advocacy and government. Barack Obama’s experience is good. But you just can’t deny that Hillary Clinton has more experience.

The two most popular Democratic politicians have different styles and appeals. They can speak effectively to different audiences. They have similar or at least compatible policy agendas. And while Barack Obama certainly has enough experience to be president, Hillary Clinton has a great deal more experience than the more junior Senator does.

The conclusion is obvious to me: our party’s ticket in 2008 should be a Clinton-Obama ticket. Then, in 2016, Barack Obama should run for president in his own right, capping off the Clinton legacy with one of his own.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
P.S. People here have been casting aspersions upon me without any proof. This is why I do not respond in comment sections of blogs; I know from hard experience that very hurtful flame wars happen there. Yes, I am a Hillary Clinton fanatic. No, I do not work for the Hillary Clinton campaign. I am a citizen who cares very, very, very much. That is all you need to know.