My Presidential Endorsement

« Things Ain’t Lookin’ Good for McCain/Palin | Main | Liveblogging the 2008 Election »

My Presidential Endorsement

By Brian | November 4, 2008 | Share on Facebook

Well, it’s that time again. Time to throw my support behind one of the candidates for President of the United States. I’m sure many of you are of the opinion that the many celebrity endorsements of late are totally ineffectual. I’m here to show you that something can be even less convincing than celebrity endorsements. I expect to convince no one with this – only to perhaps start a (small?) discussion about my selection process.

Let’s take the candidates one at a time:

Barack Obama is an intellect and an inspirational speaker. He has a talent for problem solving that I recognize in the people I seek to hire in my (systems development) job. He doesn’t need to be an expert in everything, but has the good sense to surround himself with experts that he can trust, break a seemingly impossible problem down into solvable, component parts, and then address each part in a logical, effective way. When he’s done, he has an unusually strong talent for communicating not only his decision, but his thought process. This not only helps me understand his position, but increases my confidence in it and in him as a leader.

I agree with some of his policies and disagree with several others. I’ve seen him modify his ideas toward more common sense themes as the climate around him has changed, so I feel confident that when those ideas face the shining light of the media and the congress, they will get pared down into more effective and, in some cases, less damaging laws. For example, I think his tax plan is a knee-jerk reaction to the Bush tax cuts, and will work to the desired effect – narrowing the gap between the rich and the middle-class. Except I think this will happen by making the middle-class a little bit richer and the rich a lot less rich. I think this will be accompanied by an increase in unemployment, a decrease in innovation and a decrease in GDP and worker productivity (unless another growth curve sweeps up the entire economy like the dotcom boom did in the late 90s). I think his health care plan is filled with fairly obvious “gotchas” (like the fact that the congressional health care plan will become much more expensive when the insured population goes from the relatively small and homogeneous federal employee pool to hundreds of thousands of the poorest Americans). And I think his foreign policy statements show a bit of naivete that will lead to Carter-like successes that turn out to be long-run failures, despite the smiling faces and White House Lawn handshakes.

Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, strikes me as a guy who goes along to get along. He’s been in the Senate a long time, and is not afraid to speak his mind – often breaking through the thick smog of talking points to say something so clear and common-sense that it’s striking to hear it. I don’t know much about his personal politics, but I get the sense that he knows a moderate amount about a lot of things, and a great deal about how to get things done in Washington, DC. If Obama is elected, I think he will be a strong asset to Obama because he can help mitigate that naivete with a dose of pragmatic realism.

John McCain is a patriot, a war hero, and perhaps the most technically qualified man to run for President in my memory. He, like Biden, will often break through the noise with a common-sense approach to problem solving that goes against the political punditry, but gets high marks from the public anyway because of its honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, McCain has an unbelievably low level of self-confidence when it comes to campaigning. Someone (perhaps himself?) has managed to convince him that speaking your mind and offering your reasoned opinion to the questions/issues of the day is not how you win an election. That, he seems to believe, is done with a carefully crafted and well-tested set of talking points that must be repeated often enough to break through the filters of the casual observer, while driving the politically interested insane with the monotony.

Never was the gap between his campaigning prowess and his leadership prowess clearer than during the Republican convention, when McCain turned a (mostly) political stunt – cancelling the first night of the convention because of Hurricane Gustav – into a clear demonstration of leadership in crisis – flying delegates back to their home states in planes large enough to get their families out if need be, touring emergency preparedness centers without the media and then offering a balanced, sometimes critical assessment of how preparations were going, and allowing the governors of the gulf coast states to work with his wife and Laura Bush to proactively raise money for those affected by the storm. McCain has proven himself able to deal with military crisis and national crisis, but seems to fold up like a paper bag when faced with political crisis. It is the same problem, in my opinion, that befell Al Gore and John Kerry in the past two elections.

As with Obama, I agree with some of his policies and disagree with others. I think cutting the corporate tax rate and making the Bush tax cuts permanent is a good idea. I think taxing employer health care contributions in favor of a voucher system for employees is unworkable, because it leaves too much room for manipulation and corruption. I think he understands foreign policy like few others do, but would inherit George W. Bush’s credibility problems (fairly or unfairly), putting us at a disadvantage from Day 1.

His running mate, Sarah Palin, has certainly generated a great deal of ink and pixels. I think McCain wasted an opportunity to review the vast array of people he’s worked with in the Senate over the years and select a true lieutenant; someone he knows he works well with and can trust to help him form his strategies and then see them through. Instead, he chose to make a political calculation, playing to key constituencies to win the presidency. In doing so, I think he relegated the role of the Vice President to what it was before Dick Cheney (and Al Gore before him) redefined it to be a more active political position. If elected, Governor Palin would likely champion a couple of key issues (probably children with special needs and energy reform), and remain on the sidelines for just about everything else.

Some have questioned Palin’s qualifications to hold the office of Vice President. I happen to believe that she’s every bit as qualified and capable of holding the position as the dozens of governors that have come before her, both as Vice Presidential candidates and as Presidential candidates. She’s successfully run Alaska, a state which strikes me as more complex to manage than most due to its dispersed population, its severe conditions which cause unique problems in areas like public safety and commerce, and its position as one of few states which contains energy producing natural resources (not because of its proximity to Russia). Sarah Palin’s sin is the greatest of all sins in modern America – she doesn’t come across well when speaking to the public. She strikes me as someone who just wants to get to work, because she’s much more successful at doing the work than she is at talking about doing the work. Unfortunately, our 24-hour media needs a story, and the temptation to make someone look foolish (be they a beauty queen, a pop singer, a hotel heiress, or a candidate for office) is just too strong. Sarah Palin gave them every opportunity to poke fun at her, and they took advantage of every one. In that, she joins the ranks of George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon and many others over the years. Is it deserved? Perhaps. As the most recent recipient of this treatment, though, her story comes ever closer to (or crosses?) the line between social commentary and blatant disrespect for the office to which she aspires, but that’s a battle I don’t expect to win, let alone fight.

So, at the end of the day, my choice for President this year comes down not so much to the issues, but to the mind that will weigh in on them. I think, as Colin Powell so eloquently said on Meet the Press, that both men would make fine presidents. I think our country has some serious issues to work through, but that both men would try their level best to address them. Both would strive to “Put Country First” and create “Change We Can Believe In,” whatever that means. But only one candidate has shown me the ability to stay engaged, stay thinking, and stay focused when the spotlight got white hot. That man is Barack Obama, and that makes him my choice for President.

Agree? Disagree? Great. Leave a comment and let me know your thoughts. Then, stop surfing the ‘net and get out there and vote for somebody. Anybody. OK? Thanks…

Topics: Political Rantings | 8 Comments »

8 Responses to “My Presidential Endorsement”

Jeff Porten says at November 4th, 2008 at 4:55 pm :

Huh. Okay, knock me over with a feather.
Ilya says at November 5th, 2008 at 6:57 am :

Well put, Brian. My deliverations were quite similar to yours, but I still went for McCain primarily so as not to award Democrats both the legislative and the executive branch.
Brian says at November 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am :

Agreed, Ilya. I voted for the Republican candidate for both House and Senate, despite knowing little to nothing about them, for the same reason. Alas, that was in vain.

Given the “blame first, act later” nature of the Pelosi/Reid crowd, I fully expect Obama to follow the Clinton model – two years of getting in his own way, followed by a big Republican victory in 2010, followed by two years of far greater success….
Jeff Porten says at November 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm :

Aaaaand we’re back to the breathtaking cynicism.

Here’s why you’re wrong on your two-year prediction: the Congressional Dems who have not been able to find their asses with both hands will now have a president telling them, “Here’s your ass, now grab it.” The Congressional GOP who have served as Bush sycophants for 7.75 years (until the bailout) will now have to rely on a shrinking echo chamber for guidance. Meanwhile, Obama transition team is studying historical texts on the New Deal.

My prediction: the success or failure of several Big Item Obama Initiatives will determine the momentum, and that will be based on whether Obama maintains the frickin’ army I saw last night as a grassroots force. Republicans will be too busy eating their young to do much more than token resistance, and 2010 will be sabotaged by the group who thinks the problem is that they don’t have enough Palins.
Brian says at November 5th, 2008 at 2:19 pm :

I hope you’re right (except the Republicans eating their young, of course), but I’d still like to know how you see this as different than Clinton, circa 1992.

On inauguration day, everyone agreed on the need for a stimulus package. They “worked” on it for a month and wound up raising the cost of cigarettes. Remember these jokers trying to agree on a war timetable to send Bush? And that was when they knew he was going to veto. Imagine how long they’ll bicker when they know the law will be passed. Scoring an approval rating that’s even lower than G.W.Bush’s is quite an accomplishment…

The grassroots army will dissipate in two weeks (or until Paris Hilton or Brittney Spears does something interesting again, whichever comes first). Politics is interesting to the masses up to election night, then it becomes boring real fast…
Jeff Porten says at November 5th, 2008 at 7:01 pm :

I’d still like to know how you see this as different than Clinton, circa 1992.

Easy, and two answers:

1) When Clinton came into office, the Democratic Congress had constituted the name recognition and de facto leadership for the party for the previous 12 years. It was tailor made for infighting and factionalism. In 2008, no one in the Congress has been a breakout name who wasn’t also running for president. (Pelosi has a historical profile, but I don’t see her as a power center against Obama.)

Essentially, Democrats have been excellent at creating circular firing squads, and we did so in 1992. This time, I think Congress has been collectively waiting for the White House, and you’re going to see a hell of a lot more lockstep. Your key team for Congressional influence is Biden-Clinton-Pelosi-Emanuel; that’s one hell of a lineup.

2) If I remember correctly, in 1992 no one was making open comparisons between 1993 and 1933. Or was concerned about the successful prosecution of a two-front war. I think there’s a perception that some bold initiatives are going to be coming out of the White House, and opposition runs the risk of being dropped into the dustbin of history with Wendell Wilkie. That’s a recipe for public interparty opposition, but for intraparty negotiation rather than sniping and factionalism.

Imagine how long they’ll bicker when they know the law will be passed. Scoring an approval rating that’s even lower than G.W.Bush’s is quite an accomplishment…

Hey, we’re in agreement that the 2006 Congress was abysmal. They were sent to Congress to stop the war, and instead of presenting a clear alternative to Bush, they largely clucked like chickens.

Which is why they’re going to be more effective now; there’s a clear blueprint agenda in the White House, and no opposing agenda coming from elsewhere in the party. The party standard bearer is set for the next four years at least. So the process of getting things done is good for country, party, and individual members of Congress. That’s a solid virtuous cycle.

The grassroots army will dissipate in two weeks (or until Paris Hilton or Brittney Spears does something interesting again, whichever comes first). Politics is interesting to the masses up to election night, then it becomes boring real fast…

The masses, yes. I’m not talking about the masses, I’m talking about the troops. What I saw yesterday was unlike anything I’ve ever seen. And I’ve seen presidential campaigns before. I remember when we thought Bill Clinton was Kennedy. This was different. Give those people something to do — and I expect Obama is smart enough to do that — and no one is going to go home.
Brian says at November 6th, 2008 at 2:58 pm :

Hey, we’re in agreement that the 2006 Congress was abysmal. They were sent to Congress to stop the war, and instead of presenting a clear alternative to Bush, they largely clucked like chickens. . . . Which is why they’re going to be more effective now

This strikes me as a leap of logic, to say the least.

I take your point that the times are considerably more urgent now, and Obama’s riding a wave of public support that surpasses what Clinton had in ’92. That said, I think you’re underestimating folks like Jack Murtha, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, and yes – even Hillary Clinton. I think there’s a lot of folks who’ve been waiting in the wings a long time now, and they all want to be center stage.

After the supposed repudiation of all things Republican in 2006, the problem wasn’t just lack of leadership from Pelosi (e.g., taking forever to pass the minimum wage increase), but also a strong need to be the dominant face in Congress (Reid: “we’ve already lost the war;” Murtha: “withdraw all the troops now”, etc.). It caused some very public bickering, and the creation of a “timetable” that was so convoluted, it lacked the kind of support they wanted to be able to blame Bush on for vetoing.

Obama may be a unifying force, but asking those folks to put their egos aside is a tall order, especially come January, when we’ve had two months & a Christmas season to forget all the waving flags and chanting crowds…
Jeff Porten says at November 7th, 2008 at 10:31 pm :

This strikes me as a leap of logic, to say the least.

Not at all. It takes a very different set of political skills to manage an ascendant party than it does to be loyal opposition. I think both the Democrats and the Republicans have forgotten them — which is why I’ll be expecting a regular stream of Vince Foster-style attacks starting up pretty much immediately. (I also think that Obama has managed the trick have those attacks make the attackers look bad, and I hope he maintains it.)

I think you’re underestimating folks like Jack Murtha, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, and yes – even Hillary Clinton. I think there’s a lot of folks who’ve been waiting in the wings a long time now, and they all want to be center stage.

Right, but here’s how it works: for the next eight years, the center stage is Barack Obama. (If it’s only four years, the chances of another Democrat getting there is near nil.) All of the people you mentioned (with the exception of Murtha; his prominence was a Bush artifact) will have roles to play, and well-defined roles at that. But that’s in parallel with the White House.

I’m not saying that Congress will collectively roll over in the same way that the 2000-2006 Congress did for Bush — nor should they. But there is an electoral momentum in the presidency right now that is going to give Obama’s policies one hell of an imprimatur in Congress.

but asking those folks to put their egos aside is a tall order, especially come January, when we’ve had two months & a Christmas season to forget all the waving flags and chanting crowds…

Heh. My prediction is that Obama’s inauguration will be the largest turnout in American history. Even beyond the theater — here’s a guy whose uniqueness in office will be obvious every time you turn on the television. That’s not going to go away.