Who, Why, and What is Barack Obama?
Jonathan Nathan (Moundridge, KS, USA) 1 February 2008

I suppose there's hardly any point in raising a question like this anymore.  The Democratic primary process has all but concluded.  Excelsior!  A cheer for democracy!  The people have spoken, the system has worked, and soon we'll have a new boss exactly like the old boss, at least in all the ways that matter.

The media decided that the sensationalism of Hillary Clinton and the fresh "excitement" of Barack Obama were just what this Presidential race needed.  The guys with the experience, the know-how, the drive, the desire, and the just plain decency to do the right thing for this country?  Well, they just weren't exciting enough.  Goodbye, John Edwards and Bill Richardson.  We hardly knew ye.  And that was the way the media wanted it.

So we're left with Clinton and Obama.  I can't count the number of people who have urged me to go to my local Kansas caucusing site and do my part for Barack Obama.  "Every vote counts, you know," they tell me.  "We need a change," they say.  "Hillary's the establishment!" they cry.

Gimme a damn break, you lot.  Barack Obama's been the establishment since the moment Democratic bigwigs latched onto his "black-guy-that-white-people-can-like" image.  Hillary's the establishment too, of course, because that's how the establishment likes to do it.  They put up a bunch of candidates that all work for their interests, to make it seem like you've got a choice.  You want the devil on the right or the devil on the left?  They put out a concerted effort to destroy and worse, ignore the campaigns of Richardson and Edwards, so now they have their bland, moderate, middle-of-the-road, do-nothing-important-or-of-note Democratic candidates.

These aren't the kinds of Democrats who give rousing keynote speeches at the 1984 Democratic Convention.  These aren't the kinds of Democrats who defeat the Great Depression.  These are the kinds of Democrats who jump out of their seats behind the President to congratulate him when he has the temerity to, in his State of the Union address, denounce genocide.  These are the kinds of Democrats who lose a Presidential race and THEN figure out what it means to be liberal.  No Mario Cuomos or Franklin Roosevelts here.  These are Nancy Pelosis and Al Gores.

But beyond all of this, the question remains: as Democratic-registered voters, who should we pick?  Who has the best chance of defeating a hypothetical Republican McRomnibaul?  Many say the answer is Barack Obama.

But who is Barack Obama?  What are his policies?  Why is he relevant?  Why is he running?  What does he mean to American politics?  The answers to these questions are far too bland, vague, and uninspiring.  Hillary Clinton may not be any better of a candidate, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking we've picked a great Presidential prospect.  Even if he is elected, which is quite an uncertainty in a year that should have been a Democratic lockup, what good will he do?  What will he matter?

Go to sleep at night, all you Democrats who killed Edwards' and Richardson's campaigns, and think about that.  Think about what you did, and what you didn't do, so you could be proud of yourselves for putting up a black candidate or a female candidate.  You have delayed the saving of this country for your own weak-minded needs.