Why I'm Supporting Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton is smart, energetic, immensely knowledgeable, and, as she likes to say, hard-working. I've been appalled by the misogynous vitriol (and mean-girl snark) aimed against her. If she is the nominee I will work my heart out for her.

But right now, I'm supporting Barack Obama. On domestic politics, their differences are small-- I'm with her on health care mandates, and with him on driver's licences for undocumented immigrants; both would probably be equally good on women's rights, abortion rights and judicial appointments. But on foreign policy Obama seems more enlightened, as in less bellicose. Maybe Hillary Clinton's refusal to say her Iraq vote was wrong shows that she has neo-con sympathies; maybe she simply believes that any admission of error would tar her as weak. But we already have a warlike president who refuses to admit making mistakes, and look how that's turned out. The election of Barack Obama would send a signal to the world that the United States is taking a different tack.

When Obama won Iowa, I was surprised that I was glad. Much as I would love to pull the lever for a woman president -- a pro-choice Democratic woman president, that is --I realized at that moment how deeply unthrilled I was by the prospect of a grim vote-by-vote fight for the 50 percent+1 majority in a campaign that would rehearse all the old, (yes, mostly bogus or exaggerated) scandals and maybe turn up some new ones too. I wasn't delighted to think success would mean four more years of Bill Clinton either, or might come at the price of downticket losses, as many red-state Democrats fear. Democrats have nominated plenty of dutiful public servants over the years -- Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry . They have always lost (or in Gore's case, not won by enough to not lose). Obama may not be as progressive as we wish over here at The Nation-- and maybe someday we can have a serious conversation about why Edwards' economic populism, promoted for years by important voices at the magazine, was such a bust. But Obama is a candidate in a different mold. He's a natural politician who connects with people as Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, just doesn't, and appeals to the better angels of their nature. He sparks an enthusiasm in people--independents, the young, the previously disengaged. An Obama victory could have big positive repercussions for progressive politics.

I usually resist words like "hope" and "change." But with Supertuesday barely 36 hours away what I think is, let's go with the charismatic candidate this time. Let's go with the candidate voters feel some passion about. Let's say goodbye to the Clintons and have some new people make history.

Plenty of feminists support Obama, by the way. for example Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL, and Ellen Bravo of Nine to Five. I signed a letter from " New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama." Other signers include the historians Linda Gordon, Alice Kessler Harris and Ros Baxandall; the sociologist Judith Stacey; the political scientist Ros Petchesky,and writers Margo Jefferson and Meredith Tax. You can read it and, if you are a New York feminist, sign it, here .

Comments (48)

1. Any idea why there's no statement about abortion or reproductive rights on the Obama website? Is he on record as supporting them? If so, how strong is his support?

   Posted by Carolgould at 02/04/2008 @ 01:33am

2. kudos ms. pollitt...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 01:39am

3. Glad to see you come out for Obama, Ms Pollit.

   But I firmly disagree with the soft-shoe on Hillary Clinton. In the simplest terms, Bill's presidency was a disaster in that he completely caved in on matters of principle on multiple occasions --welfare "reform", the 1996 Federal Communications Act, summarily withdrawing (without even defending it) the nomination of the intellectually brilliant, and sophisticatedly progressive Lani Guinier as his Assistant AG for civil rights when she was unfairly attacked by a rightwing goon squad, and much more.

   And then there's the needless deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians under the inept sanctions regime.

   To be fair, Hillary Clinton is not Bill, but every indication is that she would lead in a similar fashion. That's a disaster that progressives would be wise to avoid.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/04/2008 @ 02:07am

4. all right, ms. katha.

   the clintonian-bush era must end.

   neo-dribbler and neo-conservatron have united to monarchiate the world with IMFWORLDBANK subjugation for too long.

   he ain't perfect; kind of a 5 of one, 7/12ths of the other split.

   oh well.

   350 DAYS, 21 HOURS, 47 MINUTES, AND 35.6 SECONDS TO GO......................

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 02:13am

5. Previous post from another thread:

   It would be interesting to see what the Vegas line is on the prospective Democratic nominee at this instant. My feeling is that it's pretty close to a toss-up.

   But the overriding emotional imagery portraying Barack Obama as the JFK/RFK figure, and the Hill & Bill show as the curmudgeonly spoiler ought to take its toll over the extended haul of the next couple of months.

   As much as I am not a fan of the Democratic Party establishment for their well established ineptitude, I suspect that the tide is shifting toward a more unified support of Obama. Particularly in light of the huge turnout numbers that have demonstrably been due in large part to the inspired youth demographic that Obama is drawing.

   If the Democratic apparatchiks can't see far enough to lend their support to the inspirational candidate, they'll undoubtedly harvest what they've sown --a blighted future.

   Much will depend on a solid showing for Obama on Tuesday. That's something we should all be pulling for.

   Last but not least, I would urge readers here who are MoveOn members to make a few get out the vote calls to some of the 1.7 million Moveon members who live in Super Tuesday states. If you're not currently a member of MoveOn, right now is a perfect moment to sign up and lend a helping hand --or more accurately, a gently reminding voice-- at a critical time. The GOTV calls are easy to do and are actually quite fun --try it, you'll like it :D

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/04/2008 @ 02:29am

6. Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/04/2008 @ 02:07am

   Here's something of interest from Wiki...

   An intense media campaign by various conservative critics labeled Guinier 'anti-Constitutional' and 'a quota queen,'. In addition, however, Democratic Senators such as David Pryor of Arkansas and even Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts informed President Clinton that her interviews with Senators were going poorly and urged him to withdraw the nomination. According to Clinton's autobiography, even Democratic Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, the only African-American who was serving in the upper chamber at that time, urged the President to withdraw Guinier's nomination. President Clinton took the advice of these seasoned politicians and withdrew her nomination, claiming he was unfamiliar with her writing and that he didn't realize that she advocated pure racial quotas as opposed to affirmative action, even though he was close friends with Guinier for years. President Clinton claimed to be troubled to learn that she supported a system of proportional representation in local elections, where voters would be given multiple votes that he could spread out as he saw fit. His White House counsel, Bernard Nussbaum, later acknowledged that the President was in fact aware of Guinier's positions on these issues but thought that her overall resume would overcome such handicaps.

   Posted by ACook at 02/04/2008 @ 02:37am

7. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM @ 02:27am

   That's really great news.

   After the pummeling that Hillary took in SC, if she gets beat --by even a relatively small margin-- in terms of delegates (and possibly even number of states won) on Super Tuesday she's seriously cooked. The news headlines around the planet will be screaming Obama's name in shock and delight, and Hillary's tears will rain down like a tropical deluge.

   And there won't be much question about their authenticity this time.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/04/2008 @ 02:39am

8. i thought it was a crock when jocelyn elders got torpedoed from being surgeon general cause she encouraged kids to masturbate rather than have sex.

   whats the problem? jeez...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 03:53am

9. Katha: You'll fight like hell for Hillary, which means for Bill, namely the same Bill who presided over great slaughter, much of which was directed at children in Iraq who died from U.S. sanctions imposed on them for years - if she wins. But Barack's your choice. Freaking huh!!!

   So you are an example of what it means to be 'progressive'? But this isn't new. And The Nation isn't the only 'progressive' journal that gives into fear and will not see beyond established, establishment bounds so as to give the working poor class some hope that they are at least on someone's radar. I've lamented for years the way The Nation proudly and bravely goes to war for... The Nation, encouraging and supporting the Republicrats in their war against the Republicrats. If only fear didn't pay so well. Damn it!

   Posted by Aarby at 02/04/2008 @ 05:14am

10. Well, Katha, I must say I am impressed with your endorsement of Obama!

    It shows I kind of courage and thoughtful reflection that I quite frankly thought was missing from many feminists in this campaign. I think we all want a female president, but not this one. Hillary's tendencies toward Thatcherism are quite frightening, and in some respects could be more dangerous than what we have now with Bush and Cheney.

    It is time to turn the page on the Bush/Clinton era and breathe some fresh air into American politics. Barack Obama has the wisdom and judgment, and raw political skill to change the discourse from fear to hope, from years of neglect and selfish individualism to social consciousness and enlightenment.

    Progressives everywhere should celebrate the election of Obama, as he is the only politician with a real chance of making our issues the mainstream issues of America.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/04/2008 @ 06:09am

11. Today`s Krugman column delineates the differences between the HRC & Obama health care insurance proposals, with HRC`s clearly the superior, and Obama apparently having painted himself into a bad corner.

    Apart from being more warlike, a major problem with a Billary co-presidency will be accountablity, an endless shell game of now you see it, now you don't.

    It`s come to this ...

    Posted by sloper at 02/04/2008 @ 06:45am

12. As a Minnesotan, here's the point that I hope to make at the DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor) caucus tomorrow evening.

    Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tend rhetorically to lean toward the center. But whereas Hillary Clinton seems often to vote to the right of her rhetoric, Barack Obama seems at critical times to vote to the left of his rhetoric. Therefore, whereas Hillary Clinton seems more liberal than she is, Barack Obama is more liberal than he seems.

    One piece of evidence for this claim is the fact that my brother-in-law, who probably voted for George W. Bush in the last two elections, will likely vote for Barack Obama this year, probably because he believes -- mistakenly, I think -- that Obama is less liberal.

    In balance, then, it seems that supporting Obama is strategically smarter than supporting HRC.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 02/04/2008 @ 08:41am

13. Yikes! I meant, of course, that my brother-in-law considers Obama to be less liberal than HRC. NOT "less liberal than George W. Bush." Heaven forfend!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 02/04/2008 @ 08:43am

14. Foreign Policy is also one of the big reasons I chose Obama. It didnt occur to me how messed up or Foreign policy was until he said that he would meet with foriegn leaders who were also enemies of the US. I actually believed for some reason that we were already doing that it wasnt until it was brought up by him that I realize we were not. It just seems to me thats a Foreign Policy thats flawed I'm a firm believer that war should be the last resort. So if we are not meeting with leaders we dont like then clearly it is NOT being used as the last resort. We are living in a globalized world our security DEPENDS upon other countries. We can't go at it alone and if we are not making an effort to maintain each other's security then no one will be secure. Something else that Obama said that I havent heard from Hillary has to do with h ow he plans on putting an end to the secretive nature of our Foregn Policy. We've basically entrusted our government to keep us safe without knowing what they are doing. And one of the things that they've been doing is latching on to brutal dictators as a way to curb terrorism. To me that just creates more enemies rather than less. We really need to update our Foreign Policy to fit in a globalized world and we have not been doing that. I dont want piecemeal changes I want fundamental changes in our approach.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/04/2008 @ 09:00am

15. we will see what will happen, policiy-wise, when whoever gets the nom gets in office.

    until then all candidates must walk and talk like centrists. too much crazy lefty talk will get you slandered and marginalized by the corporatized msm. (crazy righty talk gets lauded by fox and largely ignored by the rest of them).

    understand the extent of control by neo-fascist corporatists. you think one democrat mid-term electoral triumph has reversed 30+ years of concious, well funded, right wing dismantling of the new deal, repeal of media laws and any other legislation that limits their power grab, and subtle consumerist brainwashing of schmuk america?

    ha ha ha! kucinich supporters...on the one hand i gotta respect ya. stick to yer guns! never give up! no compromise!

    but neither denny, nor russ, nor ralph nor anyone who espouses an ideology left of center will get elected in the current political/economic/social paradigm.

    dream on you crazy, beautiful, dreamers!

    but a sheep in wolves clothing, with the discipline to bite his lip and control his tongue, one who can carefully navigate the labyrinth of corporatized msm booby traps and right wing filth...

    thats the best yer gonna get, lefties! better stop yer carpin', see reality, and vote for the white knight who happens to be a mulatto...

    thats as progressive as yer gonna get (which may end up being suprisingly progressive once in power).

    but the obama you see and hear is as progressive as your corporate overlords will allow.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 09:06am

16. The left lining up behind Obama just shows we never learn our lessons. He is the surest to disappoint, since his "a new tone in politics" really just means more compromise on key issues.

    Posted by milosarah at 02/04/2008 @ 10:10am

17. Posted by MILOSARAH 02/04/2008 @ 10:10am

    indeed. perhaps you are right.

    but how does a candidate who talks "kucinich-speak" get elected? is it possible? (if you answer "yes", my response is "really? really?")

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 10:13am

18. I respectfully disagree with the central premise of this post. I do not see Obama any more progressive than Clinton. Obama to me, right now, is an unknown quantity. For those of you who think that Obama is progressive may be surprised to find out otherwise. Operah seems to be one of her biggest supporters. She is certainly not progressive. Like many others in the media, she was a supporter of Iraq war from the get go and demeaned those in the audience who disagreed with her position in support of the administration.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 02/04/2008 @ 10:31am

19. I think anyone who thinks that Obama is not progressive is not taking a clear look at what he stands for. Obama wants to redistribute wealth from top to bottom. It is not something that he hides he is open about it. He wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the 1%. He wants to close the tax loopholes to make sure that 1% isnt shirking their tax burden. He wants to eliminate tax on seniors making 50,000 or less he wants to give a tax cut to those making 75,000 or less. He wants to raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. I think thats pretty progressive when it comes to the economy.

    I think there is something else going on here and it explains in part why we've seen record turnout. I think the economy is in worse shape than a lot of people think it is. I dont know the numbers but I suspect that inequality in income has increased substantially under the Bush Administration. Capitalist ecomony cannot sustain inequality for a long time. The middle class has pretty much been wittled down to the point where they barely exist. And if there is no middle class, hence why they are some wealthy individuals who support Obama even though they know they will pay more if he is elected, we may be looking at a severe depression. The economy needs balance if its unstable it affects everyone. The fact that Bush is giving people money to go shop is a reflection imo of the widening inequality thats characterizing the ecomomy. So Obama's stance when it comes to the economy is progressive.

    He is more conservative in other areas for example when it comes to the rule of law and individual rights. Although I dont know thats conservative in how we view conservative today. He is also a firm believer in the free market but he also recognize that Capitalism needs intervention from the goverment in order to sustain it.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/04/2008 @ 11:27am

20. Posted by HARRISCRL3 02/04/2008 @ 11:27am | ignore this person

    here here! well put!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/04/2008 @ 11:34am

21. In response to CarolGould's comment (Any idea why there's no statement about abortion or reproductive rights on the Obama website?), this is from Obama's website: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

    Also his staff did this questionnaire on reproductive rights for RH Reality Check, which gives a pretty comprehensive picture of his record/commitments: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproduc tive-health-questionnaire

    Posted by andreaellen at 02/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

22. '...Now, don't get me wrong, the people I meet in small towns and big cities and diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all of their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead. And they want to.

    Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you: They don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon.

    Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn.

    They know that parents have to teach, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

    People don't expect -- people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

    In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. And that man is...' -- Barack H. Obama, July 2004

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/04/2008 @ 12:12pm

23. I see your points but I disagree. I think it is very ingenous for Obama to call Hillary to task for her 2002 Iraq vote. What short memories we have! everyone was for that war b/c we were lied to ! I remeber Colin Powell pointing to bldgs saying this one has WMD's etc. The funny thing is after Obama gave his peech in the state sen against the war, when he got to the U.S. senate he voted to fund the war!!! As a native New Yorker their is no way I will support a jr. senator from Il. over our very own NY senator who has enacted real change such as the Family Medical Leave act and Plan B. Vote for Hillary the only proven candidate!

    Posted by jabusso at 02/04/2008 @ 1:17pm

24. I'm starting a new group, Katha MASCULINISTS FOR OBAMA. Tired of you guys hoggin the spotlight.

    Frankly, I was surprised I was glad, too: "Mandating" is a dirty word to me, I'll make my own decisions regarding my Health, thank you very much (sorry, I just can't get past all that Bill o' Rights stuff) and Drivers Licenses for Illegals is just misguided. But Obama & Paul won't be "business as usual" politicians, and I'm so disgusted with our leadership (ALL of our leadership) I'm ready to take a chance on either of them, although Paul won't make it-at best he stands to be the Ross Perot of '08

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/04/2008 @ 2:26pm

25. I was never a Bill Clinton fan- Tom Harkin was my candidate in that race- so my heart wasn't broken over his centrist presidency. I expected it- welfare reform, immigration, don't ask don't tell... none of it was a surprise. I was hoping Hillary Clinton would not run, because we would go through all the Republican misery without the reward of a progressive. John Edwards was my candidate this time around, since he was the only progressive with a fighting chance. Now, I just don't get the progressive rush to Obama. His rhetoric about a new tone really does mean more compromise, more McClurkins, a big tent that is so watered down that it really doesn't stand for anything. And, the misogyny that underlies all the coverage of Hillary is truly stunning- take Jonathan Alter's latest that Hillary can't be a great candidate, nor can any woman, because they can't connect to women voters through sex appeal. This stuff goes completely unchallenged. We are willing to have a dialogue about race but not about gender. I see few women on the horizon who could take the scrutiny that Hillary has had. There is little hope for women leaders in this country. That is just the truth. The giddiness about Obama is about the cult of personality and the cult of masculinity. Its not about his policies.

    Posted by milosarah at 02/04/2008 @ 5:02pm

26. Posted by MILOSARAH 02/04/2008 @ 5:02pm

    actually, i think people are desperate for the antibush.

    350 DAYS 6 Hrs 10 Min 40.2 Sec to go.........................................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 5:49pm

27. I am an Obama supporter for all the reasons mentioned by Katha. I do not regard Hillary as an ogre or witch, and I am disgusted by the vitriol directed against her and Bill. The best word to describe it is "pathologic."

    Still, I cannot support Hillary, because she is a militarist and a corporatist. Obama may turn out to be the same, but at least we don't now know that. Above all, Hillary and Bill together form largest human lightening rod on the planet, and I simply cannot bear the thought of a campaign and subsequent presidency dominated by endless scandal, real or bogus. Call it Clinton fatigue, but I have a bad case of it. Barack will be less vulnerable to such attacks, as most normal people will see him has being above ordinary dirty politics, not a messiah exactly, but close. Not that the Republicans won't try their hardest to smear him, but I don't think that it will resonate far beyond the Kool-Aid bowl.

    Posted by robgo2 at 02/04/2008 @ 6:35pm

28. "I see your points but I disagree. I think it is very ingenous for Obama to call Hillary to task for her 2002 Iraq vote. What short memories we have! everyone was for that war b/c we were lied to !"

    You seem to have forgotten that this is a Nation forum, where not everyone was for the war, lies notwithstanding. You also seem to forget that there were millions of people opposed to the war who were subjected to the same lies and propaganda as Hillary. And despite what Hillary now says about being a reluctant supporter of the war, the facts are quite clear that she was banging the drum of war fast and furiously right up to the day of the invasion and well beyond it.

    Some people want to support a candidate so badly that they will excuse or overlook real weaknesses and transgressions.

    Posted by robgo2 at 02/04/2008 @ 7:07pm

29. I think Hillary and Bill want to take us back to the past and we can't afford to go back to the past. The nineties are over it was a different time then and a lot has happened since then for one thing we entered a different century. I know people think that Hillary is qualified she knows her stuff and she is ready to go and tackle these challenges and that maybe so if we were living in the nineties. If Obama didnt come on the scene I would have gone with her in part out of nostalgia and trying to see if we could recapture something good from the past. But Obama came on and made me see we dont have to recapture the past what we need is changes that will move us into the future. And rightly so because we cant go back to the past but we can move forward to the future. Now I hear people talk about whether he is electable. One of the things I like about Obama is that he knows where he stands. When you know where you stand its very difficult for your opponent to confuse you. I dont believe that Hillary knows where she stands and is comfortable with where she is. Her vote for the war in Iraq is one example of this. Even if you look at the candidates campaigns you see who leads and who follows and I'm not talking in terms of poll numbers. Obama starts talking about change others start talking about change. Obama talks about bringing in citizens into the process of change others are adopting that. Obama says that he can work with Republicans others are talking about working with republicans. He is leading and they are following and he can lead because he knows where he stands. Whats more when he works with republicans he is not coopted. He was voted the most liberal senator. I dont feel like Hillary is a leader at all and I think now more than ever the country needs a leader.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/04/2008 @ 7:46pm

30. As a conversvative i am for Obama to get the Democratic nomination. The most liberal democrat since George McGovern. That does not bode well for the Dems in the general election

    Posted by CPT at 02/04/2008 @ 8:18pm

31. Obama was not backed by a party establishment (until very recently), rather he made a space for himself. Obama represents change and - what is almost as important- hope for change of millions of Americans. Yes, he talks about uniting and working with the other side, but he never concedes on the other side on the most important issues for Dems, and I hope he will stay that way. I am afraid that Hillary will be another Bill-type centrist administration.

    Posted by Frank42 at 02/04/2008 @ 8:51pm

32. Isnt it telling that someone so liberal has made it so far and has a good chance of winning. Although they are things Obama is conservative on. Obama imo is transcending partisan politics. Seems to me Americans want someone to go into Washington and get things done and if its someone who is going to shake it up well so be it. American citizens have chosen democrats republicans and still there is very little to show in terms of progress particularly in the last 30 years or so. I think the fact that the American people is chosing someone who embraces a liberal political view particularly when it comes to the economy is very telling. Forget recession we may well be heading into a depression. Record turnout on the democratic side? We may be in more serious trouble than we thought. But inspite of all that Obama is not merely someone who talks about the terrible state of the ecomomy. His message is very positive. He is telling people that although things look bad it doesnt have to go this way we can turn things around this is America we can do it. He is telling them there are challenges but at the same time he is imploring that can do spirit. Thats a powerful message and those who underestimate it do so to their deteriment as the Clinton campaign did.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/04/2008 @ 9:07pm

33. Obama was not backed by a party establishment (until very recently),

    Posted by FRANK42 02/04/2008 @ 8:51pm

    not so sure. his first BIG moment was giving that speech in 2004 at the convention.

    keynote and all.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 10:29pm

34. Obama brings out people's "better angels"? I don't see that. I see people who are very fired up about their candidate, but some of them contribute to the "misogynous vitriol."

    Posted by SuzieTampa at 02/04/2008 @ 10:34pm

35. While I mostly agree with Katha Polllit (I almost always do), what does anyone make of Obama's remark of some months ago that we should bomb the Taliban in Pakistan? Or is my memory of him sayong something much like that incorect?

    Posted by kohl at 02/04/2008 @ 10:53pm

36. Kohl,

    My understanding was and someone can correct if I'm wrong. He was asked if he would consider using military force against Al Queada in Pakistan. His response was that if after working diplomatically with Musheraf and they couldnt come to an agreement. Yes he would go in there. I think this is a misconception people have about Obama he is not oppose to wars. He believes that war should be use as a last resort you should work to find common ground and if you cant then going to war becomes an option. But then if war becomes an option under those circumstances you have allies because you tried to find a peaceful solution but it didnt work. And if you do go to war you go to war to win that means knowing your enemy knowing the country and having a well thought out exit strategy.

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/04/2008 @ 11:04pm

37. Senator Barack H. Obama, January 2008:

    '... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America .... He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

    I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. ... I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. ...

    I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom....'

    'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/05/2008 @ 1:19pm

38. not so sure. his first BIG moment was giving that speech in 2004 at the convention.

    keynote and all.........

    Well Frosty he was conceded the opportunity of the speech, yes it was very gracious from John Kerry. I think that Kerry is not that 'contaminated' with the 'politics of power' as many others at the top of the Dem party. I guess he was seen as an emergent figure that would have his opportunity 'in the future', a prominent member of 'the new generation of Dems'. Nevertheless, he was not considered as 'veep' nor got into the highest circles of the party. I don't know if in 2004 he was just beginning in the US Congress anyway.

    All I tried to say is he - by himself - made his way to the top to be a presidential contender. The tardiness in expressing support to him by prominent figures of the party has been more than eloquent. So it is true that his current position has occurred to the party hierarchy's disbelief at first and afterwards certain reluctance to accept. Caroline Kennedy' speech says 'she was finally convinced out of her daughters' belief in Obama'.

    Posted by Frank42 at 02/05/2008 @ 2:20pm

39. Even the Nation has succumbed to the Invasion of the Obama Body Snatchers. Obama can talk about "excesses of the 60s and 70s" repeat the canard that there is a social security "crisis" and you never dare to ask a question about the use of GOP talking points.

    Wake up Obamamaniacs! You are starting to look like a cult. Obama will be one of the worst presidents ever and it will be because of you. You never question, you assume that he is who you want, even when he says otherwise. Et tu Nation? Pathetic.

    BTW,

    "Any idea why there's no statement about abortion or reproductive rights on the Obama website?" Because my dear, those issues don't rate with Senator Cult Leader. Why should they? His supporters never utter a hard question against him. They think he will get the vapors and faint.

    Posted by mkfr at 02/05/2008 @ 2:27pm

40. A pretty good example of the grade school elections in HRC's anecdote: if a boy was running for office against a girl, the boys all voted for the boy, period, while the girls sat around trying to weigh who was the better candidate ("I think Bobby is less warlike than Suzy"). You don't have to be a feminist to see who'll always win. Oh, well, as the bigots say, if only a QUALIFIED woman would run….

    Posted by RLawrence at 02/05/2008 @ 2:56pm

41. You have allied yourself with the left wing and mainstream sexist media with your support of Obama. Your vote is your business, but by your article you have made it mine. You did not have to support a right-wing creep but as you put it a "smart energetic, immensely knowledgeable" democratic woman. Instead, by your support and the support of other so-called feminists of a charismatic male, you all have done your part to ensure that the executive branch of the US will remain a male only club-a club that for over 230 years has NEVER ONCE run a female (51% of the population) for its highest office. You and those like you , of course, must be waiting for the perfect woman. You may not be ashamed of yourself, but I am ashamed for you. I am 67 years old and have always been an activist. I am ashamed that I cannot explain to my daughters and granddaughters why women like you have turned on and obstructed the nomination of Hillary Clinton in favor of a less experienced and no more competent male. Enemies on the right I expect, I now see them in the pages of The Nation and in columns like yours. I think you will get what you want-politics has indeed made unusual bedfellows in this primary-I don't think Hillary Clinton can overcome the entrenched fear of a woman in power that is reflected by the odd mix of those who oppose her. Obama will not prevail in the general election against McCain. Personal magnetism can take you just so far. I fear for the country.

    Posted by harhel at 02/06/2008 @ 10:31pm

42. Posted by HARHEL 02/06/2008 @ 10:31pm

    I am one of your "enemies on the right" and a man. Still, I empathize w/your heartfelt comments and desire to see, after 230 years, a woman (51% of the population) run for the highest office in the land.

    I just wonder, given your political awareness from being an activist, how do you explain to your daughters and granddaughters the `makings' of HRC as a Nominee (if she beats Obama)? Is Hillary such a high-ideal role model for them? Are they to adopt her model of marrying a politically-promising man, Rhodes Scholar no less, do shady land & cattle deals to supplement civil service pay, ruthlessly fire an entire WH travel office staff....grant spouse JFK-like license to womanize at will, in exchange for securing a sure Senate seat in an unrelated state, and help in pursuing the Presidency after his terms end?

    I feel sorry that you can't see how most ordinary (but informed) folks have a hard time understanding how on earth any `real' Feminists can support Hillary. She is simply NOT, in any shape, form or fashion, a self-made, highest-achieving woman in the U.S.

    In simplest term, if her last name isn't Clinton, she would have been one of millions of smart upper-income professionals....and quite likely remained a Republican to boot!

    Posted by Happy at 02/06/2008 @ 11:45pm

43. I'm really getting tired of reading all these pro Obama-anti Clinton stories at the Nation...What exactly has Hillary done to you? Is it the 35 years she has worked on behalf of children or maybe the 30 plus years she has worked toward bettering education....Maybe its the health plan she put forth 15 years ago, before national healthcare became popular..Oh, I know its because she voted for the Iraq War, a war that was favored by 80 per cent of Americans, because of the lies that the Bush Administration fed us....I understand that Obama is a very good orator and has said what most people want to hear....It's time for a change, help all people, blah,blah...This isn't knew, its just coming from a new speaker...A young man who knows how to energize audiences...The question is, what happens when all the hoopla wears off, and Barack has to get down and dirty with our illustrious lawmakers in order to get something done....I don't really believe he's up to that...You Barack supporters got bent out of shape when Bill tried to show you the truth...What are you going to do when the Republicans go after him and his family, and every negative comment he has ever made...It's nice to want and believe there is always a "savior" out there to save the country...Right now we need someone thats tough, and someone who has taken as much "crap" as anyone could ever take, and still want to be president....Get off this negative shit about the Clinton's and understand who we had the best eight years of any presidency in the 90's, and realize that Hilliary Clinton is the only person, of all the candidates, who can help this country at this present time....Barack is a nice person and says all the right things, but he will get "murdered" by the Republicans, and even Democrats he will have to work with....You can count on that

    Posted by carrksc at 02/07/2008 @ 02:57am

44. Pollitt writes an endorsement of Obama and manages not to trash Hillary in the process and then gets trashed as a result. Who's willing to admit that the fervor for Obama is fueled less by his promise of a "new tone" in politics, and more by Clinton-hate?

    Posted by vigg at 02/07/2008 @ 8:52pm

45. Ms Pollitt claims that Obama is less bellicose than Clinton. Didn't he say something about taking the war into Pakistan if required which I think is pretty aggressive? Also am sorry to see yet another feminist ditch the ship.Of course it is a mistake to expect women to vote en bloc for a sister when historically they have not united.This is especially true of the U.S.A which is not ready for a woman CEO.

    Posted by vismaya at 02/08/2008 @ 09:27am

46. The author has demonstrated a muddled reasoning and fails to make even a simple case for his choice. That is the problem I see across the board with bloggers who are consistently with Obama but have no idea why. I don't have foggiest of ideas where Obama stands on the lot of the issues. I know Obama ducked voting on lot of important issues. I cannot elect him President just on the basis of Iraq or silly notions of 'hope' and 'change'.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 02/08/2008 @ 10:53am

47. Barack Obama wrote the best article of all of the candidates for Foreign Affairs. It was well reasoned, and notably lacking in the usual fearmongering. Ms. Clinton's, in contrast, appeared to have been pieced together by a focus group - greatly disappointing. I point this out simply to say that I believe Mr. Obama is more substantive than he is given credit for. I also believe he is ultimately more progressive than many here give him credit. Part of the progressive tradition is our use of facts and logic in approaching issues, with an openness to ideas that provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people. What impresses me about Mr. Obama is that, underneath the thrilling oratory, is an individual who seems well centered, thoughtful, and not prone to facile solutions. While I have always been impressed with Ms. Clinton, she has shown a tendancy to blow with the winds, winds - I believe - generated by the corporate company she keeps. In addition, I don't see Ms. Clinton inspiring a new generation of activists the way Mr. Obama clearly is - laying a foundation of progressive energy for the next decade and beyond. However, I think either of these candidates would be vastly better than the McCains of the world, and, like Ms. Pollitt, will enthusiastically support either.

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 02/09/2008 @ 3:10pm

48. Well, Katha, I'm with you, at least until Texas' Primary on March 4th.

    With McCain pretty much having it won, I will request a Dem Primary Ballot and proudly vote for the Magic Candidate....it maybe the only Presidential vote I will ever cast for a Dem....My reason is purely his historical stature as the first viable black....yep, a racially motivated vote!

    Posted by Happy at 02/09/2008 @ 6:11pm