Why I Support Barack Obama: An Open Letter to My Mom

My mother was a John Edwards supporter. Before he dropped out I had already begun volunteering for Barack Obama. After he dropped out we had a somewhat heated argument where she accused me of being "sucked into slogans versus substance". She also said she "didn't have a candidate" but would prefer Hillary. This is my response.

I chose who to contribute time and money to very carefully. As you know things have been hectic while trying to start a business and find a new place to live, and except for my occasional self-indulgent smugness, I'm hardly Bill Gates. I wanted to make sure I made the right choice.

So, I watched every debate, save one, in its entirety, while some how managing to retain my sanity. I read articles that offered conflicting viewpoints, and was especially interested in ones by traditionally republican sources. Very little of my decision had to do with slogans - by the way, "slogans vs. substance" sounds a lot like a slogan. - Here are a few of the reasons I decided to support Barrack Obama.

I. I don't have a candidate

I don't feel like this is a valid argument for me to make right now. If I could pick, my candidate would be Al Gore. With the Nobel Prize win and his new movie star status (after the weight gain he does bear a striking resemblance to Orson Wells), he would have been incredibly appealing to voters, not to mention all the good things he could do for the world. He wasn't a choice though. Like it or not, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain is going to be your president ...unless you're planning on moving out of the country. You're not, are you?

II. Electibility

Maureen Dowd suggests in her article, "Darkness and Light" that Hillary Clinton believes she is the best equipped to take on the Republican attack dogs in the general election - on a side note I think we stronger metaphor than "attack dogs". I vote for "Republican Storm Troopers". Those types of people are usually just pawns in a larger, evil agenda, and they're almost always white. It fits. - If that's the case, I think Clinton is right. She's already had a lot of practice taking on the Republican Storm Troopers, and she'll get a whole lot more if she wins the nomination.

A lot of republicans are uneasy about John McCain. The frassholes (note: frassholes is an ingenious combination of the words far, right and asshole) like Rush Limbaugh have already been voicing their disapproval. But as much as they dislike McCain, they hate Hillary with an all-consuming passion. As far as that demographic is concerned -- the one that got Bush in office in the first place -- Hillary Clinton is the antichrist. She is the Wicked Witch of the West, the Terminator, and Dark Vader, all wrapped up into one easily loathable, pantsuit wearing package. If she gets the nomination I believe the Republican Party, who has seen lower voter turn outs in the primaries than Democrats, will re-energize to rally against her. That presents a problem.

Hillary Clinton will be hard pressed to win the general election if she faces unified Republican Party. So far Hillary has been very good at drawing from her base of Democratic voters. Likewise Romeny and Huckabee have been drawing almost exclusively from a Republican base. McCain, on the other hand, has captured a lot of votes from independents, and even some democrats. If Hillary Clinton is up against him in the general election, and he has a unified republican party behind him, there's an excellent chance that she'll lose. Obama on the other hand, has gotten votes from just as many independents as McCain, not to mention some Republicans. If Obama gets the nomination he will definitely have the full support of Democratic Party, and he can compete for independents in a way Hillary can't.

I don't care how effective of a president Hillary Clinton might be. It doesn't matter if she can't win the general election.

III. Effectiveness as President

One of Hillary's slogans - Yes, even Hillary has slogans. She must have picked that up from Bill- is, "Ready from day one". She says that her experience will make her ready to lead from day one. I assume that "ready" means something more than knowing how she wants to arrange all the furniture in the White House.

If I had to venture a guess, it means that Hillary already has a lot of plans, policies, and programs developed and ready to go. Both the Clintons love that type of stuff. And while Obama does have plans and policies of his own, I don't think he'll be nearly as good as Hillary at paying attention to all the details needed to make those plans effective. In that respect Hillary is a better candidate. There's just one problem. Hillary has to be able to get all of those plans approved.

As good as Bill Clinton was at working with people, he had a lot of trouble getting things through congress, and Hillary does not have a tenth of his charisma. In fact, word on the street is that she's not very "likeable". She would begin her presidency with the Republican Party, by and large, aligned against her, looking to block her policies every step of the way. So as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter if Hillary is better at the details. That's not nearly enough to compensate for having to scrap and fight for every little bit of legislation. And while it may take Obama awhile to find his footing, he won't have to face the same kind of resistance she will.

IV. The Issues

At this point I'm more than a little distrustful of Hillary Clinton's presentation of her views on the issues. It took her a long time to actually say anything of substance in the debates, or on the campaign trail. She squirmed and adjusted more frantically than toddler who just defecated in her own pants. This led John Edwards to accuse of being guilty of the "politics of parsing". If you don't know what I mean you can watch an ad he ran at http://www.johnedwards.com/watch/politics-of-parsing

However, once her frontrunner status was in jeopardy Clinton did begin to actually say things of substance. And Hillary does have her plans outlined on her website. So I read them. And what did these plans tell me? They told me that she and Obama are virtually identical on the issues. While Obama does speak in generalities on the campaign trail, he is pretty specific on his website, much more so than Hillary. To read his position on the issues, you can go to www.barackobama.com and click on "issues". Of course the one big place that Hillary and Obama differ is on healthcare.

V. Health Care

It should go without saying that this is an important issue to me, and it's certainly the one that I've looked into the most. Here's my take:

When any of the candidates talk about health care, they're really talking about health insurance. To use a medical analogy, fixing health insurance is only treating a symptom, not the cause. It's likely that better health insurance would be the equivalent of giving the healthcare industry a steroidal shot in the arm. But when it wears off you'll be in worse shape than you were before, with only a set of shrunken testicles to show for your trouble - sorry I think I've been watching too much House. Damn that Hugh Laurie! - In order to provide affordable health insurance, without completely bogging down the government's budget, we need to fix HEALTH CARE. I'm sure it will be a revelation to some people that if the procedures and drugs are cheaper, then the insurance that covers them will be cheaper too. But what do I mean by fixing health care?

Well, while trying to find a way to get hip surgery I made an interesting discovery; any surgery you could possibly need is way more expensive in the United States than the rest of the world. Most procedures cost about half of what the do here in the United Kingdom, a quarter in Canada, an eighth in India. Prescription drugs are cheaper too. Why is this? Why is a drug manufactured in the United States less expensive in England? This knowledge made me depressed and more than a little anxious, but unfortunately I can't afford Zoloft here in the United States. But I did find a lot of reasons to explain this bizarre phenomena. Here are a few.

U.S. hospitals are extremely inefficient. If you recall the Inquirer article on health care, at the time it was published there were more M.R.I. machines in Philadelphia than in all of Canada. That probably means there weren't enough in Canada, but there were definitely WAY too many in Philadelphia. Our doctors also have to pay the highest malpractice premiums in the world. Patients get put on prescription drugs that they don't need, because doctors are pressured by pharmaceutical salesmen. And those prescription drugs cost a lot because unlike other countries, U.S. providers can't negotiate drug costs with the pharmaceutical industry.

Right now Obama is the only candidate who has put forward anything of substance as far as actual health care reform goes. It could be better and more detailed, but at least it is a definite part of his plan. All Hillary has said is that she will lower costs, "by removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization." That lacks substance to the point of being translucent. There's also another problem with Hillary on this issue.

In order to fix healthcare the president is going to have to take on the pharmaceutical and insurance lobby, because the lobbyists certainly aren't going to relish the idea of things like cheaper drugs and reduced profits for their companies. I don't know if you watched as many of the debates as I did, but John Edwards' main stumping point was that he would take on lobbyists. He was also quick to point out that Hillary Clinton has taken more money from lobbyists than any candidate in the election, democrat or republican. In particular Hillary was the top dollar recipient from the insurance and pharmaceutical lobby in 2006. If you try and tell me that Hillary will be able to take on those lobbyists, THAT is the "biggest fairy tale I've ever heard." Further more, she doesn't even want to! She said, "lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyj9KJWGWMA - Obama, while not as fiery as Edwards, has not taken a single cent from lobbyists, and he has vowed adamantly to take them on, much the same way Edwards did.

Finally there are the candidates' plans for health insurance reform. The fundamental difference is that in Clinton's plan health insurance is mandated, meaning people have to buy into it, and in Obama's it is only mandated for children. I think if you're going to have a socialized plan, not having mandated insurance is ridiculous. Big strike against Obama. Although it's far from perfect, we should look at the public school system as a model of a widespread, working socialized program. Every one pays taxes for public schools. If (rich) people want to send their kids to a better school, they can pay private tuition in addition to the tax for public schools. In Obama's plan those people have the option of side stepping public insurance, and only paying for private coverage, putting more stress on every one else. Additionally, it's absolutely naïve to think that a lot of people won't wait until they're sick before seeking coverage. That's like trusting slightly older versions of Beavis and Butthead to make the "responsible decision". Pretty much every analyst agrees that this will create havoc in the health insurance system. That being said, Hillary's plan isn't that much better. While coverage is mandated, it works more like the mandated state coverage in Massachusetts than the public school system. And if you look at Massachusetts a lot of people still aren't paying even though they're supposed to.

I really hope Obama changes his health insurance plan, because as it stands Hillary's is better. Of course, I don't think it will matter who has a better health insurance plan unless they simultaneously try to fix healthcare. And as far as that goes, Obama's plan is better by leaps and bounds.

I hope after reading this it's clear that I'm not supporting Obama because I've been, "sucked into slogans versus substance." I'm supporting him because I think he has the best chance at being elected president, and the best chance to actually do something once he's in office. I'm supporting him because while he's not as experienced as Hillary Clinton's, he's been impressive every step of the way. This includes everything from his presidency of the Harvard Law Review, to the political ethics reforms he successfully got passed by working with republicans. I'm supporting him because he's gotten people excited about politics in a way I've never seen. Some of these people have never been excited about politics in their lives. Some of them are current members of congress. I'm supporting him because I truly believe that if change is going to take place- and I mean specific, defined change. Not some abstract concept of change. Change that would allow me to easily get the simple, relatively inexpensive surgery that will save me from a complete hip replacement in 15 or 20 years - Barack Obama has the best chance to make that change happen. If that's not enough substance for you, then I don't know what is.