The endorsement season

Blogdom,

This blog, yielding less power than a small local of, say, custom hammer, sickle and flag-makers in a Republican plains-town, can only sway through argument if read at all. Argument requires infinity, and there is thus no rational argument to be propogated by endorsing one of a finite number of presidential hopefuls. Since no politics blog worth the screen-light it's printed on would however be complete without an endorsement, I am giving mine followed by argument.

This blog endorses Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. This blog hopes for the following outline of an administration under this leader: Bill Richardson, secretary of state. Joe Biden, Secretary of something important. Hillary Clinton: Secretary of something important. Somebody-or-other whose name is not John Edwards, to be chosen mainly for strategic reasons, for VP. John Edwards: getting drunk on cocunut-wine on an island in American Micronesia so that he can see two Americas in the midst of a tropical paradise but however not play any role in governance.


Now the argument:

As many Barackites say, lack of experience in Washington and excellent relevant experience in legal life and policymaking elsewhere are exactly the outline of an administration that might accomplish something policy-wise, rather than push a "left" consensus view (unthought compromise) against a "right" consensus view (unthought compromise with more disastrous consequences) and put forth impotent efforts to assure that that consensus becomes the norm (this idea is not rooted in the changing realities of the planet I happen to live on) and that democrats get elected in the future (if recent history has not taught us that the logic of these things does not follow the wills of those currently in power, we haven't been paying attention; that is the theme of this blog if it has just one). Mr. Obama does not disappoint in his role as thinking outsider. I may not agree with every last point of his policy, or share all his values, but he is a policy-thinker, and a policy-thinker is what I want in the White House as long as his core values are not overtly incompatible with my own and he is constrained by interests of which I consider myself a member: that is that he responds to the needs of the American people, of whom I am one, and to some extent the world populace, of which I am also one. Being able to predict neither what kind of American I will be in the future (this is reality, not philosophy, at this point) nor what policy will actually benefit the most Americans, proper values and intentions matter to me.
Mr. Obama is also a policy-speaker. Since, as I stated elsewhere on this blog (William XV post), I believe one of the primary reesponsibilities of a President is to steer public discourse onto a field where it may come up with realistic and effective ideas, I find this to be of prime importance. A vote for a Clinton is a vote for, well, a Clinton, that is someone who doesn't find this to be important at all. I cannot for this reason alone vote for Hillary in a primary. I do think she is a competent politician and think she should be a member of the administration, and will almost certainly vote for her in the general election should she win this round.

In addition, Mr. Obama's skin-color does matter, because, let's face it, we're racists, and the leader of the world being black has the potential to change perspectives on race and ethnicity and via that conduit change the facts of how business is conducted around here, and elsewhere. Mr. Obama's story being multicultural and unique is also good, since it should help put to bed medieval notions that our populace's history is summed up by a few stereotypes.
Also I just like the guy, and that's worth something, to me at least.