The Rational Psychic

Until about three weeks ago, I was on the fence regarding my selection of either Clinton or Obama as the best candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

What has turned me toward Obama recently has been his consistent message of hope and what appears a sincere desire to unite the country against the divisions suggested by ideology, color, gender, etc. and Clinton’s willingness to play the political game by the same tired rules that produced the presidency we’ve lived under for seven years now (divide and conquer, identity politics, demolishing your opponent at the expense of energy and effort to build up your own platform and rhetoric).

Clinton is the candidate who made the move to make race a part of this campaign. She can apologize, but this was done willfully and on her behalf.

I was very hopeful that we could at least maintain the high road during the nomination process within our own party. We will need to be united after the convention and this is not the way to create unification when a moderate Republican such as McCain is running.

I voted for Obama in Minnesota’s caucus because, to date, I see him running the more principled campaign. I see him appealing to our better nature. I think Senator Obama offers the promise of unification, a departure from past conflicts and their drain on our spirit as well as the opportunity to follow a candidate who believes that, given a choice, Americans will choose a positive vision of our country’s future over cynicism.

The 2008 presidential campaign offers Americans a referendum on the political strategies which caused citizens to suffer under the increasingly divisive presidencies of the last 28 years. If the candidates proceed in using the same divisive machinations (identity politics, the rhetoric of tearing down your opponent, etc.) used in the past, I have no doubt that they may achieve success on a short-term basis.

The issue isn’t whether or not such tactics and strategies can be used to win elections. The issue is: do these tactics result in effective presidencies and periods of positive growth for the nation as a whole?

What I saw at our caucus in Mankato, MN (pop. 30,000) was a large number of college students attending, a large number of people who were most likely newly-naturalized citizens from East Africa (Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc.) and many, many people who were attending their first Democratic Party caucus, including myself. Democratic Party officials were quoted as estimating that the turnout on Tuesday, February 5 was four times the largest previous turnout!

The result in our precinct was 74-25 in favor of Barack Obama. The percentage of Minnesota’s Democrats who voted for Obama in the caucus was 66.5%. From the my perspective, I saw a large number of new caucus participants coupled with an overwhelming margin of victory for Obama. The most sensible conclusion I can form is that Obama’s message of promoting a unified American people is seen as being more genuine and substantive than Senator Clinton’s message of experience based on experience as First Lady and her four additional years of service in the U.S. Senate.

I do not want to vote for the ends over the means. For me, Barack Obama’s candidacy exemplifies a means of seeking the Presidency which is demonstrably better than that of his rival for the Democratic nomination.

^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @ ^ @

P.S. CNN.com estimates the Democratic delegate count as being 823 for Clinton, 741 for Obama. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination. If Barack Obama’s first name were “Roger,” what do you think his present delegate count would be?

P.P.S. If Senator Obama were to have it be known that his childhood nickname was “Bubba” as in, Barack “Bubba” Obama, how would his chances to win the November general election be seen to improve or decline? Discuss.