In my home state of Nevada, Barack Obama recently received a key endorsement from the Culinary Workers Union, one of the largest in the state. I can’t say that I’m surprised by what happened next.

Only two days after the endorsement, supporters of Hillary Clinton filed a lawsuit against the Nevada Democratic Party to prohibits Democratic voters from caucusing in several hotels located on the Las Vegas Strip (guess what kind of workers are employed in large numbers by these hotels). The plaintiffs claim that they are only trying to ensure that no voters are given an unfair advantage. However, the timing of the lawsuit, just days after the endorsement and a week before the Nevada Democratic caucus, leaves little doubt as to their motives. This sort of transparently cynical politicking is one reason why I’m praying that Obama will secure the Democratic nomination, and the sooner the better.

In the wake of the dissipation of Clinton’s aura of inevitability, it’s becoming harder and harder for me to understand why anyone would prefer her as the Democratic nominee. It might make sense if she were more electable, but poll after poll of hypothetical presidential races indicates that Obama has a better shot at the White House. A recent CBS/New York Times poll shows Obama beating all the Republican candidates by a wider margin than Clinton, save John McCain. This is despite Hillary’s greater name recognition, which will play a smaller role as the election moves forward and people become familiar with the candidates.

Many cite Clinton’s experience as a reason for why she deserves the nomination (though Clinton herself seems to have abandoned this justification when she discovered that voters preferred Obama’s message of change). Clinton did spend eight years in the White House as the first lady, though it is unclear what exactly that experience entails. However, Obama has spent more years in elected office, having been an Illinois state senator for several years before his election to the U.S. Senate.

Perhaps Clinton’s political positions might justify her nomination, even if she is less likely to be elected or if her greater experience is in doubt. On most substantive issues, there is not much difference between Clinton and Obama. Both are consistently pro-choice, both are in favor of universal health care and both oppose the use of torture. However, the similarities end when it comes to the war in Iraq. Clinton not only voted to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002, but vigorously defended her vote on the floor of the Senate. Obama, on the other hand, has consistently and unambiguously opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning, saying in 2002, “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” This is not the speech of a rabid, anti-war leftist, but the remarkably prescient assessment of a pragmatic mind. For all her supposed experience, Clinton’s judgment was shown to be inferior to Obama’s at a crucial moment in history.

Some prominent Democrats, most notably Paul Krugman of the New York Times, have asserted that Obama is insufficiently partisan at a time when we need someone to really stick it to the Republicans. In particular, Krugman has criticized Obama for saying that financing social security may be a problem in the future, because he believes that this legitimizes attempts by conservatives to cut benefits and privatize the system. What does Obama have to say about this? “I believe that cutting benefits is not the right answer; and that raising the retirement age is not the best option…I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected.” Obama’s willingness to acknowledge difficult trade-offs is not a left/right issue. We should not confuse partisan loyalty with liberal credentials, which Obama does not lack.

If you want a staunch partisan warrior to sling mud at the Republican nominee in the fall, then vote for Clinton. If you want to win, then vote for Obama.

Bill is a senior in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at william.howard.hoffman.iii@gmail.com.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.