Choosing Candidates

Last night, I wrote a post where I essentially said that Obama can't make substantive changes in the style of politics unless the others in the environment also change; failing that, perhaps it would be better to vote for someone who, while not promising change as a key characteristic of an administration, does recognize the need, while apparently being much more comfortable in a deal-making environment. That post was sparked by watching Obama as he attended rallies in Philadelphia suburbs and in the state capital. He looked tired, which is understandable; I can imagine his advisers saying 'you can sleep on Tuesday. Late Tuesday.' And he said many of the same things that he's said before. That was actually what got me to thinking -- that so many of the things he proposes to address are also things that his fellow Democrat proposes to address, and in much the same way. Their proposals may not be the same, but when you factor in that no one's proposals ever play out exactly the way that they were stated, they might end up being pretty close. So, if that was likely, why vote for the one who wants to do something that he can't do alone? Obama stresses that he doesn't take PAC money; thats something, but I'd always thought it was Congress that was more mired in that tar pit, anyway. So why choose him over Clinton?

I'd forgotten about the idea of idealism, you see. He's vigorous about the need to change the way we do political business. I like the idea of that, even though I doubt it'll happen. Its a surprising thing, at least to me; the current president, setting the bar low on ability and ethics, can run things down, but one who sets it high can't automatically run things up. I guess thats the law of entropy as it relates to politics.

But what really got me was that with all of this reading, and watching, I couldn't clearly state differences between the two candidates. To be fair, I can't even clearly state differences between either of them and McCain, though I do have a visceral sense of where they're different. (Its that difference that made me wonder, a few days ago, how anyone can support McCain. That people - normal people - do, I know, and lots of them. I just don't understand why. I'm hoping its not reflex; I'm afraid it is, which is how we got the present occupant.) But between Obama and Clinton, I can't clearly state the differences. No Child Left Behind? Both say its a good idea that has been implemented poorly. Iraq? Both say we should get out, slowly; their timetables differ, but not by a lot. The need for comprehensive health care? Both support that, with variances about how they'd pay for it, whether it'd be required, and what to do if you can't afford it. The need for increased attention to creativity and entrepreneurial spirit? Both. The equal need for increased attention to federal regulation of the financial markets? Both. Where are they different?

I don't really know. I can't really say. It comes down to gut feelings, hunches. My feeling -- and the way I intend to vote -- is that Obama is better. I wish my vote were based on something more substantial -- perhaps I'm asking too much -- but thats how I'm going, come Tuesday. Hope I'm in the majority.