Obama (probably) has my vote

(nb: I actually did start writing this post before Edwards dropped out...)

So, with Dennis Kucinich out of the race - probably not showing up on my primary ballot - I have to decide who to back.

(of course, John Edwards' dropping out makes this choice much, much easier)

It's odd. Whenever I take one of those tests designed to show which candidate is closer to me, Obama has always been a solid second to Kucinich. Yet I've always sort of leaned to Edwards as my second choice. I like his in-your-face progressive oratory, his recognition of "Two Americas", his pro-union stance, and his passion. I like his emphasis on poverty and health care, and his refusal to take lobbyist money. I like a lot about him.

And of course, as the campaign went on, both Obama and Clinton were forced to take a lot of positions that resembled Edwards', narrowing the gap between the three of them - particularly between Obama and Clinton.

There's a lot about Clinton I don't like. I don't like her knives-out approach (and don't give that "if Obama can't handle Clinton he'll never handle the Republicans" talk; that's no excuse for it). I don't like her hawkish attitude toward Iran. I don't like her centrist politics (no, she is not a liberal). And I don't like her indebtedness to corporations.

Of course, Obama's not perfect in that latter regard. Also, he's pretty religious. But he does have a good feel about him, and he seems like he wants to be president of the whole country. Also, he's willing to talk instead of shoot.

Now, oddly enough, I was incredibly enthusiastic about Bill Clinton. He was the "agent of change" - in a good way - back then. Remember "the man from Hope"? Remember how he made us feel like the people with good intentions were going to be running the country - how he appealed to our better nature? And Hillary Clinton was a huge part of that. It's probably inevitable that Obama will face the same relentless enemy they did - as Wayne Besen points out:

The truth is, the conservative movement is as pugnacious as it is repugnant. It is arrogance with a self-centered sense of entitlement - with its unpatriotic actions wrapped in the flag and justified in the name of God.

As imperfect - and at times disappointing - as the Clintons may have been, for many years, they were all that stood in the way of the conservative movement's complete domination and takeover of America.

Unfortunately, for their successful efforts at partially derailing the conservative juggernaut, the Clintons are being blamed for sullying the tone in Washington. This twisted line of reasoning reminds me of the kid who finally retaliates against his bullying tormentors, only to be sent to the school's office and reprimanded for fighting. The historical revisionism on the Clinton era must stop because it does not conform to reality. They did not pick the fights, they just retaliated - and often won. If Obama is elected president and faces the same frontal assault as Bill and Hillary, he will suffer the precise partisan fate. We can only hope that he has the killer instinct and resourcefulness to effectively fight back.

So, who to support? A proven fighter who's not quite where I want her to be on a number of issues, or a charismatic conciliator (remember how we loved that about Bill?) who's closer to my positions? Bearing in mind that neither of them is a really good match, that they're very close to each other on a lot of issues, that either would be a pretty good president, and that either would be enormously preferable to any of the Republicans running, I'm finding the choice difficult.

And now Ted Kennedy - our great gray liberal lion - has endorsed Obama.

So, while I'm annoyed that the media and the broken primary system has deprived me of the chance of voting for either my number 1 or 2 choice - and it's still January for crying out loud - I guess I'm backing Obama now. I may even get enthusiastic about him by the summer.