My Closing Argument to the Superdelegates.

I had a very, very interesting conversation recently with a person I would describe as an undecided (and somewhat detached) moderate voter who would describe himself as an independent.  This has been a running conversation over the past two months, I would say, where my friend would ask me, for example, Obama's position on transportation and I would communicate back some specifics (totally incidental - this friend, who works in the transportation industry, thinks the gas tax "holiday" is not only wrong but dangerous, and he's in a position to know).

It finally came to a core question from him, where he sat back and wondered aloud at the passion behind my support.  This led to the question of what bred that passion.  And interestingly enough, to explain my passion, I went back to the beginning, to before I supported Obama (or any candidate).  I realized in articulating this that it was also my case to the superdelegates (not that I count for anything).  My argument in the extended entry.

I haven't been on the Obama train from the "beginning" (whenever that really was - I guess when he announced).  I furthermore wasn't on the Clinton train or the Edwards train or the Kucinich train or the Dodd train or the Biden train (I'm sure I'm missing a train I wasn't on, but so be it).  I had been hopeful that Al Gore would run this time around.  When it was clear that he would not, I took stock of the likely field and found myself fully underwhelmed.  I considered Edwards, Clinton and Obama the three strongest possible candidates.  While I recognized differences between the three of them, I have to say (and there's no need to argue about this now as it was simply my opinion) that I found them all similar enough.  I would have, at that time, ranked either Edwards or Obama above Clinton.  My concern with Clinton was her high negatives and my opinion that, of the three, she would have the hardest time in a general election.  But, at that time (pre-January), I was absolutely a) unenthusiastic; and b) willing to support any of the three.

So there's your context.  What I hope you've taken away is a general sense of "blah" that I had prior to primaries and caucuses actually beginning.  I don't mean that as an offense to anyone's candidate past or present - it's just how I felt.

January changed everything for me, and specifically the Iowa caucuses.  Because of Obama's relative surprisingly strong showing in Iowa, a lot of information about him and his voters came to light and two things struck me and struck me hard.

The first was the degree and extent to which Obama had energized the youth vote.  Believe me - after 2004, I was bound to view the youth vote with some measure of skepticism (sorry young voters - no offense meant!).  But Obama's youth support was different.  Young voters were actively working, and working HARD, for Obama's campaign.  The level of enthusiasm with which young voters voiced their support for Obama was infectious.  And they were also reaching into their pockets - $5.00 at a time - and putting their money where their mouths and, in many cases, their feet were.  They were speaking to and about the Obama campaign in every way that mattered and indicated that they were willing to go the distance for this guy, to give back to his campaign in a way that was meaningful and to see this through.  That continues today.

The other thing that became wildly apparent to me post-Iowa was the extent to which the Obama campaign and Obama himself had fully embraced the 50-State strategy.  Again - this was evident in a very meaningful way.  Reports talked extensively about the resources, both financial and human, dedicated by the Obama campaign to every state.  At the same time that this information was coming to light, it was also fairly evident through the reporting that the Clinton campaign had embraced a large state strategy and wasn't pursuing a 50-state strategy.

In my view of the world, this election is about more than Barack Obama or any particular candidate.  It's about seizing and leveraging an opportunity to build something transformative, lasting and robust.  I've seen all the hand-wringing over the past five months or so about whether or not Barack Obama can foment change on the scale that many of us feel is necessary.  In my view, that's the WRONG QUESTION and the wrong view.  Politicians don't create change - the electorate does.  Part of the problem, as I see it, of the past years has been the relative stasis in the electorate itself.  The only true enabler of change, then, is the electorate.  And the only way THAT changes from previous elections is to expand and energize new groups of voters.  As the electorate itself diversifies, change becomes - well - inevitable.  And even more important - it becomes possible.

Barack Obama is the only candidate who has shown me that he can expand and broaden the Democratic constituency.  Obama himself can't make change out of whole cloth - but he can attract and energize a diversity of voters who can.  He's shown this consistently throughout this long, drawn-out process.

I also believe, to an inflexible extent (personally), in the idea that you run a candidate in every district in every state.  The old, narrow-electorate way of looking at things questions this strategy and questions allocating resources to races where a particular Democratic candidate is unlikely to win.  Again, this misses the point utterly.  Although a particular Democratic candidate may not win in a particular race this time around, the statements and assertions of that Democratic candidate's opponent are being addressed and countered.  An alternate point of view and different view of the world is being put out there for voters to at least consider.  It's a long-term, iterative process achieved race by race.  The scope and breadth of voter education is enhanced with a 50-state strategy and a district that is not winnable today is, potentially, winnable the next time around.  It is critical that we, as Democrats, not allow Republicans to have the stage to themselves unchallenged.  Failing to run a qualified Democratic candidate in every race in every state effectively cedes the argument to the Republicans and gives voters NO choice to make (never mind the fact that it forces Republicans to expend resources defending where they have not had to previously defend).

My opinions and attitudes about Hillary Clinton's candidacy and campaign are not unknown here at Daily Kos.  The only thing I'll say about it in this diary is that the opinion I hold of Hillary Clinton today is dramatically different than how I viewed her a mere four months ago.  You are welcome to go back through my diaries and comments if you have questions as to why I feel the way I do - I have been as clear as I possibly could.  I don't reference any of that here because the core argument I am making in this diary is not specifically against Hillary Clinton but rather FOR Barack Obama.

So that's my argument.  Barack Obama's candidacy has shown us a vision of the Democratic party to be - one that broadens the electorate and therefore enables REAL change, and one that broadens the conversation to include every voter regardless of party affiliation.

I am, truly, putting my faith in the superdelegates to see and seize the rare opportunity we have at hand, and to do so without allowing themselves to be distracted with all the beside-the-point "issues" that are being and have been raised to date.  I'm trusting them also to do so in a timely fashion, before the opportunity itself slips away and leaves us all wondering - years later - why we're pretty much in the same place lamenting the same issues as we do today.

This isn't just about winning.  It's about creating something better.  I even need to remind myself of that at times.  And I believe Barack Obama is the only Democratic candidate to realize a better America.