Sophie’s Choice

I walked into my caucus undecided, and walked out an Obama delegate. I woke up supporting Hillary on Friday, conflicted on Saturday, and Barack on Sunday. While Garfield fell into a collective crush on one and spit constant, automatic insults at the other, I fought myself. So here it is: my head on a page, Obama-vs.-Clinton style.

The Issues:
After all the CNN and Google and rallying, I thought I’d have a clearer idea of who “beat” whom on the issues I cared about. Nope. The issue with all the issues is that really, Clinton and Obama are basically the same. On the economy, they both

middle and lower classes and reverse Bush’s breaks for the wealthy; both support unionizing; both present job-training programs and protection for homeowners. Plus points for Obama in raising the minimum wage. On the environment and climate change, they propose almost identical plans to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2050, implement cap-and-trade policies on companies, and create international eco-agreements.

The two candidates start to split on foreign policy. Plus for Obama in condemning the invasion from the start, but it’s a little unfair to say that Clinton voted for the war — she authorized inspections for weapons of mass destruction — especially considering that Obama wasn’t even in the Senate at the time and didn’t have to make the difficult choice. Looking forward, Clinton’s got the edge: she gives a start date for removing troops (60 days after she takes the oath), while Obama gives an end date for all troops to be out (16 months). It’s just not realistic, or wise, to set an absolute finish. We have to base our actions on what’s best for Iraq’s future, not what sounds best in a speech.

On healthcare, both aim for “universal coverage” but approach this goal differently. Clinton wants healthcare to be mandated: everyone must have coverage through either their employer’s plan, the private plans of Congress, or a basic public plan. Tax credits and subsidies assist small businesses and the poor. Obama calls for universal children’s care, but aims to drive down adult costs significantly and expand Medicare and Medicaid instead of mandate. I’m with Clinton on this— what if, no matter how cheap, some families still can’t afford insurance? Obama does put more focus on low prescription drug prices, though, which I like.

The Rest:
But as the pundits and the people have said — and Garfield students are definitely no exception — this is not an election of issues, but of personalities. True, they’ve been oversimplified. Obama isn’t just charming, naïve, or inspiring; Clinton isn’t just knowledgeable, divisive, or reliable. Most of all, “Hillary” does not mean “experience,” and “Barack” does not mean “change.” I’m sick of these buzzwords defining the candidates.

And yet the truth behind these words drove me crazy. In supporting Clinton — and defending that position to the “Ew, what the hell, she’s so stupid” responses of everyone at my 2nd period Stat table — I thought I had gotten it all figured out. If their positions are essentially the same, I said, then they both propose the same amount of change. Hillary is undeniably more experienced: she knows the details and logistics; she can turn those proposals into concrete, feasible policies. I thought I’d come to an unbeatable conclusion. Hillary, because of her experience, was the true candidate for change.

So I pledged myself an official Clinton supporter to my friends, family, Facebook, and the enthusiastic middle-aged women around me at the Clinton rally. But the more I talked like I knew I was right, the more I worried that I was wrong.

I couldn’t shake Obama. I couldn’t stop from picturing his name, with its proud Hussein, at the bottom of the Middle East’s TV screens; I couldn’t stop imagining the impact on Islamic leaders when they saw not a Bush or a Clinton but someone who looked like them leading their so-called enemy. And I couldn’t help but wonder whether the power of a united American people trumped Clinton’s command over the political machine.

Before his rally, I swore I wouldn’t be swayed by Obama’s speech. And it wasn’t his words that won me over. I’d tried to convince myself that his campaign was empty poetry. But it wasn’t empty, it was full: 20,000 full, an entire arena full, with people who finally cared. Walking and driving and lying in bed, I thought through my old conclusion and reached a new one. Obama can gather advisors to crunch numbers and maneuver legislation. And, no matter why or how, he can bring together this country so that its people want to help him help themselves, each other, and the rest of the world.

I’ve debated, me against me, and I am finally satisfied with the button on my binder. Support who you want: Clinton, Obama, Ron Paul, your mailman, whoever. Just have an answer when someone asks, “Why?”

- Sophie Forman

Double Trouble

Last Wednesday I discovered that both Democratic hopefuls would be in town to rally and campaign. It seemed like a unique opportunity, so I made a point to make it to both events.

After seeing the two senators speak, and after spending several hours with their supporters, I am much more impressed with Barack Obama than I am with Hillary Clinton.

The first rally was Clinton’s. Held at Pier 30 on Thursday night, it was billed as an opportunity to see Blue America’s ‘experience’ candidate first-hand. At

8:00 on a Seattle weeknight, the streets were filled. Even though the event had only been announced that morning in a post-Super Tuesday panic — the Clinton campaign must have suddenly realized that Washington mattered — thousands of supporters still streamed along the sidewalk and into Pier 30.

The rally was split into two giant rooms. One would have Hillary in it, the other a TV screen. Naturally, everyone in the misfortunate room was trying to enter the other. I sneaked around the relatively uncrowded edges of the first room to the backstage door. There they were admitting select handfuls of people to hold signs behind the Clinton podium. I was chosen and happily zoomed behind stage. Once situated, I placed myself within an arm’s length of the speaking platform. After a forty-minute wait, Hillary arrived to surrounding applause. She delivered a mid-length speech, then spent about forty more minutes shaking hands on the way out.

Clinton’s delivery was clean, but she failed to connect with the entire audience. Inspired moments were outweighed by the bulk of the content, and a harried schedule showed through in the candidate’s face. As for the composition of rally-goers, there were surprisingly many young people and a thick profusion of soccer-mom types. The odd stereotypical, crazy liberal dotted the masses, shouting out slogans with an edgy shrill. My overall impression was a pleasant one, but I wasn’t blown away.

Obama had a fair amount to live up to. He did this and more at Key Arena. I hit his rally groggy the next morning. Any impressions of grandeur the mobs for Clinton gave me were immediately blown away. Sitting in the Seattle Center line hours before the scheduled start, there were easily twice as many supporters as at Pier 30. I hopped into the front by a friend who had conveniently held a spot and waited. After doors opened, we were given the option to pass through a security checkpoint and enter the arena floor. I jumped on the opportunity as the location would put me within feet of Obama. The wait for his speech was grueling, and allowed for plenty of observation time.

In the stands we noticed a thick smattering of Garfield students. Alongside them were what appeared to be hundreds of other young people, from elementary school classes to teenagers. In fact, Obama had attracted a young audience to a degree that put Clinton solidly to shame. Youth was not the only advantage the latter candidate enjoyed in his supporters — there were also many more of them — some 23,000 overflowed Key Arena’s seating and spilled outside. When Obama finally arrived two hours late, it seemed that no one cared about the wait. A shouting mania set over the stands on his entry and thousands screamed his name as one. His actual speech was confidently delivered. He oozed enthusiasm and his charisma quickly won an already friendly audience. Unfortunately I was forced to leave mid-presentation, but I had seen the differences I came to find.

Two splits between Obama and Clinton seem critical to me. The first and most obvious is in appearance and showmanship. To say that I agree with what the media has been saying, that Obama can inspire far more effectively than Clinton, is a gross understatement. Where Clinton appeared tired and bedraggled, Obama completely owned the stage, arena, people inside, and several surrounding blocks. Secondly, for the part of speech I watched, Obama never took jabs at the Republicans. This was something Clinton spent maybe a fourth of her time doing. In an election where the ability to pass legislation, to get things done, is touted as Hillary’s strong point, this difference is critical. Simply put, a candidate who doesn’t make efforts to get along with Republicans is unlikely to work well with them in the future. It seems that Obama both leads his fellows and plays well with his opponents better than his blonde foe. After seeing the two in person, Obama is my man for the Democratic nomination.

- Tim Wilder