There are literally no competent progressive elites. If you asked average Democrats who they believe are good leaders, they might mention Al Gore, Russ Feingold, or Barbara Boxer. These are the best we have.

We’re supposed to be a political movement, but how can this movement continue to exist without any elected leadership that gets our mix of partisanship and populism, and couples it with a bullshit detector against insiders like McCain? Where’s our Jesse Helms or Paul Laxalt or Ronald Reagan? These were uncompromising political figures constantly preached the virtues of their ideas and built up farm teams of staffers and politicians. We have no one.

And we have ourselves partly to blame. We claim a sort of pseudo-ownership over Democrats serving at the national level, but “they” are not “us.” We’ve placed our eggs entirely in one basket: electing people to national office. For all the talk of “people-powered politics,” it’s a surprisingly top-down approach, and one whose results are unproven. The current strategy certainly has not helped achieve major progressive goals so far. The picture may change once candidates who connect more with - and owe more to - the netroots are in Congress, such as Donna Edwards or Darcy Burner. Or the picture may not change as much as we hope. Winning isn’t enough, and more Democrats isn’t enough, as 2006 showed. What if the grand prize of “better Democrats” proves not to be enough either?

We need to look for other leaders in addition to national figures. If we define “progressive elites” as congresspeople only, we find a shortage of heroes. But if we expand the circle to include figures like Newark Mayor Cory Booker or Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, we’ll see we do have competent progressive elites. The Bush presidency, which has left Congress as many people’s sole hope for change or accountability, and the inundation of senators in this year’s presidential primaries has given progressives tunnel vision. But Congress isn’t the end-all and be-all of political leadership. To put things in perspective, no one has been elected directly from Congress to the presidency since JFK, and before him Harding. For every senator-turned-president, for every Obama or JFK, there are several governors-turned-president, like FDR, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and Bush. In other words, we need to look to the state and even city level for leadership just as often as we look to the House, the Senate, and Pennsylvania Avenue. This year aside, I still believe Americans - myself included - see executives, rather than legislators, as the best leaders.

And that means a different style of coverage. Where is the coverage of governors’ races on national blogs? With a new generation of women leaders taking on Republicans in North Carolina and Indiana, do these races have no national significance for progressives? Where is the national coverage of mayoral races? If the election of Alaska’s congressmen, who represents less than a million people, is important, what about progressive mayors who might represent millions?

For all the talk about movement-building, the major national blogs are only succeeding at some of the building blocks of that movement: they can fundraise, they can raise awareness, and they can offer an alternative pundit class. But in some dimensions of politics, particularly the process of helping to form new leaders, they’re still mostly spectators. Couldn’t all the time spent hand-wringing over Obama’s campaign be better spent? Couldn’t we be looking ten years down the road instead of 100 days, marking out future progressive leaders who may be at the state or local level now, but a decade hence will be crafting national policy? That’s not just the job of state bloggers - that’s the job of the movement as a whole. We want a Reagan? Well, Reagan’s rise took longer than eight years.

Let Feingold talk. He wasn’t ours to begin with. Let’s stop assuming that the process of building a progressive nation is simply a math equation, and that reaching x number of better Democrats in Congress and the White House will automatically usher in the dreamed-of progressive era. Let’s look for leadership where it already exists - far away from Capitol Hill, or even the Act Blue pages, in the states, counties, and cities of our nation.

From here on out I refuse to endorse or vote for anyone who is linked to an individual who has already been in a major office. No more Jr’s or the III’s or spouses or anything. One family gets one shot. This is America, and last I checked it’s a democracy, so why should families “own” Senate and Congressional Seats, be entitled to the Governors’ Mansions, or even worse the Oval Office? Hillary is the most qualified? Why? Because she slept with, at least once, President Bill Clinton? Why don’t I see Monica Lewinsky on the ballot in Iowa, if that’s all it takes (and she might’ve earned it more!). I’m flat out tired of these no-talent ambitionless hacks running our government, and that goes for my good friends Ted Kennedy, Evan Bayh, and Bob Casey Jr. Granted, Senator Kennedy may go down in history as one of the greatest United States Senators ever, and perhaps the best overall ‘politician,’ but he certainly rode the coat-tails of his brothers, he’s just unique in the sense that he didn’t get close to the Promised Land. Also, if Senator Kennedy’s name was, perhaps, Senator Smith he’d go no recognition for what he does…in other words he’d be Senator Robert Byrd.

I don’t get excited when I see a woman running for President, and I don’t get excited when I see a black man running for President. Many people scream “Hillary” and pledge to vote for her when the time comes, but I can name several women in American politics who aren’t just better leaders but also better politicians. For example, Kathleen Sebelius, the current Governor of Kansas, is a far better leader and politician than Senator Clinton. She’s also the current popular governor of a state that, well, has better “values” than New York when it comes to the general election. What about my girl Janet Napolitano? Being a 2-term Governor of Arizona, a border/swing state (in my opinion) is not merit enough for the egg shaped room? Gimme a break, this woman has bigger stones than McCain. Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer…all three of these women can beat Hillary on what appears to be, according to her stump speech and advertisements, her greatest ‘strength’ which is that she’s been in the Senate a whopping two more years than Barack Obama. As for African American men who are more than qualified to be President? Cory Booker, the current MAYOR of Newark, NJ has more credibility than both Clinton and Obama combined. Some would say Harold Ford Jr, but he’s another son of privilege (and by that I mean his Dad was a Congressman) in Tennessee, albeit Memphis, but he’s just another person who won’t pick the color of his polo shirt without a consultant giving him a statistical breakdown of what color is right for certain weather conditions.

I don’t really give a shit what state you say you’re from, you are who you are when the cameras aren’t on you, and, to use a Caddyshack reference, if you’re going to elect anyone that would play a round of gold with Judge Elihu Smails then you’re just batshit insane. Drunken 4 year olds make better decisions. Sure, we all like to see President Bush clearing the shrubbery on his estate when he’s vacationing on White House West down there in Crawford, TX because it makes us feel that he’s just like us…because we all have 75 acre estates outside with their own water supplies (his house is actually very eco-friendly, but so is Sean Alexander’s home outside Seattle and both those guys aren’t running anywhere anytime soon, ZING!). Here’s my point: We, as Americans, shouldn’t elect leaders who pretend to be just like us and have a familiar last name, we should elect leaders that inspire us to be the best people, not just Americans but people, that we can be (for the upper management crowd, it’s called “maximizing potential”). Here’s what has to be done for this to actually happen:

More people need to run for office, any office, all the time. You have to be 25 to run for Congress, 30 to run for Senate, and 35 to run for President. But at 18 you can run for city council and most other local offices…like school board (my dad should’ve hired me when I was 13, the smear campaign would’ve been amazing). I know what you’re thinking, “but Jake, you of all people know how much money is needed to run a successful campaign, isn’t that what you do?” The answer is yes, I do know how much money is needed, and in most circumstances a lot of cheddar is needed…in most cases and in most states. I’ve worked campaigns with no money (for no money) but with the idea of change driving the money bus. Sure, most money for state primaries (like in Montana for example) comes in small donations, a $10 bill here…a $20 there… but in these cases it’s not about the money, it’s all about getting people talking. Once you win a primary the money starts coming from DC, Seattle, LA, etc etc. Jon Tester beat a 3-term Senator in a state where Bush was actually popular while being outspent by $8 million dollars. So, money isn’t always everything anymore. But here’s an idea!!

Let’s eliminate money in elections! I call it Campaign Finance Overhaul. Let McCain deal with “Reform,” the way campaigns are financed doesn’t need to be “reformed” but rather it needs to be eliminated all together. Cut out lobbyists from donating, eliminate anyone holding any position of influence from donating, eliminate teachers paid with state money from donating, eliminate all influence. You know why the Teachers Union is so fucking important? Because they’re the lobbying group who gives cash to campaigns that promise them something in return. Same goes for all Unions, all Corporations, and anyone whose stocks improve by whomever is in office, the one that promised all those defense contracts. So, cut out the fat and then you get the meat.

The meat, my friends, is who candidates really are. What if a candidate didn’t have to promise anything to anyone but rather make an honest promise to the voters? If a candidate didn’t need to spend every other day hob-knobbing at some fundraiser in a converted gymnasium with shitty food (yes, $10,000 a plate still gets you shitty buffet style food) then maybe they’d come up with real solutions to real problems. I feel like Donald Sutherland in JFK, like I’m giving out some big secret, but this is how the system REALLY works. Here’s what you do:

Endorse candidates who don’t want to raise money for campaigns. Make Election Day a federal holiday where no one has to work or go to school, and fine people who don’t vote. In doing so, America has to draw up a way to federally fund campaigns with a spending limit that is reasonable to today’s standards. In doing so, force major networks to devote certain periods of time before major elections to run campaign ads, for free, and promote serious time (not just 3 minutes) to discussing upcoming elections. You want a campaign bumper sticker on your car? Buy it, and the money spent will just be recycled back into the system. Think about it, we already spend a ton of taxpayer money for Secret Service protection for not just the candidates themselves but also every single member of their immediate family. Do you know how much it costs, per hour, to protect people running for President? Then think about how much protection they have for just fundraisers, which between the months of March-July is an average of at least 3 dinners per week! Millions upon Millions are spent so they can raise millions and millions that just go to admakers and PR firms (who are already doing just fine thank you).

You gotta trust me on this, because I’m actually advocating that people demand that I get paid less money, because I get paid, by in large, by fundraisers and individual contributions (thank you Steven Spielberg, I think you might’ve personally bought my TV and a few months rent, Indiana Jones rules!!). This is truly the only way to get not just real people running for office but actually honest men and women with ideas that are bigger than their wallets. If you cut out lobbyist contributions and all corporate fundraisers then Senators don’t vote the way their big contributors ask them to, they vote the way their constituents expect them to. And, for the love of Palmer, why oh why are none of the top Democratic candidates advocating a complete withdrawal of troops in the Middle East? Explain that to me, if you can.

Vote with your heart, don’t overthink it, and don’t vote just for someone whom you think will make your own quality of life better but rather think about your next door neighbor and his/her family and their family’s family etc etc. This is how I choose who I work for, and this is why I can’t wait for my current contract to expire.

Until a candidate brings up real change (and isn’t named Kucinich or Paul) I’m saddened by the Presidential Candidates for 2008. The stakes are too high and too real to vote any other way, so vote for whom you feel represents change…if you can find it. Me, I’m gonna vote for the “Party” Party…fundraisers include wings, bourbon, and jager. There’s a good chance you’ll wake up on the floor the next morning not remembering the great breakthroughs in Domestic Policy that you came up with, but if you check your pockets you may find bar napkins with scribbled ideas. You never know, sometimes the ideas on bar napkins (or guest checks, or coasters…) help get people elected, and maybe those people stand for something good. Not saying I’ve done that (or routinely do that)… So, if you wanna run for office, I’ll gladly come be your political consultant. As a card carrying member of the AAPC (American Association of Political Consultants) I get discounts from both Hertz Rent-a-car and Quality Inn motels. Don’t have money for my rental? No problem, give homeboy a bus pass or a bike (I’ll learn to ride one just for you). No motel money? I’ll sleep on the floor of a campaign office, I’ve done it before (I stay up late). As for the per diem that my contract demands? To be honest, I spend most of that on booze anyway, and I’m more than happy to live off fast-food dollar menus (I’m having faint memories of the OH-2 in 2005…good times, a Cincinnati Reds game was a campaign event). No money for polling data? Who cares!! Give a few kids some pixie sticks and tell’em to walk around with a clip board. It works! I did that! Don’t have money for ads? No problem!! My key strength is the manipulation of local media outlets (that’s code for getting journalists really drunk for 2 main reasons: a hungover journalist doesn’t ask hard questions, if they show up…I’m thinking Kansas City 2006, and if they had a good time they write favorably. Journalistic integrity can, and has, apparently been broken by Popov Vodka…it worked in high school and it works now). Call me “dirty” if you want, but if you’re gonna play in the mud…Think of it this way, the worst possible scenario is that the other candidate wins…wait a minute, that’s the worst that can happen and I’ll make sure it doesn’t. I don’t mind not making money, for after talking so many rich old men out of money over the past few years for my $1, 500 a month salary that I usually defer ½ of back to the campaign anyway money isn’t an object. Give me a bottle of Maker’s, 3 packs of smokes, a 2 liter of coke, and a large pepperoni pizza and I’ll get you in office. It may not be pretty, but it’ll be.

Let’s do this: vote change!!! Change for changes sake in 2008. Good ring to it, right? I wasn’t born this good folks, it took time.

Much of my support for you is drawn from the personal guidance and inspiration your life provides me, for in many ways you represent both where I’ve been and where I hope to be. After hearing you speak at a Northwestern graduation ceremony I remarked to myself how unique you seemed to be, a capable and charismatic person who was also in a position to bring about sorely needed change. I felt as though you called me to arms that day, reminding me that there’s a whole lotta crap to clean up and a million places to start. You talked the talked, having walked the walk: organizer of communities, driver of voter registrations, advocate of civil rights, and professor of all things constitutionally legal. That day, I saw a man captivate a crowd rich with ethnic, economic and political diversity. I saw a man whose love for the people seemed deep and unwavering. I was ready to view you as the next great orator in American politics. I was ready to listen to you, eager to follow the man from Chicago (by way of Kenya, Kansas, Hawaii, Indonesia, and New York City). I’m still ready, and still waiting.

My how you’ve changed, Barack. Within 16 months you went from being a source of inspiration to a source of embarrassment. You’re running a piss-poor campaign, so pathetic in fact that I’m finding it increasingly difficult to back out loud and proud. Over the last five months I’ve made excuses for your campaign’s inability to build on the swell of popular support and media coverage you received following your announcement. “Where has Barack gone?” they asked. “What are his big plans for the country? What has he been saying recently, and why isn’t he fairing better in the polls?”

While routinely downplaying these and similar questions regarding your campaign’s effectiveness (or lack thereof), I myself began to lose confidence in the very candidate and campaign for which I advocated. Whether it was on the stump, during a democratic debate, or in a newspaper article, you failed to move your candidacy beyond the vague notions of hope and change. You refrained from manipulating the conversation in order to outline well-crafted and nuanced policy proposals. This failure of communication led many to ask, “where’s the beef,” in regards to your plans to bring about “change” and to justify “hope”. The tipping point for me was the most recent Democratic debates. Everyone seemed ready for you to meet Hillary head-on; its what we wanted and needed. Instead, you chose to punt the ball to Dodd and Edwards, allowing them to further distinguish themselves while you remain reticent. Nice going!!

Barack, I know you and your team have spent a great many hours outlining your policy proposals, however, know that these need not reside solely in the pages of your personal website. Why aren’t you highlighting your congressional record with more thoughtfulness and consistency? You sponsored and co-sponsored bills pertaining to Congressional pork, care and services for wounded veterans, voter deception, nuclear and conventional arms proliferation, and automobile fuel efficiency. You introduced a decent legislative plan regarding an Iraq pullout, and you have advocated ameliorating the political and economic situations in Sierra Leone, the Congo, and Sudan. Without a doubt these are laudable achievements, worthy of being woven seamlessly into your stump speeches and debate answers. You need to become a better salesman of Barack Obama. Like John and Bobby Kennedy, you must challenge the American public, while at the same time displaying the compassion, charisma, and political acumen upon which Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency. You need to start leading this country, not just legislating on its behalf.

How is it that a Southside community organizer and civil rights lawyer has failed to engage in, much less monopolize, discussions on urban education, poverty, law enforcement, the penal system, employment discrimination and health care? How are you not a national leader of any of the aforementioned issues? More importantly, how will you set out to tackle these problems in an effective manner? I may go to your website to figure these things out, but most voters will not. In loving and caring for the people, you must educate them, which requires you to do that which you have yet to realize – prioritize substance over style and policies over politics. You fail to realize that, in portraying yourself as above partisan politics, you appear to be a candidate profoundly ignorant of our country’s widening social and economic cleavages. I know you to possess this knowledge, however, you seem increasingly incapable of expressing your platform cogently and convincingly in public settings.

You need to figure out how to deal with, and by deal with I mean criticize, the Clintons. According to many, Bill remains the Democratic Party’s most popular figure – and he’s actively campaigning for your chief opponent. You need to neutralize his ability to consistently command the media’s attention. Getting someone like Gore or Oprah to campaign visibly and vocally on your behalf is paramount. Also, you need to figure out how to attack Hillary directly. Understand that attacking her doesn’t mean your abandoning your “politics of hope.” Instead, assert that you are questioning HER “experience,” which is so conveniently bottled up in her husband’s presidential archives. Get offensive, not defensive; show Democrats how she’s moderated her policies since 2000 in order to appear more “electable” and mainstream. She’s a sheep in wolves’ clothing my friend. Explain to voters that you can appeal to the majority of Americans without compromising your beliefs and policies.

You need to develop a compact policy platform to give to people during debates and stump speeches. Think of a tripod or a table – what area needs the most fixing in order to keep America from tumbling down? Education + environment + Iraq? Legal system + diplomacy + health care? People need to start associating you with more important and specific plans than hope and change. Furthermore, you need to put forth some sort of visionary public welfare program. Think “Peace Corps,” think Johnson’s “Great Society,” think “Teach for America.” Heck, think even “Contract with America” if it gets the creative juices flowing. The kind of change you’re advocating requires sweeping changes, so get crackin’!!

Finally, you need to find some media consultants who know how to play hardball…fast! I’m taking about doctors who spin truth, directors of communication who know when, how, and to whom press releases should be spread in order to maximize effectiveness and minimize casualties. When CNN reports on Hillary’s misgivings about the State department’s diplomatic efforts, the article directly below it can’t be about how you refused to put your hand over your heart during a pledge of allegiance several months ago. You need to start making some news.

Barack, its time for your to start righting to your ship. You need to step outside your unconvincing shell of self-assuredness and level with the American public. Whether on a stump or in a debate, you need to speak as if there was only you and one person. Revamp your approach to communication in public settings. Your have good ideas and endless media exposure – these constitute key ingredients for a recipe for success. Mr. Obama, you’re the best we’ve got here – you can’t continue to let us down.

Matt Martin lives in Washington, DC where he works as a paralegal in an international alw firm. He graduated from Northwestern University in June 2007, where he studied political science and jazz.

10. Michelle & Co

After eight years of Laura Bush and her daughters, Condi, and truly frightful characters like Karen Hughes and Harriet Myers, the “women” of the Bush administration have left Americans utterly starved for role models who embody (all in one package) strength, success, intelligence, fun, warmth, and (dare I say it) femininity. So of course, the main appeal of Hillary is her potential to make the Viagra-popping greys in Washington shut up once and for all and sing “Hail to the Squaw.” Neverthless, as I can’t actually bring myself to like Hillary Clinton, I’m afraid my best hope for seeing a good woman tear up the White House is, yet again, as First Lady.

Enter Michelle Obama. Despite what preconceptions you might have about the “universality” of a church-going African American lady from Chicago’s Southside, this woman is a powerhouse. A graduate of Princeton and (like her husband) Harvard Law School, she was in fact Barack’s senior and mentor when he arrived for work at Chicago’s Sidley Austin law firm. She later quit the corporate world to work for Public Allies (a non-profit that promotes minorities in leadership positions) and the University of Chicago Medical Centre, which (unless she turns up as a candidate in a few years — unlikely, given her expressed reservations about leading such a public life already) tells me she might just have a soul. An impressive 5’11, named in Vanity Fair’s 2007 “Best Dressed” List, and the doting mother of 6-year old Sasha and 9-year old Malia, Michelle would bring style, grace, and new motherhood to the White House like no one since (dare I say it) Jackie O’, whilst still packing the intelligence, success, and anti-housewife punch reminiscent of another past First Lady (dare I say it)…Hillary Clinton. In short, as a “First Family,” I like the Obamas, and feel they have as much cred in the way of girl power and family values as any of Obama’s rivals.

9. He Might Just Restore Some Patriotism

This is (both personal and national) a pride issue. Having spent two of the last three years outside of the US, I’m so sick of having to disassociate myself from “my” president. Granted, in selecting a candidate we should choose the person who will best serve America. But as the most powerful person in the world the American president must also be someone who will not only express compassion and justice toward the rest of humanity (as opposed to mere warmongering) but who, as our representative, will actually improve our tattered image abroad. While the rest of the world whispers about the prospect of the US joining the embarrassingly long list of countries (among them Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Germany, the UK, Liberia, Jamaica, Chile, and most recently Argentina) who’ve already elected female heads of state, I personally think electing Barack Obama would symbol a more progressive and inspiring “first” than electing Hillary. Having so often faced the skepticism of folks abroad when I tell them I’m backing Barack Obama, what I want now is to prove their sort of grim disillusionment misguided.

8. He Thinks I’m Entitled to Healthcare

I realize Hillary has a good historical claim to this one, but in many senses healthcare is still Obama’s baby. Since early in his career he has stated unequivocally that he supports universally-available, affordable, quality healthcare in the US, and was among the first of the major candidates to present a comprehensive, informed plan to get us there. As one of the 50 million uninsured Americans, that’s all I need to know.

7. Forget the Beer. He and I Should Inhale Together

What can I say? Half the election is about personal charisma, and in my book, Obama has it. He likes to cook Mexican food, smokes the occasional cigarette, and cites poker as his “hidden talent.” He prefers basketball to football, claims to have Jay-Z in his iPod, and reads John le Carre books for fun. (Ugh. If I hear one more candidate say they’re reading “a biography of Thomas Jefferson…”) When asked whether he ever smoked weed Obama famously replied “I inhaled frequently. That was the point,” and he has even admitted to trying cocaine. While Dubya has given us eight years of mind-numbing incoherence and weird snarly “laughter,” Obama has shown he can actually tell a joke. Moreover, when he laughs, he bellows like a man! Simply put, I like the guy, and wouldn’t mind at all having to listen to him for the next few years.

6. He Cares About the Planet

Um, I realize we’re only on #6 but being the eco-pansy I am this actually was what sealed the deal for me. Aside from having a near-perfect rating from the League of Conservation Voters and a record of introducing almost 100 environment or energy related bills as a legislator, Obama’s presidential platform includes an impressive emphasis on environmental issues. He helped compose and vocally advocates the Sanders-Boxer cap-and-trade climate bill (the most ambitious bill of its kind calling for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and crucially, auctioning instead of grandfathering of permits), he was instrumental in the Senate in raising auto fuel efficiency standards, he has wisely advocated focusing an environmental budget on appropriate clean technology (unlike nuclear) and energy efficiency, he has said he’s prepared to commit to a Kyoto-like agreement without waiting for China or India, he wants to strengthen the EPA and revamp clean air and clean water legislation, and he drives a hybrid. The only down side to Obama is that to date he’s supported corn-based ethanol, but then again none of his leading rivals haven’t, and he is from Illinois, so I’ll let that one slide. Perhaps most importantly, Obama has young children, which to me means when he says he wants to give “our” children a healthy planet he actually has to think about as long-term as I can realistically hope a president will.

5. I Like Hearing My Candidate in Hip-Hop Songs

Everyone likes to back a winner, and no matter his status in the polls Obama seems to have won over at least a few among the most vocal anti-government crowd, the rappers. As a relaxing pause to this article, please enjoy some Obama shout-outs:

Lil Sci (a.k.a. John Robinson) — “Hit Me (Remix)”

Download audio file (hitme.mp3)

Talib Kweli — “Say Something”

Download audio file (say.mp3)

4. I Really Do Consider Him Qualified

Abundant experience does not a good president make. Look at Bush. He was a two-term governor of a major state and the son of a past president, and is hands down the worst president ever. Obama might not know everything there is to know about being president, however, (as Jake rightly pointed out) he has admitted this, which speaks to a level of prudence and humility that I would embrace wholeheartedly in the next American president.

Moreover, call me young and ignorant but I don’t really think of Obama as inexperienced. His career as a state and national senator, though short, is legitimately packed with hard work, consensus building, creative and well-thought-out legislating, and general pro-action. All candidates, regardless of experience, face a leadership test in their ability to run and inspire an energetic presidential campaign, and at this Obama has succeeded with flying colors. Even if he were a complete Washington outsider (which of course, he isn’t) I would consider the paradigm shift a virtue, as we move away from the rich-old-white-man prototype and embrace someone ever-so-slightly different. Put succinctly, I like his ideas, and I believe he has the ability (as much any candidate) to make them a reality.

3. A People’s President?

There are no trade-offs with this man in terms of who he represents. He’s a win for black people. He’s a win for white people. He’s a win for bi-racial people, and for people who don’t give a damn about race. He’s a win for Muslims. He’s a win for Christians. He’s a win for non-religious people. He’s as much a win for rich and privileged Ivy League-graduates as for poor black kids from the Southside. He’s a win for immigrants. He’s a win for the under-50’s. I’m a white middle-class expatriate female in her twenties, and for some reason, I feel Obama represents me. That Obama is doing so well in the polls speaks more highly of American voters than the success of any other candidate. He is a win for tolerance, for overcoming ugly histories, for uniting, bridging, and healing. Aside from Kucinich (who I love, but who will never win) Obama is to me the biggest, most realistic hope for a truly populist president.

2. Where the Heart Is

My #2 reason is a sentimental one: I just don’t doubt his sincerity. This relates closely to Reasons No. 5 and 7, but there’s nothing about Barack Obama that feels like a compromise. If elected, he would probably be our least “American” president since the dudes who were born before America existed, and yet I never question his patriotism. I believe he loves his country, and for the right reasons. While I deeply believe he cares about non-Americans (such as Darfurians and Iraqis) I also believe his chief concern is domestic issues. Call me bamboozled but I believe Obama’s interest in consensus-building is genuine – with the exception of some admittedly disappointing tit-for-tats with Mrs. Clinton during this primary I get the sense that he really does try to raise the quality of political public debate. Unlike Hillary, he didn’t carpetbag for his seat in the Senate, and also unlike Hillary, I don’t get the sense that Obama “believes” strictly what is politically advantageous. (For example, to my knowledge he’s the only leading candidate on either side who’s introduced a bill to prevent election fraud, and has said publicly he’d like the general election to be subject to campaign spending limits.) He is, frankly, an intellectual. His books, speeches, and performances in unrehearsed debates and interviews leave no doubt in my mind that he’s a gifted wordsmith and a progressive and dynamic thinker. The (relative) absence of nonsense catch phrases in his campaign leads me to be believe Obama isn’t about unwaivering party lines or blind political absolutisms, but rather, meeting the everchanging needs of his country. Finally, I’m down with his faith. While I don’t identify religiously as he does, Barack Obama has said some of the most compelling and intelligent things I’ve heard a public figure say about the role of spirituality in America, making him the first candidate in my memory who’s faith I’d actually like to share.

1. He Can Win a General Election

And at the end of the day, the sorry state of American politics brings us to this crucial point. Yeah, yeah, Hillary has the most support among Democrats. But as many (including our authors) have observed, there are compelling reasons to fear her ability to actually defeat whatever nominee the Republicans produce. You saw it here on the Seminal: a solid 50% of Americans simply would never vote for Hillary, while only 37% would never vote for Obama. Moreover, multi-scenario predictive polls have suggested Obama can secure a more comfortable lead over Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, or perhaps more importantly, Huckabee, than Hillary Clinton. In short, in a general election the man would carry all the positives of Hillary (except experience…if you really consider being First Lady “experience”) without her abundant negatives, meaning he can bring this one home for the Blues.

So there you have it, my one-pint-ten-point spiel. Apologies to John and Elizabeth Edwards for making this primarily an “Obama v Clinton” comparative piece, but then again, this is about as complex as I can make it on a Friday night in Brixton.

It’ll be the same during the 2008 election as well. No matter who gets into office, the situation will remain dire in Iraq, the predominance of the US as an effective ally in foreign affairs will stay awful, and the “American Dream” will be unattainable by the shrinking middle class. I don’t want to sound horribly dismal, but them’s the breaks.

So my endorsement in the primary is one based on principle, rather than actually being elected and winning the presidency. And the candidate that has the strongest set of principles with which progressives can agree is Dennis Kucinich. This man has been repeating the same mantras throughout his House career, ones of establishing peaceful relations in foreign affairs and using the military as a last resort. He wants every American to have health care under a single-payer system. He wants to restore the middle class in this country by getting rid of free trade agreements like NAFTA and the proposed FTAA. The list goes on, from education and poverty to racism and sexism. The man is on point.

And as J-Ro noted, every Democratic candidate that is running has a national platform to get things done now. Dennis Kucinich has been using this platform since he got on it.

The C-SPAN Archives has a nifty tool which documents time spent on certain procedures, time spent on a certain bill, and a whole bunch of other great things. One of those things that it documents is the amount of time each member of Congress spends on the floor of his/her respective chamber (and also how much time is spent speaking in committees). Let’s see how the Democratic candidates stack up:

In the Senate in 2007:
Joe Biden - 5 hours, 38 minutes, 4 seconds
Hillary Clinton - 2 hours, 32 minutes, 16 seconds
Chris Dodd - 4 hours, 29 minutes, 36 seconds
Barack Obama - 3 hours, 9 minutes, 16 seconds

In the House in 2007, Dennis Kucinich spoke for 3 hours, 49 minutes, 22 seconds.

So wait, that means that both Biden and Dodd are speaking up more than Kucinich in Congress? Well, yes and no. By pure measure of time, yes. But you have to realize that the House and the Senate operate on very different time distributions. Senators have an almost unlimited amount of time to speak on a topic, while time in the House is at a much higher premium. To adjust for this, the Congress project maintains lists of how many days the person spoke in that year, and how that ranks in comparison with other members of Congress.

Again, for the Senate in 2007:
Biden - 21 days (69th of all Senators)
Clinton - 11 days (91st of all Senators!)
Dodd - 23 days (66th of all Senators)
Obama - 17 days (76th of all Senators)

And for the House in 2007? Kucinich has spoken 55 days. Not only more than all of the other candidates, but ranked 17th in the House.

He’s been on the platform, not only speaking, but proposing legislation. Just this past Thursday, he introduced legislation that would aid states in establishing universal pre-kindergarten programs for all three, four, and five year-old children. The bill has 37 cosponsors. He’s proposed legislation:

to get out of Iraq immediately

to impeach VP Cheney (21 cosponsors)

to establish a Department of Peace (67 cosponsors)

As I said before, the list goes on and on. He’s using his national platform arguably more than any of the other contenders for the Democratic nomination.

But, despite this, Dennis isn’t going to get the nomination. And it doesn’t matter.

He’s got a fire and a set of principles that he will stand by and defend, principles that the progressive blogosphere considers almost taboo to discuss, like a family skirting around discussing gay Aunt Jinny who just died in a car accident at Thanksgiving dinner. These progressive ideals are the ones that more and more Americans are taking up and considering, despite counter-discussions in mainstream media and even amongst ourselves.

Kucinich doesn’t act like a politician. That’s why he comes off as squirrelly and naïve in the debates and why he campaign tells us to do weird things like “txt 4 peace, lol”. It will say something when Ohio, the state I’m voting in for the primary, gets Kucinich over 107,000 votes, 9 percent of the popular vote. Think 1920, when Eugene V. Debs, in prison and running under the Socialist Party ticket, still got nearly a million votes and 3.4% of the popular vote! Think Mel Carnahan, who actually died in a 2000 Senate race against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and still won. Obviously Kucinich isn’t in prison or dead, but the powers-that-be and big spenders don’t look too kindly on non-politico peace activists.

A vote for Kucinich says something to other Americans: there is someone willing to stand up during a time of war and poverty, someone who has enough prescience and foresight to see what negative direction the country has headed, and more and more people agree with his message and principles of peace, sustainability, and well-being. This vote will make its mark in history.

Obama’s commencement speech affected me on a deep level. It wasn’t even the content that really got me. He spoke like I imagined the political giants of the past, giants like JFK or FDR, spoke. He projected something beyond charisma. I didn’t just want to like him, I wanted to believe in him. Looking back on it, his connection with young people like me was most impressive. He could address graduates without talking down to us. He could engage our intellect and bring out big themes and deep thoughts without sounding grandiose.

From then on, my candidate was Obama. While my support would probably be characterized as “soft” by pollsters and strategists, I agreed with his policies too, particular those addressing poverty and education. His overall message was attractive as well. A candidate of hope sounded great, especially in the aftermath of Bush’s reelection and the 2006 changes in leadership in Washington. It seemed all but inevitable, given his huge grassroots support, that he would run a swift and vicious campaign of change and be swept into the White House in 2008, ushering in a new era of progressive governance.

Somewhere along the way, from his speech at commencement to this summer, he lost me as a supporter. And it’s wasn’t because of his policies or his gaffes. And it wasn’t because core message soured. It was his timid campaign that finally turned me off.

To me, it seems he adopted the front-runner frame too easily, preferring to play it safe rather than take chances. This is counter-intuitive. When a maverick like Obama gains a groundswell of support, that should make him more confident that what he’s doing is the right thing to do. If anything, it should strengthen his anti-establishment message. Obama went the opposite way, trading his Mr. Smith-goes-to-Washington vibe for a one of a triangulating, spineless (and utterly unappealing) mainstream Democrat.

Obama failed to attack Hillary Clinton, a moderate Republican in progressive clothing, during the debates in any substantial way. He failed to control the media narrative around his campaign as it moved from portraying him as the next great hope to labelling him Clinton Jr. He tried to play her game, running a non-campaign without substance, holding back policy initiatives and stringing supporters along, instead of running with a concrete message of hope and change.

All this frustration crystallized for me on May 24th, when Obama and Clinton both voted against funding the war in Iraq late at night towards the end of the voting time period. They were like thieves in the night, sneaking in and out, hoping few would notice their presence. You call this leadership? Obama had to vote no. There was no other vote for him. His entire campaign against Clinton was built around his consistent position against the war. So why be so sly or low key about it?

Barack Obama, you’re a Senator! You’ve got a platform! Use it. You could have been the first person to vote against funding the war. You could have told the American people and your fellow lawmakers exactly why you oppose the war. But you didn’t. In the controversy surrounding that vote, you decided to keep your head down. It was a poor choice, it lacked leadership, and it cost you my vote.

With the exception of John Edwards and Bill Richardson, every candidate running for President has a national platform from which to get things done in the present. While real change may have to wait until 2009, the strategy of capitulating to the Republican minority until then is making the Democratic party weaker. Like it or not, the 2006 elections made the Democrats the governing party in the minds of the American people. When people go to the polls a year from now, with the war dragging on, CIA agents torturing detainees in secret prisons abroad, and their telephones tapped without warrants, they won’t be able to point to anything positive that governing party accomplished. That’s a problem.

The front runners in this race (Clinton and Obama), seem content to stick with Pelosi and Reid’s strategy of inaction until 2009, at which point a brand new Democratic majority will finally be able to do all the things it’s been saying it would do for 20 years. While this kind of Democratic majority is far from assured, I don’t trust the people who compromise everything when the going gets tough to actually stand up to a vocal Republican minority in 2009. If they can’t fight now, why will they fight then?

I want a candidate who fights harder when push comes to shove. I want a candidate who plays politics like Republicans, just for my side. That’s leadership. That’s why I’m voting for Chris Dodd in the primary.

Dodd is using his position of power to make things happen now. In quick succession, he’s fought three legislative battles that have impressed me:

• He co-sponsored an amendment restoring Habeas Corpus and he created a great grassroots tool to help citizens whip their representatives to vote for the bill.
• He has put a hold on the latest version of the FISA legislation and has said he will filibuster any bill containing retroactive immunity for telecom companies.
• He was the first to pledge to oppose Michael Mukasey’s nomination for Attorney General on the grounds that no Attorney General can put the executive branch above the law.

He is trying to drum up as much support as possible for his initiatives, but it seems he is unconcerned with the outcome of the fights. He hasn’t shown any indication that he will back down if support for his actions doesn’t materialize. That’s the right attitude. Leaders lead, even when it is unpopular.

These actions seem to have struck a nerve with the American people and the progressive blogosphere. After announcing his filibuster plans, Dodd raised over $150,000 in 24 hours. He’s been right on so many important issues lately that Chris Bowers among others, who postulated that Obama’s problem was not that he watered down his message but that the political landscape shifted around him, has asked, “Why not Dodd?”

If voted into office, I believe Dodd would continue with the kind of leadership he has displayed so far. I believe he will fight for progressive policies, because that’s what he’s doing now. If elected, he will have a clear mandate from the American public that endorses his brand of strong leadership. I feel like he’s got my back.

His campaign style is exactly the opposite of Obama’s. He takes risks. He takes stands. He fights. That’s the kind of President I want.

A lot of people, fueled by the media, think this election is historic because for the first time, they believe, there is a woman running for President and there’s an African American running as well. But wait a minute, I’ve seen this before. Shirley Chisholm (D-NY) ran for President. Congresswoman Chisholm was a woman, and she was African-American…and she ran for President…so where’s the surprise? On January 23rd, 1972 Chisholm announced her candidacy for President of the United States. This was groundbreaking, monumental, orgasmic if you will.

Obviously, Chisholm did not become the first African American or female President of the United States. But to not even mention her name insults her legacy. Just because Senators Obama and Clinton cover the token Democratic Party response to the other party of White Guys does not mean that they are, by any shape or form, truly the first of their ‘kind’ to take such a bold step. And by the the way, even though people don’t mention the Honorable former Congresswoman, here’s a factoid you may like: She helped found the Democratic Black Caucus and worked on a bill, with George Wallace, to guarantee a minimum wage to domestic workers. Tell me, if you can, what current member of Congress who is running for President has helped pass ANY sort of legislation equal to that, and with the support of an ideological enemy? I raise my glass to you, Shirley Chisholm, for as the first ever female African American member of Congress you truly paved the way for Senators Clinton and Obama, and the fact that you are overlooked for your efforts sickens me. If you’d like to read more on the next great African American leader, other than Oprah, please read up on my friend Shirley Franklin, the current Mayor of Atlanta, Georgia…trust me, you’ll hear her name more in the coming months.

But here we are in the year 2007. A bunch of, for the most part, privileged white males are running for office, but it just so happens that two of these characters aren’t your average white males…in the sense that one isn’t exactly “white” and the other isn’t exactly “male.”

Don’t get me wrong, but I don’t really see a difference when people of privilege run for office. Both Obama and Clinton had very “easy” backgrounds, but one married into power whereas another actually kind of made their own greatness. So here, finally, is my endorsement:

I’m going with Barack Obama. Here’s a few reasons why: I don’t think that he truly does have all the answers, but at least he’s willing to admit that there are many things that he has to learn. It seems as though every political year people are talking about social security this or military spending that, yet in the meantime something like 9.11 happens, and then all of a sudden nobody really gives a shit about what they were talking about the week before. Sound familiar? It should, because it happened in 2000. Obama’s Achilles’ heel, according to his opponent Senator Clinton, appears to be his so-called “lack of experience” in foreign affairs. Well, I’m actually sad to say, she may be right, but here’s the question that needs to be asked: What, exactly, is the litmus test for experience when it comes to being President of the United States? How much experience did Governor Bill Clinton have in 1992 in matters of foreign policy? Or Ronald Reagan?

Here’s a great little tidbit for you. The most knowledgeable President, when it comes to foreign policy, was Richard Nixon. The best President when it comes to Domestic Policy? Lyndon Johnson. You know what those two have in common? They didn’t come a fancy family with a fancy name. Johnson rose to power through his Texas Charm and Nixon rose by being determined to be the best…because winners want to be in the best position possible and winners want the ball. Would it be smart for Obama to “sit this one out and gain ‘experience’”? Maybe…but history suggests that sometimes the right time is now, and that the right time that is now may not be here tomorrow, let alone four or perhaps eight years…and by that point he’s once-run has been, like John Edwards.

Truth be told, I didn’t see this happening. In 2006, I imagined John Kerry leading the way towards his inevitable White House win, and maybe choosing Obama or Senator Evan Bayh as his running mate. Aside from this I also envisioned former Vice President Al Gore taking another shot at the Oval Office. But Hillary Clinton? Is this the answer to the nation’s problems? Her outdated thinking and her saber-rattling are simply not the answers that we are truly looking for.

Obama may not have the “experience” necessary, according to Clinton, to be President. But he certainly is the breath of fresh air that Governor Clinton was in 1991 when he decided to take his lack of experience to the next level. Also, if Senator Clinton was simply Hillary Rodham, implying she never married Bill, she’d simply be another extremly rich lawyer that people called a bitch behind her back at cocktail parties in affluent homes outside of Chicago. Don’t even act like you disagree with me on that one.

If I were a Republican, however, I’d definitely go for a guy like Mike Huckabee, the other former Governor from Arkansas. I pretty much disagree with everything he stands for except for his push to get rid of shitty fatty foods from public schools (that’s a great idea). I first saw the man on Real Time with Bill Maher perhaps two years back because Huckabee, formerly a rather husky man, learned that he had Diabetes and suddenly lost one hundred and ten pounds and now advocates a healthy lifestyle. Normally I disagree with the whole “it happened to me now I’m a spokesman for it” mentality but since Diabetes is becoming an ever-increasing problem (a problem which afflicts the writer of this article) I can understand it. It sucks monitoring your diet, and it sucks altering your lifestyle to something that always feels like it’s outside of your control. Anyway, Huckabee is an interesting person. He raised taxes on gasoline and cigarettes in Arkansas when he was governor, and he says that while he doesn’t necessarily believe in evolution he also thinks that this wouldn’t make him a better or worse president. Call me crazy, but that sounds really, sickeningly, honest and it’s also refreshing.

I’m not endorsing Governor Huckabee because I think he’s a qualified candidate or that he makes sense on some issues, because I think he’s wrong on everything (for the most part), I’m endorsing him because he honestly seems…well…honest. He’s an ordained minister, and when he speaks of his personal relationship with Christ it’s obvious that he’s telling the truth, in his mind, about what he feels. I find that reassuring. I may believe one way, but it’s nice to see people being honest. He’s a great campaigner, which is why he’s my dark-horse candidate for the 2008 election. He’s Mitt Romney without looking sleazy or two-faced. Sure, his professional life prior top being governor consisted of him being a pastor…but who cares. He honestly believes in what he says, and unlike other pastors he’s not selling his believed Creator for cash. If I were a true-to-belief-Republican I’d vote Huckabee, and let’s just say you heard it here first…I think the rest of the country, especially the early primary states, are going to start thinking this as well.

Here’s what I like about Huckabee the most. Not coincidentally, it’s the same thing I like about Obama: I know that if I disagreed with either of them, in person, they wouldn’t think less of me. Both of these candidates care about people and the plight of everyday people. Whether they understand “everyday” life or not isn’t a matter of real importance - they both show compassion and leadership. They stand for what they believe in, but they also understand that not everyone thinks the way they do. True Compassion and True Leadership…sounds like Presidential Material to me…

…unless you enjoy being told what to do. I mean, if you’re into that I suggest putting the gag back in your mouth and voting for either Clinton or Giuliani. Be my guest. The safety word is banana…mumble it if you have to.

But I’ll leave you with one last piece of advice when it comes to understanding leadership, and this kind of works for all things…and it’s also a football reference. A lot of times in campaigns you hear the phrase “take what they give you” and a lot of people are happy with that. I disagree with that phrase. If you take what people give then you’re waiting and therefore not creating change. I prefer the phrase “make them take what you give” or “frame the debate” or “play by your rules.” If a Presidential Campaign is a football game, look at it like this: the first part (or first half if you will) you spend your time dinking and dunking trying to figure out what exactly to do. You don’t necessarily wanna show your hand, but you certainly don’t want to lose it quick. Then comes the halftime readjustment and in the second half you exploit the weaknesses of your opponent for your own personal gain. You look at your opponent, you study your opponent to the point where you know what they’re going to do before they even open their mouths, and then you destroy them when they’re just getting comfortable.

Call me crazy, but the scenario fits. If August-October is the first half of a Preisdential Primary, the second half is November-January (Iowa Caucus). Seems to me that Hillary has shown her weapons in the first half and scored a few touchdowns, but she’s only four points ahead of Obama…and there’s still plenty of time to be played. And, if I may say so myself, Obama has made an incredible halftime adjustment, and players, like politicians, always find their rhythm by the third quarter. This same idea also applies for Huckabee.

60 minute game…6 month campaign. It’s all the same. You play to win the game. Keep the play in front of you…though I’m not sure the Tampa Two plays into Presidential Primaries…give me a few weeks, I’ll make that argument work.

Instead, we offer you a look into the personal reasoning behind each author’s choice in the upcoming 2008 presidential primaries, coming November 1st.