More and more it begins to look like the Democrats - with two charismatic and qualified candidates -  are going to find yet another way to let the big one slip away.  In light of this frustrating but not unexpected or unfamiliar terrain, I feel - as a woman who has voted for the Democratic candidate in every election since 1972 - that I must explore the possibility of voting for Senator Obama in the general election should he be the nominee.  Since I respect Andrew Sullivan and he is supporting BO despite major differences they have on some issues, I thought reading his December 2007 article Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters might be a good jumping off place for my exploration.

I began this blog with a tongue in cheek account of posts from the campaign buses in the 2008 Presidential election which ended with the Democrats losing yet again; at the time it was meant to be funny, now I fear it may be prophetic.  While I am not sure that a John McCain administration would be the third coming of W, I would prefer to see a Dem in the White House (and my preferred Dem would be Hillary Rodham Clinton).  I have a friend who thinks one should always have options, a back up plan as it were.  So, if Senator Clinton does not go to the convention with the popular vote on her side and thereby make a persuasive argument for her nomination, would I be able to vote for Senator Obama?  It's a question to which I find myself returning again and again.

In giving this option serious consideration, I have turned to Mr. Sullivan for his thoughts on why he supports BO.  I could find little in his post to make me a convert to Obama-ology.  I disagree with his premise that the division of the Baby Boomers has split the party which is central to his idea that the time for Obama is now and that his candidacy would be transformational for the Democrats and for the country as a whole.  Yes, there is a divisiveness on both ends of the political spectrum whose proponents make their names and their money off of stirring the post, distorting the issues and pitting a narrow supposed self interest against the greater good.  I have not seen anything in the Obama campaign that make me believe he can bring these fringe factions together, although I would be overstating Mr. Sullivan's case to write that he believes BO could accomplish or even should accomplish that herculean task.

Since this blog is not meant to be a point by point appraisal of Mr. Sullivan's article, merely a way of opening up a dialogue between my Democratic self and my offended feminist Hillary supporting self, at this time I'm only going to address three points - as I understand them - made by AS.

First, Senator Obama is uniquely positioned to end the war in Iraq.  Yes, BO has been against the war from its inception.  As one who has done some things I never thought I would do I question giving him credit for a vote he wasn't in the Senate to make but since I don't feel that HRC is required to apologize for a vote she did make I will let that aspect slide.   Mr. Sullivan wrote this article in December so he could not have known that Samantha Power would later state that,  "You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009.  He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."  While obviously neither a war mongering statement nor a statement of policy by the Senator himself, this line of thought hews along roughly the same line as that of Senator Clinton. 

Second, that by his very name, face and heritage Senator Obama will immediately begin a rapproachment with a world which has been almost irredeemably alienated by eight years of Bush foreign policy.  Possibly.  However, only so much damage can be undone by a face that resembles many of the faces of those citizens most antagonized by Bush's face.  Indeed, when so much hope is put into one visage, the possibility of not meeting those expectations may hold even more risk than reward.  I have waited years, decades to see a time when a person of color would be elected to our nation's highest office but it seems to me naive to think that a face of color in the White House is inherently better than a female face or even a white male face. 

Third, by my reading, Mr. Sullivan posits that HRC carries too much liberal sixties baggage to affect change while BO is free of the defensiveness that comes from years of battle.  If Senator Obama is without baggage or defensiveness, it is only because we have yet to discover his baggage or his defenses; that is in no way meant derogatorily - if by the time a man is almost 47 he doesn't have a bag or two then I wonder what he's been doing on his journey.  If I am to believe BO's struggle to find his place as a person of mixed ethnicity within a white society, then I must also believe that the struggle has had some impact on him.  While I am not a big fan of Michelle Obama, I do find her stump style more authentic than that of her husband.  She's angry, she doesn't like Hillary and she will let you know it.  In the past few days as Senator Obama has had to respond to increased scrutiny of his business and religious relationships, I have actually found him to be more likeable.  He's not perfect, no one is and, for my ticket price, the flawed hero is always more appealing.

Still, at the end of the day, support for Barack Obama rests largely on belief in his transformational, transcendental mantra and I'm still not ready to chant.