Barack Obama is the best, most qualified candidate for president.
I am very black-and-white about this for a reason: One cannot view this in shades of gray. At the end of the day, one must back a candidate. In this week's column, I will explain why I support Sen. Obama (D-Ill.). But first, I'll address some key elements of the dialogue concerning the candidacies of Obama and Hillary Clinton.
First there are the issues. Let's face it: Hillary and Barack have pretty similar stances. Unlike the Republicans, who face a schism between candidates based on the issues, the Democratic front-runners agree on most of the issues in the aggregate. Moreover, I would assume that most Democrats, myself included, would at least be able to tolerate their second-choice Democrat in office. While I strongly endorse Barack Obama, I certainly would not move to Canada if Hillary were behind the wheel.
Second, there is the matter of demographics. I'm not colorblind and I'm not stupid. I'm quite aware that Barack is a black guy; I just don't care that much. Voting for a candidate because she is a woman, or he is black or any other demographical distinction is just plain stupid.
I hear a lot of people saying that having Hillary as the first woman president would be great. I ask why, to which they respond, "Because she's a woman."
So? What does that mean to me? Why is a woman more capable to be the head of state than a man? If they were to say that she has good policies or the necessary experience, maybe I would understand their reasoning. But I refuse to believe that voting for someone because she is a woman (or because he is black - the same logic applies to Obama) is a responsible choice.
Third, I mention the criteria of experience. Saying a presidential candidate doesn't have enough experience is a silly comment. People seem obsessed with the idea that Barack is inexperienced and thus cannot lead the country. Yeah, and who is experienced? The presidency is an incredibly misunderstood job.
The president does far less than people believe he or she does. Most of the day-to-day work is handled by cabinet-level officials and their bureaucracies, or even by the president's staff. The president is insulated by his or her staff; many of the standard tasks involve meet-and-greets and photo-ops. Because the president is both the executive and head of state, he or she handles a lot of unimportant, ceremonial duties.
So, to someone who says a candidate is inexperienced, I say: inexperienced for what? Shaking hands? Kissing babies? I would assume that to get this far, candidates are quite experienced with that.
So, why Barack? Quite simply, he's an inspiring leader. When I first heard him speak, I got goose bumps. I still do. The president's main job is to motivate and inspire the population. Public policy matters are largely formulated, drafted and carried out by deputies; the big cheese just okays them and takes responsibility if they fail.
Look at our best presidents (a subjective view, I know): Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy. Honest Abe pushed the populace toward unity by any means necessary. FDR lifted the gazes of millions with his warmth and confidence through a depression and a war. Kennedy boldly pursued American excellence in space and aerospace technology, inspiring a wave of innovation and greatness.
Barack will be on this list, too. His policies are good, but that isn't my concern. He has the potential to inspire each and every one of us, despite two wars, a slowing economy and countless other crises.
Barack is a leader, not just an ambitious politician. A driven politician pushes himself. A true leader inspires and motivates others.
Dave Adams is a freshman who has not declared a major.
