Last Wednesday, senior Doug Randall described the loneliness of being a Hillary Clinton supporter on a college campus ("In the trenches with Hillary Clinton," Feb. 6). He argued that while any college campus is full of wild-eyed, Obama-supporting hippie liberals, only the rational minority stands behind Sen. Clinton. But as two generally cynical, politically involved students, we would like to offer a rational argument for Barack Obama as a presidential candidate.
Randall is certainly not the first Clinton supporter to dismiss Obama as an idealist without substance. In a contest that has been boiled down to two buzzwords, "change" and "experience," the Clintons have tried to claim stock in the former and a monopoly on the latter.
Yet despite the fact that Clinton's career in the U.S. Senate began only four years before Obama's, Clinton has offered herself as a neo-Lyndon Johnson, an experienced politician with an understanding of the grimy, smoke-filled room decisions that must be made to change America. In contrast, she has painted Obama as a man with a dream who lacks the experience to achieve it.
If you buy this line of reasoning, then you must believe that Obama is significantly less qualified than his opponent, lacking both the judgment and the experience required to govern. But in reality, both candidates bring some sort of experience to the table, each with unique merits to be considered. So, let's take a look at the value of Barack Obama's experience.
In 1984, while Hillary Clinton served as Arkansas' first lady, a young Columbia University graduate began to work as a community organizer in blue collar neighborhoods that were torn apart by steel-mill closings throughout the city. Making a measly $13,000 a year, Obama began to piece together these heavily damaged neighborhoods.
Some days were more successful than others, but this experience was how Barack Obama learned how to accomplish difficult goals in difficult situations. Sen. Obama needed to appeal to disenfranchised people, apathetic politicians and clergy that at times doubted Obama's credentials for his job.
Sound familiar? It should. Today, as Obama argues his case for the president of the United States, he has similar goals with similar barriers.
Clinton may have more experience in Washington - which, as Randall argues, will help her get a Democratic agenda passed - but Obama's external experiences have taught him how to accomplish seemingly unlikely goals in dire times.
After four years, Obama enrolled in Harvard Law School, vowing to return to Chicago to continue fighting for those who needed him. Following his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review, Obama could have gone on to become a Supreme Court clerk. Yet he kept his word and took a position as a civil rights lawyer in Chicago. On top of showing that he is a true advocate of the people, he also gained valuable experience regarding constitutional issues - experience which our nation could benefit from after eight years of George Bush.
When the Clintons dismiss Obama as inexperienced, they dismiss the value of this kind of experience. In 1996, four years before Hillary ever took elected office, Obama brought his passion for bringing people together to the Illinois State Senate. In his eight years, he tested his strategy of bringing opposing groups together to pass tough legislation on a wide range of issues, including ethics reform, healthcare and racial profiling - all issues that are extremely relevant on the federal level today.
In his years as a U.S. Senator, Obama has managed to cooperate with congressmen of a wide range of ideologies on several issues, many of them controversial. None of this legislation would have succeeded without Obama's unique ability to bring opposing groups together to arrive at a plan that works. The opposing philosophy, assuming that 51 percent of the vote constitutes a mandate, will not suffice in any attempt to bring about major reform.
While Randall asks, "What's all this nonsense about unity?" we wonder how any historic legislation can get passed without it. Regardless of how hard Clinton pledges to fight for her healthcare plan, her plan will fare no better than it did in 1994 unless she can gain the support of Republicans.
The irony, of course, is that while Randall tries to turn hope into a four letter word, he continues to support a candidate that also claims to run on a message of change. This is exactly why we are supporting Barack Obama - not because we think he will be capable of bringing about change, but because he already has.
So why is it relevant that Clinton and most other candidates spout messages of change? Because while we may not know who the front-runner is, Obama consistently sets the tone for what this election is about. While they adapt their message to be about change, Obama has defined what kind of change is possible and how it can be done. Pollsters are shrugging their shoulders because as they poll "likely-voters," it has been the new, unlikely voters that have changed this election.
We have already seen how Sen. Obama has changed the electoral process. This new generation of voters is not just young idealists; it is also old rationalists that have hated politics for so long that they could never bring themselves to vote.
In Idaho, Obama drew a crowd that was about seven times as a large as the amount of people that caucused in 2004. All over the country, people who have felt disenfranchised for various reasons have a candidate that they can comfortably stand behind without feeling that they are constantly choosing the lesser of two evils.
While Hillary Clinton offers a long Washington résumé, Barack Obama offers something different. With his experience working in the community, he honed his ability to bring people together and accomplish difficult goals; in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate, he showed that this talent can be used to pass difficult legislation.
Now, as he runs for president of the United States, Obama has shown that his aptitude towards bringing people together motivated the emergence of an entirely new generation of voters - fundamentally changing the nature of this election.
Josh Wolf is a senior majoring in philosophy. Nate Grubman is a senior majoring in international relations.
