Unfortunately, Josh Wolf and Nate Grubman's "On the front lines with Barack Obama" (Feb. 11) completely misses the point of my original piece ("In the trenches with Hillary Clinton," Feb. 6). My motive for writing was to present a liberal student's viewpoint on the election and to present ideas that hadn't been mentioned in the Daily's recent endorsement of Obama. It was in no way a criticism of Obama's unique credentials.
My main point was not that I occupy some sort of intellectual high ground in my support for Clinton, but rather that young liberals should look past inspiring rhetoric and toward the potential for effective governance when choosing a candidate. It was my hope that we, as college students, could have a somewhat original discussion based on our unique vantage point in the world of politics - not the predictable back-and-forth that we hear hundreds of times a day from political pundits.
In other words, let's have a more focused discussion than that of the talking heads on "The Situation Room." The people on that show are generally within ten feet of Wolf Blitzer- under those circumstances, I would have to kill myself.
And in a conscious effort not to elicit the type of response offered by Wolf and Grubman, I avoided a review of Clinton and Obama's records. That horse has certainly been pummeled to death over the past 15 months. So it was disappointing to see Wolf and Grubman essentially repeat Obama's stump speech without touching upon why young people are generally more attracted to Obama than Clinton - or why, in their minds, it is a logical bias.
I'm writing again, however, because I feel I have to respond to some of the misrepresentations of my views in Wolf and Grubman's piece. A close (or actually, just a basic) reading of my article would not have given the impression that I "turn hope into a four-letter word." I merely stated that lofty rhetoric like hope is not a sufficient reason to support a candidate. Hope should be a byproduct of sound policy proposals; hope itself is no policy.
In that vein, the only specific policy area in which Wolf and Grubman provide evidence of Obama's potential for effectiveness is in constitutional law. However, it doesn't take a constitutional law professor (although happily, Sen. Clinton also taught law for a time) to realize the need to correct the egregious damage done to our civil liberties. I know plenty of people who would do that upon taking office, including my 85-year-old grandmother. And she's British.
What's more, the authors suggest that I am somehow hypocritical for challenging the power of hope, yet supporting a candidate that espouses change. The logic there is a little baffling, but I think they are trying to imply that change doesn't come about without hope. That's valid, but young liberals shouldn't be convinced that change is imminent through soaring oratory. We should demand clearly presented and well thought-out policy positions that will achieve change, something that Clinton consistently provides.
If Wolf and Grubman truly believe that Barack Obama can more effectively push forward a liberal agenda - and it seems that they do - then by all means they should vote for the senator from Illinois. They probably already have. It is, of course, a personal choice.
For me, Clinton's focus on bread-and-butter issues on her campaign (pre-kindergarten education, universal health care and the sub-prime mortgage crisis) lead me to believe that she will be a more capable and accomplished president. Her policies aren't glamorous, and her speeches can't easily be transformed into music videos, but then again, government is supposed to be a more serious venture than MTV.
So, let me just repeat what I said at the end of my first piece. I hope that young liberals are motivated by the desire for transformational government - not just transformational campaigns - when they vote both in 2008 and in the future. If that choice leads to Barack Obama, that's fine - but make sure it's the policy and not the rhetoric that guides you to him.
Doug Randall is a senior majoring in political science and economics.
