I am ecstatic that Obama won. I hope he goes on to win the whole shebang. I have been wavering and oscilating between Edwards and Obama for some time now. That they came in first and slightly second makes me happy with the results and with the direction that party is going. I also am glad you are with the Democrats, or at least, Obama this year. I think the party if stronger with a variety of viewpoints, even (especially?) those I disagree with.

So, Go Obama!

I’m with Neil - the Democrats are stronger with a variety of viewpoints, and the reasons you give for supporting Obama are sound.

neil: are you swayed over to obama from edwards by the win?

Count me in as a very happy Obama supporter.

since i don’t want to clutter up nate’s blog, can all you obama supporters, if you’re inclined, come to my blog and explain why? because i don’t understand it, and the primary results have left me sad and cranky indeed. please come over and explain why you like him.

Just for the record, I don’t exactly mind blog “clutter”. But anyone who would prefer is welcome to comment on Anne’s blog instead.

i suppose ‘clutter’ wasn’t the right word, exactly. i felt like a cranky rain cloud hovering over the obama parade, so i thought i should shift back over.

(which i’ve done. short version: i heartily dislike the concept of voting for someone because they’re charismatic/moving/personable/what-have-you, and that seems to be a big part of obama’s appeal. his idea of bipartisanship seems to be a recipe for gridlock, and even after reading over his website, i’m still left without a clear understanding of his policies, many of which don’t yet seem quite developed — especially his plan for iran. edwards seems to offer most of what obama offers, and is running on issues, not charm. it’s hard for me to understand why people are choosing obama over edwards, since, to me, obama seems awfully short on substance.)

I was pretty pleased with the results in Iowa, on both counts, really. The Republican Party has become the party of Evangelicals, as far as I can tell, and I think it’d be good for their integrity (you know, so they might actually get some) if Huckabee won the nomination. As for the Democrats, I’m an Edwards supporter, but the best we were hoping for was 2nd, and he got that. And Obama I totally support more than Clinton, so I’m pretty happy that he got first and Clinton took third.

I want both Edwards and Obama (and Clinton) still in the race. I am not ready to give the whole thing to Obama based on one win. Further, I think that Edwards has exerted a massively positive influence over things by running as a progressive populist. I am not swung to the Obama camp simply by the win, but the win, for me, is a very exciting thing in and of itself, outside any other ramifications. I mean, a black man just won Iowa based on turning out and activating new voters, and is a progressive to boot.

For the record, I would be just as thrilled had Clinton won, although there the frame is “A woman won!” and all the excitment that leads to. I’m just excited about the whole thing. On my own blog I posted most of why I’m excited about the race in general and Obama in particular, if you are interested. I’ll try to check out your blog later, Anne, but I can’t access it now becuase the filters at work are wonky. Of course, we cal always talk about it here, too.

neil, i’m… really, really uneasy about the whole “wouldn’t it be so wonderful to have a black/female/insert-your-choice-here president?” line of thinking. to put it rather bluntly, i don’t really care. i just want a president who will be open, thoughtful, honest, and concerned with the well-being of society as a whole. the background and gender and race of said open, thoughtful, honest, concerned individual really, really doesn’t concern me.

My feelings on demographic partisanship, such as it is, has always been, “all else being equal, vote for the black/woman/hispanic/other minority”. The important part is that “all else being equal”. This reasoning wouldn’t lead me to support, say, Allen Keyes over, say, John Kerry. But if I were voting in, say, the Republican Primary, than I would probably vote for Allen Keyes over Tom Tancredo. Not because Keyes is any less insane that Tancredo, but that given two insane choices, vote for the black guy.

This is possibly a very stupid way to pick candidates, and it may rightly be quease-inducing. In most cases, such as for local races which are generally non-partisan, I have never had any regret using this formulation.

Now, how does this apply to Obama versus Edwards? In the beginning, the top four were, to my mind, pretty equal. Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson. I had rejected Clinton on dynastic grounds, but as for the other three, it didn’t really matter much. As positions and policies came more clear over time, something else happened - it was no longer a case of “all else being equal”. I came to prefer Edwards slightly on style and policies, and was a little annoyed with Obama on the same (Richardson, sadly, seemed to implode in the debates, which is unfortunate because I think he could have, should have, been a very strong contender). But these slight preferences didn’t resolve themselves to totally overpower my basic premise that Edwards and Obama are, pretty much, the same. That they will, if elected, govern and pass similar legislation. there will, undoubtedly, be differences, but those would be small, and if they are both backed by strong Democratic majorities in Congress, the basic promises they have made will happen.

So I have spent a lot of time over the past couple months waffling between Obama and Edwards. Sometimes I would favor one, sometims the other. I think both have done marvelous and amazing jobs so far, and I want them to continue, because I think what they have done and will do has been amazingly positive for both the party, and the country as a whole.

but how can all things ever be equal, truly? (for example, keyes may in fact be less insane than tancredo.)