A friend of mine, a McCain supporter, asked why there was such a divide in the Democratic party, especially if Democrats were so happy with Clinton I’s administration. Why isn’t everyone supporting Clinton II?

I thought this a very interesting question and thought I’d share my perspective (one that is from an admitted Obama supporter).

It can’t be the policies. To me, the difference in policies between Clinton and Obama are relatively minor. Some differences in how they might approach world leaders, how they would “ensure” universal health coverage, etc. But, the overall goals are similar.

The reason that there is such a divide right between Clinton and Obama supporters seems to be:

• the historic nature of both candidacies: in either case, the Democratic nominee will be a historic choice, either the first woman or the first African-American. And, if the political markets are still accurate, the nominee is likely to become the next president. This is a historic time and some people I’m sure would like to see one historic outcome over the other.
• the personality of the candidates: Clinton is viewed as a seasoned veteran and Obama as an agent of change. Whether you agree or not, this is how a majority of their supporters view them.
• the deficiencies of the other candidate: conversely, many Clinton supporters think Obama is full of hot air and Obama supporters think Clinton is just like all other traditional Washington politicians.

I’m sure there are others, but these seem to be the biggest things to me.

My own personal feeling: I started off pretty neutral on the two, figuring either is significantly better than what the other party would produce, though, admittedly, I had a slight preference for Obama. Over the course of the primary, though, I’ve really begun actively disliking Clinton, for a number of reasons:

• her “experience from day one” schtick: I think this is way over played and is essentially meaningless. What experience does she have that makes her qualified for being president? A few more years in the Senate? Being First Lady? If that mattered, then I should be an expert massage therapist and my wife a materials scientist. I think this was a line of attack she thought would differentiate her from Obama, but I think it is nothing but slight of hand.  And, it isn’t clear that there is any experience a candidate could have that guarantees success as president.
• the appearance that she is willing to say anything to get elected: her campaign brought up doubts that Obama was a Muslim and the whole gas-tax holiday was nothing more than a ploy to get votes. It is a horrible idea and she likely knows it, but she thought it would get her votes. This extended so far that she actively ignored or dismissed the advice of economic experts, saying she knows more than they. This is exactly the attitude of Bush that has gotten us into so much trouble on a number of fronts.
• her assertion that she is in tune with middle America: this is something that also annoyed me about Edwards. What do they know about middle America? They are both rich, neither has had to do any blue collar work in a long while, if ever. Edwards may have come from a blue collar background, but does he have any personal experience with it? Clinton almost certainly does not.
• she was willing to prey on our fears: her spot of an emergency at 3AM was nothing but playing on our fears. I feel that is exactly what Bush has done for 8 years, not built on our hopes and dreams, but put us in fear of what might happen next and used that fear to implement a number of bad policies. Clinton seems willing to do the same.

I know people have issues with Obama, especially that he seems to have no substance, that he is just words. Maybe. I’m not so sure. But, even if this is so, words are important for inspiring people. If he can get people interested in government, interested in the future of America again, and not just pandering to fear, I am willing to give him a shot. He can’t be any worse than what we’ve had the last 8 years. I’m willing to give a guy a chance who discusses the possibilities of America, of what we might become, rather than our fears, and what might happen if we don’t do as he says.