I am one of millions of people "deluded by Barack Obama". In this post I attempt to make the case for Obama, on why he should be the forty fourth President of the United States.

Integrity

My perception of a candidate's integrity might not be a true reflection of who they are. With that being said, it is without question that Obama has exuded a higher standard of personal and political integrity. While Ron Paul is by far the most honest candidate left, Obama compares favorably to the others with a realistic chance --- John McCain and Hillary Clinton. One does not have to go far back in time to see Clinton's lack of integrity. She cemented her reputation for "doing anything for the sake of power" in this campaign. She set up members of the audience to ask questions; lied about Obama's statements on Ronald Reagan; lied about his position on the Iraq war; the list is endless. In this respect, John McCain seems to be a tougher nut to crack, only because he is a self-styled "straight talker" and a "maverick". In reality, McCain is just another politician. Way back in 1989 he was tainted in the Savings and Loan crisis scandal. When he speaks, he says what is more convenient to him, rather than what he believes in. TheRealMcCain documents McCain's double-talk and flip-flops. Just to be clear, Obama is not spotless, but he seems too innocent to be able to manage organized corruption the others done all these years.

Experience

If experience is measured by age, the old man wins. If elected, McCain would become the oldest president. In contrast, Obama would be among the youngest.

Does experience/age matter in a president? History fails to provide a conclusive answer. We have to look at one's achievements. McCain is famous for authoring various pieces of legislation related to ethics and campaign reform. Clinton and Obama do not have the same kind of name recognition associated with big-ticket legislations. Nevertheless, Obama has sent a clear message on where his priorities lie by introducing Obama-Coburn which is expected to bring a lot of transparency into government spending. To his credit, this act was passed unanimously in the Senate. (USASpending.gov is a starting point that implements this act, and Obama has promised more to come.) Clinton has fewer years in elected office than Obama. Her record during Obama's Senate tenure is pathetic, to be generous. Obama in his young life has accomplished a lot --- working as a grassroots community organizer; important civil rights legislations in the Illinois Senate; a short but shining Senate career. Based on competence exhibited during this presidential campaign alone, he wins hands-down over both McCain and Clinton.

The issues

I am one who does not believe in ideologies. I prefer people and solutions over principles. To bring an analogy from the field of programming; while ideologues are busy debating whether to use functional programming or imperative programming, the astute programmer picks the right solution for the task in hand, and might even use a combination of the two styles to get the work done. The people are let out to hang dry, when politicians debate conservative and progressive ideologies. Obama has promised to unite people on both sides of the aisle by sticking to fact and reason, something that others have not.

While the conventional wisdom is that free markets and less government intervention is good, one cannot bulldoze a solution on people just because it carries the name "free trade" in it. The case in point is NAFTA. (Amit Varma's criticism of Obama's position on NAFTA prompted me to write about this, and the entire article.) The consensus is NAFTA has resulted in the loss of more jobs (within the US) than it has helped the economy. It has helped the corporations more than the people, which is what all free-market proponents in the past (including Adam Smith) warned against. NAFTA is not a "free trade" agreement. It is a "managed" trade agreement that screws the common man. When Ron Paul, the most vocal of free market cheerleaders denounces NAFTA, it deserves a better look.

Obama has been criticized that he is too progressive. The trickle-down economics theory which Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 have followed have all failed the country. They all failed to have balanced budgets. Only Clinton succeeded in the past thirty years. It doesn't take an economist to just read the numbers and conclude that people sticking up for political ideology have failed the people. It is imprudent to perform a risky experiment on 300 million people overlooking past history. If raising taxes is what is needed to keep the deficit down, a President must do that and Obama stands on what I consider is the right side of this issue.

Change

Rajeev Srinivasan in his Rediff article asks

All very nice, but exactly what is he going to change?

Is Obama going to immediately pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? That would be disastrous, conceding victory to the fundamentalists. Is Obama going to bring in universal health care? His proposals are impractical: Clinton's plan is much more sensible. Is Obama going to single-handedly rescue the recession-bound American economy? Unlikely, given the structural damage of the housing bubble, the excesses of the banking industry and years of over-consumption and under-saving.

Is Obama going to change American foreign policy so that the US stops supporting dictators like Pakistan's Musharraf? Unlikely, as the status quo ante helps certain American interests. Is Obama going to immediately reverse the decline in American education and competitiveness? It would be very interesting to hear how he will do that, other than through rhetoric. Is Obama going to move away from depending on Saudi petro-dollars?

Before I talk about what Obama wants to change, let me point out some thing. "His proposals are impractical: Clinton's plan is much more sensible". Hmm, I am really curious. I do not have the motivation to read their long healthcare plans (here and here) and evaluate them on their merits. Based on what I picked from the various debates, I could not gather enough information to decide. Maybe Rajeev could enlighten me on why Clinton's is more "sensible". I am not being pejorative, just curious. I am yet to come across any article that does that.

Now, back to what I wanted to say. Rajeev mentions the various problems facing the US that are the result of policies and attitudes shaped over several years. What seems like a scathing indictment of Obama, stops being so when you replace Obama with Clinton or McCain. The next president has to tackle these challenges.

Obama does not advocate radical changes in policy (only Ron Paul did so, in the campaign). He wants to change the way politics is done. He wants to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests, get the people involved by throwing sunlight into the policy-making and make them get what is beneficial to the people. (Obama answers this question in this Candidates@Google video. Move to 57:00 in this video). He succinctly started of by saying, "You have got to use shame", and elaborates how he plans to use transparency to get the American people to watch the process and negate special-interests. McCain who surrounds himself with lobbyists and Clinton who calls lobbyists representative of "real people" cannot be trusted to stand up for average Joe.

Conclusion

The President is not expected to a Chief Operating Officer. He or she has to listen to people's concerns, set high standards for integrity, set the right vision, provide the opportunity and inspire people to act on that vision. At his worst, Obama will end up being yet another President of the United States. At his best, he will inspire a whole new generation of Americans to believe in themselves to stand up to the challenges facing the country. The thousands who attend his rallies, and the one million people who have donated small amounts to his campaign offer testimony to the fact that he is an inspiring personality. This grassroots enthusiasm (and not a President) is what will eventually change America, if at all that happens. Inspiring the grassroots is not something Clinton and McCain can lay a claim to, at least in my opinion.