How Barack Obama moved to the top of my list

As a previously "undecided" Democratic primary voter who was, if anything, leaning toward John Edwards, I thought I would take the time to explain how I recently became convinced that Barack Obama is the right choice for 2008.

At the July 23 "YouTube debate," CNN selected a number of questions that were rather uneven in quality. One in particular has attracted a lot of attention, in no small part because Hillary Clinton's campaign has sought to use it to score some points off of Obama.

The candidates were asked whether as President they would meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela. Obama's actual response to the question was quite reasonable, and it exploded the delusional foreign policy idea - enthusiastically embraced by the Bush administration - that simply refusing to talk to adversaries puts the United States in a position of strength. Without actually disagreeing with Obama in practical terms, Clinton sounded a note of caution that resonated with the sort of thinking that Obama had decisively attacked.

The foreign-leader question was obviously "red meat" for right-wing media outlets, bound to attract the sort of tabloid headline that is the specialty of the New York Post (e.g. "Dems Provide Comfort to Enemy"). If it were simply a matter of Clinton trying to cover herself from this line of attack, the matter would be a non-issue. Instead, sensing an opportunity to "differentiate" herself, Clinton enthusiastically joined in a reactionary attack from the right.

Even before the debate was over, her campaign posted a clip of that question to her website and highlighted it as a "defining moment" of the evening. Clinton went on to assert that Obama's answer was "naive," and she sought to frame the issue as one of Obama's inexperience.

While I was hardly in the Clinton camp to begin with, the episode did more than just further sour me on her. Obama's response demonstrated precisely the sort of approach that I'd like to see from a candidate heading into a critical election. It would have been easy for him to capitulate and "restate" himself in the face of cynical pandering and right-wing talking points. Instead, he held firm and defended his position against the attack.

Presumably unprepared for any serious push-back, Clinton was reduced to trotting out a surrogate (Tom Vilack) for damage control.

The Democrats, and the country, deserve a better nominee than Clinton. Edwards hasn't gained the sort of traction he needs to win, and with no one else stepping forward, I am increasingly convinced that we should look no further than Barack Obama.