The decision came suddenly, but I have the feeling it's the right one.
I'm endorsing Obama.
I've always liked "endorsement", because I still don't know who I'm voting for and I don't have to say. But now I might have to vote for Barack to get Michelle into the best possible position for her own run in 2016.
The more I read about her, the more I like her. Largely because the media-anointed field of potential national leaders who are both African-American and female is so small, she invites comparison to Condoleezza Rice. An overachiever, yes, but since she didn't grow up in the South, but in the less polarizing and siege-like Midwest, she seems less overprotected, less intense...more human than Condi. Michelle would also be too young to remember the most dramatic days of the civil rights movement.
I don't like Barack that much, and it's unlikely I will. I think it's just one of those things. Sometimes people don't like people. I distrust bandwagons and rah-rah, and that's certainly soured things. If he had a fictional alter ego, sometimes I think Obama would be an exiled king who has returned home (maybe I'm still not used to the name after a couple dozen WASPs and it seems foreign to me), statesmanlike and dignified, who happens to have a smart, American-raised wife. But in this case, it is the wife who is even more practical, interesting and straight-talking.
I don't want to make race or gender an issue (because it's untouched territory, you know), but looking at the numbers, America needs a black female president on general principle -- we should have had five black presidents by now, just as we should have had twenty-two women presidents. So allow me to indulge in thoughts about knocking down two demographic barriers at one time.
(I'm trying to think of other candidates, but I keep on getting stuck on Angela Davis. That would basically represent a social Year Zero, but probably wouldn't be very good, other than for relations with Venezuela.)
But completely aside from any form of affirmative action or setting the record straight: As long as we (a little less than one in two Democrats) are prepared to vote for a candidate with no foreign policy experience who is a sharp socially progressive, fomer lawyer who is past her prime and seen as corruptible...
...why couldn't we consider someone with no foreign policy experience who is a sharp, socially progressive former lawyer who is in her prime?
Senate experience can be had later, I hear it's like buying a house. And one term will do.
I like Michelle (right now), and she shares a lot of our values.