Obama’s speech yesterday confirmed two things for me: (i) why I like Obama in the first place, and (ii) the stark contrast between Obama and Clinton as candidates and politicians.

On this blog last week I wrote this: “I’ve liked Obama for more than a year because I like the calm, rationale, pragmatic approach he brings to politics (and has brought throughout his career). Many Democrats seem to want a ‘fighter,’ someone who will be as nasty and polarizing and mean to the Republicans as the Republicans are to Democrats.  I’m not one of them.  I want someone who is cool-headed and thoughtful, not someone who wants to ‘fight’ over everything.” 

When backed into a corner and faced with a serious threat to his candidacy, Obama responded with a speech that was honest, balanced, intelligent, reflective and serious.  He didn’t pander, but instead elevated the discourse of the debate on race.  He did it without being condescending, and without clichés.  He appealed to our better instincts, to that which unifies, rather than divides us.  Contrast this to what Hillary did after losing eleven consecutive contests and seeing her chance at the nomination slipping away: she admittedly threw the “kitchen sink” at her opponent, insulted the foreign policy credentials of a member of her own party and resorted to Republican-style fear-based attacks with the “3AM” ad. 

This, for me, is the most basic reason why I strongly prefer one candidate over the other.  Obama certainly isn’t perfect, and I still have no idea why he would choose to sit in a church with the Rev. Wright for twenty years (although, frankly, it’s none of my business, nor my place to judge).  But it is his desire to move past “politics as usual” that inspires me.  I’m not so naïve as to believe that one speech (or one election cycle) will ever change political discourse (I’m not even sure that the speech yesterday will help Obama in any meaningful way), but at least he’s trying.  That is more than most politicians have ever attempted.