This is my problem with Barack Obama in a nutshell:
“They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” Mr. Obama said.
Well, this “common purpose” sounds nice, but what is it? I honestly have no idea, and I feel like the Obama campaign hasn’t really ever defined it. This nicely captures the “something missing” that is part of why I can’t actively back Obama over the other Dems. With Edwards, he talks about having a “purpose”, and it’s very clear what it is: poverty alleviation (even if you don’t agree with his methods). With HRC, she doesn’t claim to have an over-arching “purpose”; she just presents herself as a great campaigner, and ruthlessly competent. I feel like Obama mixes the two approaches, claiming to have an over-arching purpose like Edwards, but actually running a campaign of policy bullet points, like Clinton.
I’m fine with him getting the nomination, and I’d love to see him be president, but this is part of why the Obama campaign has let me down a little.
