So, the decision has to be viewed not as individual or isolated. It has to be viewed as collective -- even if the collective body to which one belongs by chance or choice doesn't quite (yet) jell as a political force. It's about political motion. By Newton's first law, little motion is better than no motion. Errors of commission are much better than errors of omission. Collectively, we learn more by committing than by omitting.
If we look at things from a collective point of view, then at some point Carrol's profound wisdom is either self-fulling or useless. The dynamics of crowds can be highly nonlinear. At the starting point, individually and even collectively, we have very little control over outcomes. And we don't have perfect foresight. That's all humbling. And another good reason to cool down the emotional huffing and puffing that these discussions tend to elicit. This is not a sharp, clear-cut ethical or political dilemma with full knowledge of consequences.
So nobody is going to prove to us logically that, from the standpoint of our collective interests as working people, supporting Obama is better than supporting Nader or Michael Perelman for president. The argument will be mushier. Talking about mushy arguments, I don't want to repeat what I've said before. So, for those interested in my views, I stand by what I wrote here:
http://www.swans.com/library/art11/jhuato01.html
To keep things more specific, these are the main propositions I factor into my decision:
First, about the general presidential election: The Democrats are a big threat to peace and the general interest of working people in the world, but Republicans are a much bigger one. So even if it comes to Hillary vs. McCain, it'll be a no-brainer for me.
Second, about the primaries: Looking at the policy agendas and that alone, with the information I have, my expectations of the consequences of a Hillary or Obama administration for global peace and the interest of workers in the U.S. and abroad are not that different.
The risks involved (high) are about the same. Advances on health care and the social safety net are crucial for the future political strengthening of U.S. workers. Yes, but I don't put too much weight on the differences between Hillary and Obama that Krugman emphasizes. Perhaps in terms of framing the argument, Obama is weakening the case.
So, if you wish, subtract a point from Obama.
Still, there are other reasons why Obama is better than Hillary. One, it follows from Carrol's wisdom that the outcome of the struggle for universal health care is likely to depend much less on personalities than on the political forces in motion. Personalities matter, sure. So, suppose that there'll be some political force backing up with demands for out of Iraq, universal health care, etc. Now, in that case, who'd be more likely to ride the tide and not get in the way? Obama or Hillary? Not by much, but I think the answer is Obama.
Why? A hint can be gleaned from the campaign fund stats:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008
Obama's distribution of funds is significantly wider (smaller donations, more donations) than Hillary's. People do talk with their money. Hillary's social base of support is narrower and richer. But, aren't politicians known for betraying their social base of support? Of course! We're talking probabilities here -- the probability that social forces will constraint their more likely inclinations. That cuts in both directions. We already have a recent observation from a president named Clinton. None from a president named Obama. The president named Clinton did betray his progressive social base. Hillary has been blatant in thumbing her nose on the antiwar movement, I think. With Obama, we really know less. So I tend to discount Hillary more heavily than Obama on this.
But the strongest reason in favor of Obama is, IMHO, that race largely intersects with class in the U.S. and in large swaths of the world. This reason alone really overwhelms the other ones -- for me at least.
Blacks in the U.S. are the most oppressed sector of the U.S. working class. Blacks in the world are the most oppressed sector of the global worker. Black and male in the U.S. is almost synonymous with political disenfranchisement, incarceration, and plain being the target of the nastiest forms of racism imaginable. Black in the U.S. is almost synonymous with worker. Black in the world fairs not much better.
So I cannot but imagine that, even if Obama messes things up royally and disappoints (which he has a good chance of doing), his being Black is *very likely* to have a serious, positive effect on the individual and collective (civic, political) self-assurance of Black working people in the U.S., Europe, Africa, the Caribbean basin, and the rest of the world -- and thereby on the mutual respect, collective self-assurance, and political involvement of working people in the world.
I can add that Obama is the only candidate hinting that he's willing to talk to the existing Cuban government without preconditions. That matters to me, personally. (I went to college in Cuba.) Moreover, personal, anecdotal (inconclusive) evidence indicates to me that something deeper is probably going on already:
My wife works in a public school in Red Hook, a highly segregated African American and Black Puerto Rican neighborhood in Brooklyn. She's a social worker. Obama -- she says -- is getting children, faculty, and staff very excited about politics. To be more precise, my wife says that they are nervous (rumors of potential assassination) but also hopeful and excited. At least half of the teachers and the entire staff (except the top administration) are Black. All kids are Black. Kids tend to echo the sentiments in a community. Apparently, people like them, who are -- for very obvious reasons -- among the less politically excitable mass of people in the U.S. one could think of, are moving. Perhaps cautiously, but moving. We'll soon learn about today's vote turnout and results... Well, damn, my wife is just telling me that too few of them are registered voters!
My personal enthusiasm or lack thereof for Obama personally matters very little here. As limited as these local symptoms may be, they suggest the embryo of mass political motion in the sector of the class that needs it most. That I feel enthusiastic about. As far as I'm concerned, that is effective social progress. In my book, even these tiny steps in the mass are more tangible social progress than the number of Militants or Revolutionary Workers sold in a century. And, let me clarify, I don't think the propaganda work that these groups carry out is entirely useless. I grant them some measure of respect.
Re. Nader, we have data to form rather precise expectations as to how many people his campaign is likely to set into political motion. A minuscule percentage. It'll be a marginal force. And white -- this said with all due respect.
[Can't edit. So apologies in advance.]