Just did it. Voted online for Senator Barack Obama, thanks to the 21st century Democrats Abroad Global Presidential Primary. Those Americans abroad who still want to cast their vote should check the Dem's Abroad website to see where you can vote in person (online voting ends February 12, but many cities abroad have scheduled fun events this entire week to entice people to vote).
I'm not normally in the practice of broadcasting my voting intentions to the world, but then, I have never had a blog before. And since the primary purpose of my blogging is pontificating to whoever has the stamina to read my stuff...
What I mean by the same old "national security club" is this: Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator John McCain. Hillary joined the club sometime after her election to the Senate, when she deemed it important to establish "strong-on-defense" credentials. Her membership in the Senate Armed Services Committee reinforced the image, as did numerous photo ops with American troops. Her campaign theme of "experience" is primarily based on her proximity to power (though it mostly consists of time spent as Arkansas and White House First Lady). She has been in the Senate for a couple of years longer than Barack Obama (he, however, has held elective office for longer than Mrs. Clinton).
While Senator Clinton has been making a concerted effort to appear "presidential" and "ready from day one to be commander-in-chief," on the Republican side we have Senator John McCain, who needs to make no effort to fill that role. War hero, prisoner-of-war, torture victim (and conscience of the nation on the subject), Congressman then Senator for more than a quarter century... John McCain is Mr. National Security. Ms. National Security's "experience card" will look like a weak deck should it be a Clinton-McCain face off in November.
Though it is comforting that polls show Obama beating McCain in a general election, it's not just his electability that draws me to Barack Obama. Since I live overseas, I am less affected by the charisma visible to Americans who see and hear him in person or on TV (there's always a French voice-over when I hear him). And I think the constant repetition of the word "change" could eventually become grating, if not followed by specific examples. Remember 2004 and John Kerry's constant refrain of waging "a smarter war on terror." There was never any beef, and look where it got us.
But "change" in the conduct of US foreign affairs is what Obama can offer, and that is one of the most important things a new president must accomplish. Hillary Clinton, coming out of the national security club mindset, is tainted by her vote in favor of invading Iraq - whatever she has said subsequently to explain her enabling vote. But it's not over: as recently as a couple of months ago, she voted to give Bush a potential green light should he decide to attack Iran. Again, she's on the same wavelength as John McCain, he of the "Bomb Iran" sing-along.
Back to Obama: he was criticized for his offer to talk to rogue nations, as if the only thing a real American president-wannabe should say is "bomb 'em." But talking - or diplomacy, as it's known - is the tool that has become rusty under George W. Bush. Obama, more than Clinton, has shown himself to be ready to engage with other countries, whether friends or not. Though it may not matter to Americans deciding how to vote, it is significant that world public opinion wants to be engaged with a President Obama. There is much of the same excitement that many Americans are starting to feel about the senator from Illinois.
"Change" in the national security realm is vital, and will not be easy. Ratcheting down from a trillion dollar plus annual national security bill (as Chalmers Johnson measures actual US spending) will not be easy. There are entrenched interests in every state of the union, and Americans have almost forgotten that non-military options - diplomacy, multilateral defense (NATO), treaties, Peace Corps - can be more effective than the "with-us-or-against-us" Bush doctrine.
Hillary Clinton would be Bush-lite, McCain-lite (or maybe Bill-lite). Why would independents, swing voters, wavering Republicans, anti-Iraq War people of all stripes vote in a general election for a woman who triangulates her positions so much that her compass goes haywire? Senator Barack Obama: clean slate and clear thinking on America's engagement with the world. That's change that I can welcome.