Yeah, both candidates have overstated their experience in a few instances. But that’s standard, especially for moderates, just as it’s standard for active candidates to skip out on the legislative process due to simple time constraints.

I still like John Edwards and think Elizabeth would be a great First Mama. But my choices now don’t permit that. So here’s what I have to consider.

1) Attacks like these from the MSM go well beyond the pale. However, ever since ABC decided to air a movie that blamed 9-11 on Bill Clinton, I’ve concluded that ABC wants to be Fox II. They will stoop to anything. And it’s wrong. But I can’t make my decision based on media bias. I have to choose on issues that will impact the nation, my community, family and me.

Were Clinton or Obama sponsoring such attacks, I could factor that in. I won’t make a reactive decision based on some stupid media trick, however.

2) On healthcare, I agree with many offline folks I’ve talked to: a major healthcare plan is unlikely to occur in a depressed economy as funding options will be scarce. 2010 or 2011 it may happen, but it’ll be more incremental than either Clinton or Obama would like. Both have plans that are a major step forward so the specifics don’t matter much to me as I expect neither will be as currently proposed. So for practical reasons, I consider this issue to be a tie.

3) On Anti-terrorism, another tie. I expect both will be active and effective in combating al Qaida.

4) On corporate influence, neither will be a flaming populist. But I consider Obama to be in fewer corporate pockets, so give him a small edge on this.

5) On foreign policy, the case has been well made that Obama’s willingness to negotiate with enemies and consult more with allies as equals is a positive, and that his election would be very welcomed as a groundbreaking event, immediately restoring our country in international prestige. As half of the world is composed of women, I believe Clinton’s election would also be considered a huge inspiration. Yet she hasn’t stressed that point, while Obama has. So I’ve gotta give him the edge for taking a politically risky but sensible approach to foreign policy and for selling his election as an inspiration to the world. Clinton has played safe and has spoken of her appeal to US women with little mention of the inspiration she’d provide to women everywhere. I’m surprised, as I expected her to be a better campaigner.

As to issues raised about the campaign process:

6) I’m not impressed that Florida and Michigan voters may feel disenfranchised. In most primary seasons, at least a third of the states are disenfranchised as the nominee is usually a shoo-in before their primary date comes. We deal with it and show up in November anyway.

Pragmatically, I view winning Florida to be a longshot for Obama and closer, but still unlikely to go for Clinton. Michigan, however, is and should be a bigger concern as its electoral votes are a necessity. So I continue to favor the reverse incentive penalty I’ve mentioned before.

States that scheduled later in the primary season were offered up to 30% more delegates for doing so. So reverse that: deduct 30% of the delegates from each candidate in each state. And giving all the Michigan uncommitted to Obama (minus 30% of the resulting delegates) would obviously be necessary to make the plan work. In short, a penalty is required but total exclusion would prove counterproductive in November. The minus 30% solution meets the pragmatic need.

7) Electability is a non-starter issue for me. We saw how well that worked when Dems thought Kerry more electable than Dean. I was loathe to attack Romney and Huckabee because I felt any Dem could defeat either. I always considered McCain to be the toughest opponent because of his Vietnam war performance, and his media darling status. The GOP has no high ground for the race based on the poor results of the GOP Congress and the Bush administration. So the best they can do is to run on the personal attributes of McCain instead of any strength on the issues.

However, I believe Clinton, Obama or Edwards would still beat McCain, though the race might be close. If we’re in a deep recession in October, however, it will still be the largest popular vote win for the Dem nominee since 1964. (52%-48% would achieve that.) So I dismiss electability as a factor in my choice.

8) I’m usually unimpressed by youth movements as they always fall short of expectations. Yet over and over again, they’re showing up for Obama. And I don’t think they’ll turn out in November if Clinton pulls off what now seems an impossible win. Clinton’s backers, however, will turn out if Obama’s the nominee, except for the crossover Republican women that could go for Clinton because of her gender.

9) I think both candidates have run generally fair campaigns. A few judgment errors have occurred though I think too many supporters of each read too much into inconsequential things. For example, Clinton’s sympathy moment before New Hampshire was not - imo - staged. It was a genuine openness on Clinton’s part, refreshing because she’s typically very guarded. Likewise, when Obama called her ‘likeable enough’ I don’t think he was being condescending at all. He meant to refute the unlikeability claim and it just left an opening for Clinton supporters to attack. Ultimately, neither instance will influence voters in November. They’re more likely to be influenced by the fact that McCain is short, old, fairly unattractive and likely to come across awkward or rattled in debates.

The major flaw in either has come from the recent claims of Clinton about her foreign policy performance in several places that haven’t held up well on closer inspection. She’s overstated the ‘experience’ argument by citing specifics she can’t prove. As my firs paragraph cite notes, Obama’s also overstated his involvement in some legislation.

10) Clinton’s campaign has proven to be surprisingly inept. She had no Plan B after Super Tuesday didn’t propel her to a substantial lead. She’s been outorganized in every caucus. And by the time she saw the momentum move far away, she changed her campaign manager too late and let Wisconsin slip away which she should have and could have won. Her comments about winning big states further alienated voters from small states. Bad move.

And since then, realizing the odds were very long against her catching up, she’s been clutching at any and every straw. Superdelegates, big states, whatever. The rules say delegates decide these things, that penalized states lose their delegates and she’s argued that by her new rules, she should be the nominee. Only nobody but her current supporters are buying her arguments. It’s unfortunate for her that she’s in this position but a better campaign from the outset would never have let her get into this pickle.

By contrast, Obama’s campaign has not been flawless, but it has proven effective. Team Obama has proven it can organize, raise more funds and execute. Inexperienced? He’s done a good job in assembling a great campaign team.

(And no, I don’t think this trial balloon will get off the ground, either.)

11) Digby wrote an excellent post yesterday about Reverend Wright, race and Obama’s response on those issues. I don’t think there’s a politician alive who would have responded at any level close to what Obama accomplished. It may not match “I Have a Dream” but it will be remembered in years ahead as a masterful endeavor.

Bill Richardson also added important points. His money quote about Obama, via Al Giordano:

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants–specifically Hispanics– by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences–and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit — the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

Clinton may not have his oratory skills, but she clearly could have made similar points in a long speech on sexism and gender exclusion. Instead, she’s let her team make repeated short attacks on bias. I think she missed an opportunity to make a major address while Obama demonstrated initiative.

12) Finally, I return to the issue that drives my political activism in recent years. My two pet issues lifelong have been finding alternatives to war in most circumstances, and greater opportunity and options for the poor.

On the latter, I think both candidates fall short of Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich and Dodd. But on the issue of war - a key part of every president’s prerogatives - quite simply, Obama got it right and Clinton didn’t. Considering the carnage and monetary costs, this issue alone trumps every other consideration.

As I wrote in response to a Matt Yglesias post over the weekend:

After all, does anyone ever mention how many members of the Democratic Congress voted ‘no’ on the AUMF? 21 Senate Dems, 1 Independent and 1 Republican said ‘no’ in the senate. Versus 29 Dems who gave Bush the power. That’s hardly an insignificant minority of Dems. If 4 more had voted no, that would have been a tie.

In the House, the vote was 81 ayes and 126 nays by the Dems (61% of them opposed). So cumulatively, Congressional Dems were opposed to the AUMF, 147 to 110. Must be a lot of those terror loving hippies in Congress who concluded that either the war made no sense or that Bush would renege on his word about getting fresh Congressional authority before an invasion, gaining UN approval, and providing hard evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

That also explains why the late mea culpas ring hollow. By comparison, House Republicans supported the AUMF 215 to 6 and Senate Republicans supported the offensive 48 to 1. So even the Boomers got it wrong overall, just as the majority of Congress got it wrong in the Sixties.

Being a hawk is always the easiest path to take because leading a mob outraged at some loss at the hands of a convenient bogeyman (Communists and terrorists, for example) is sure to make the ringleaders popular. Vengeance-mindedness is the most predictable force in human history. Along with torture, rape, and other atrocities occurring in every war.

Lynch mobs work on similar principles.

Mea culpas never undo the very real losses of life, never provide cover for the predictable atrocities and the lessons learned never last longer than two generations before a majority of a populace think war is perfectly acceptable in any form, even pre-emptively. Older anti-war folks are merely quaint and misguided fools that old hawks can deride to the approval of the new.

And damn few of those hawks stick around to care for the casualties afterward. That caretaking job always falls to the folks who opposed the war. There’s just not much profit - or glory - in helping the damaged to survive. Those who do it are volunteers or are barely paid more than the minimum wage, and they get stereotyped as bleeding heart liberal dope-smoking hippies. Deriding and undervaluing doves helps maintain the profitability and popularity of being a hawk.

But let’s not confuse the whole dynamic with right and wrong, because 10 times out of 9, the doves are right.

So I will endorse Obama as a preference over Clinton, not because he’s male, black or a compelling speaker. But because he’s run a smarter, more effective campaign and he was right on AUMF (even though he wasn’t in the Senate at the time). And he’s demonstrated a capacity to respond well under fire.

I may lack the enthusiasm of his ardent supporters, but that’s because he’s not as progressive as I’d prefer and I just don’t do hero-worship. I understand that politicians are not messiahs and I don’t want someone to make everything perfect. I just prefer more honesty, more openness, a good sense of ethics, pragmatism and effectiveness. And he seems to have more of those things than many politicians. I think it’ll be hard, considering the economy, for any president to gain re-election in 2012. Obama’s differences from the norm demonstrate a capacity to innovate and in 2008, that’s clearly a positive, too.

My biggest concern is not whether he can win or whether he’ll be lousy as a President. He should win and will be at least above average in the White House. But because of 220+ years of racial extremism by white supremacists, I worry for his safety and hope my fear proves unfounded.