It's been a few days now since my favorite presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich, dropped out of the race. I'm sorry to see him go; while it's clear he was the longest of long shots, he represented my views more closely than any other candidate in the contest. Having a voice like Kucinich in the debate (and, sometimes, not in it) has undoubtedly had a positive influence the positions of the "mainstream" candidates. And I had hoped that I would be able to cast my vote for him in the Virginia primary on February 12. (I suppose I still could, although it would be a fairly Quixotic action at this point.)

Since we've been through a few primaries now, and since ours is looming, I need to get down to business and figure out who to vote for. My choice is Barack Obama.

First, let me just say this: Barack Obama inspires me. He can deliver a speech like no other modern politician I've ever seen. He can make you share his vision. I will never forget his 2004 Democratic convention speech, or his victory speech a couple of days ago in South Carolina. Obama is the first politician I've actually wanted to support, whom I've felt drawn to, rather than repelled by, on more than just the policy level.

But that's not enough. Lots of people can talk a good game. If it's all high-minded rhetoric and no substance, then it's nothing more than a marketing gimmick, and says nothing about policy or the ability to run the United States. You have to look at the issues, at practical matters. I did, and here I'm going to explain why I'm supporting Obama.

Here are my choices: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Honestly, it is extremely difficult to find policy differences between these candidates. There are a lot of reasons for this. There aren't many differences to begin with, and their policy positions also tend to be obscured behind overarching statements about the goals of their policies, rather than the policies themselves. "I will improve America's standing in the world" doesn't tell you much in the Democratic field - who will you negotiate with? Who will receive foreign aid? What do you see as the most serious problems in foreign nations right now?

Here are the key points that distinguish Obama for me:

• Obama has opposed the Iraq war from the start. Both Clinton and Edwards voted to authorize the war. Although they've since acknowledged this decision as a mistake (to varying degrees), Obama gets a lot of credit on this one for seeing it for what it was.
• Obama voted against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment escalating the Iran situation. Clinton voted for it, in a decision that is very troubling to me. In an atmosphere of nearly universal distrust of the Bush Administration on foreign policy, and with serious questions about the Administration's fearmongering on Iran issues, and with Lieberman impersonating Zell Miller, I don't see how you vote for this bill. Edwards, of course, isn't a Senator, so we don't get to see how he'd vote on this.
• Obama is clearly making open, transparent government a priority. The Bush Administration's extreme secrecy has been incredibly damaging to our democracy. Obama has proposed a set of policies that will make open government a reality.
• Obama would meet with the leaders of Iran and North Korea. This position did some damage to Obama during the debates, but I think it's smart. If you get rogue nations to the table, you can gather information about them you wouldn't otherwise get. You increase international pressure on them to make concessions. You provide opportunities for them to deescalate and still save face. You don't have to give them the keys to Los Alamos - all you have to do is make yourself available to talk. It's a no-brainer.
• Obama is committed to reducing the influence of corporate lobbyists. And Edwards gets every bit as much credit for this. But Clinton doesn't. She has a whole page dedicated to "comprehensive government reform," with no mention of corporate lobbying.
• Obama has a long history of activism. Hillary Clinton has been a politician for a long time. John Edwards has been a politician for a short time, but he was a trial lawyer before that. Obama has been working in civil rights and death penalty reform for years, including significant experience in constitutional and civil rights law.
• Obama favors death penalty reform. As does Edwards. But again, not Clinton.
• Obama is demonstrably committed to reducing racial and socioeconomic inequality in America. He has a strong record in favor of affirmative action, he has made equality part of his central message to a greater degree than any other candidate. John Edwards does well on this one, but Hillary Clinton's record is mixed, particularly in the areas of affirmative action and welfare.

One of the biggest issues for me, health care, is kind of a wash. Each candidate's plan has advantages and disadvantages. Clinton's and Edwards', for example, require health care coverage for all Americans, but Obama's requires it only for children. Obama and Edwards are closer to a single-payer system, where Clinton's plan builds on private insurance companies. If I had to pick one plan as my favorite, it would be Edwards'. I don't think any of them go far enough toward truly universal coverage, but any of the three plans would be a real breath of fresh air. Everybody wins.

On the environment, John Edwards is the only one of the three who opposes nuclear power. Obama has proposed more funding for alternative-fuels research than the other candidates.

John Edwards comes in a close second for me. He's an outstanding candidate and would make a great president. I can support him on nearly every issue. But his priorities are not my priorities. Edwards has made economic reforms his main issue, whereas my concerns are more philosophical - the openness of our government, its responsibilities toward its citizens, the guiding principles of its foreign policy. I think Edwards could address my concerns, but he has chosen to focus on other areas. Obama's focus is more consistent with my priorities.

Hillary Clinton is a non-starter for me. She has made a career out of safe, carefully calculated centrist political decisions, and she's just not what we need. The Bush Administration broke our government and our political system, and Clinton seems unable to recognize this or to introduce real solutions. I didn't suffer through four more years of Bush/Cheney for this.

Barack Obama has shown that he recognizes the damage the Bush Administration has done, and he has real ideas about how to fix it. His positions are very clear and incredibly detailed. The chief concern that people seem to have about Obama - his "inexperience" - is unfounded. He has a proven record of working to reduce inequality and defend the constitution. He has good ideas that can work, and he will enlist smart people to make them work. Let's remember that Bush's foreign policy team has extensive experience dating back to the Nixon Administration. It's not raw experience that counts, but the ability to make smart decisions, to improve people's lives, and to be an effective leader.

Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States. Thanks for reading.