Illustration by Lars Ingelman/Guardian

This fervent endorsement of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is
predicated on the notion that American politics aches for change — and it’s
more than a buzzword by now, it’s a necessity.

The nation’s most needy are, and have been for eight long
years, downtrodden. They are beaten down economically, educationally and
racially by a string of injustices ranging from the wars in the Middle
East to President George W. Bush’s Patriot Act to Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s mishandling of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
The public has come to mistrust politicians as the harbingers of division,
using governmental agencies to talk tall and act little. It is a dark time to
be part of the citizenry.

So it was with refreshing verve that many voters were
introduced to Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where the
senator delivered a keynote address harkening the tenets of unity America
had not seen since Sen. Robert F. Kennedy made his run at the presidency in
1968. Obama spoke of the links between red and blue, conservative and liberal,
and seemed neither Republican nor Democrat: He was just a man who wanted a
better America.

That is Obama’s strongest personality hook: He is relatable
to his constituents. His desire to see this country bettered is in line with
the bulk of Americans. Better health care, better job security, better
education and an end to war. Obama is the closest mirror to the warmly
personable Bobby in this election race.

Bobby united a spectrum of voters under his flag: old to
young, black to white to brown voters threw their support behind the
charismatic and vibrant figure who touted his simplistically idealistic
approach to political change. “I do not run for the presidency to oppose any
man but to propose new policy,” Kennedy said when he announced his presidential
candidacy. “I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous
course and I have such strong feelings about what must be done. And I feel that
I am obliged to do all that I can.”

The question now is, are times different? Has the
bureaucratic process grown too convoluted, too hefty for a “man of change” to
actually instigate change? New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s argument against
Obama is decidedly strong. A woman of her experience and lengthy resume would
be better equipped to enter the Oval Office, where her familiarity with
political structures, the players involved and the compacts they strike would
grease the wheels to actually force change. But the biggest problem is that Clinton’s
route toward change is exactly the kind that has been walked before, and runs
counter to principles of change without harm. This America
wants a new mentality, where the end does not justify the means.

Obama embodies that idealism, which makes a statement as
strong as it is desirable for modern-day America:
You don’t have to get dirty to play the political game.