as a supporter of senator hillary clinton, the past couple of weeks--or months, really--have been quite trying. our campaign has certainly done better than it's doing now, and my disappointment, i think, is hardly individual. i've cringed, shaken my head in disillusionment, clenched my teeth in anger. there have been times when, oh-so-privately, i've hoped for a quick ending---that she were to lose here, then there, to spare both a candidate i find so wonderful and my own sense that, if things progressed in the same direction, i'd eventually support a woman i could no longer consciously support.

but barack obama's campaign has always, almost insistently--and quite flagrantly--given me a reason not to give up hope. i don't think it's a central character flaw or anything so morally damning. instead, it's a hypocrisy that his campaign--and many of his supporters--fervently deny: barack obama plays politics, whether he likes to or not.

i'm familiar with politics. hillary clinton is familiar with politics. americans are familiar with politics. and most unfortunately, barack obama is forced to play politics. his central campaign theme has been a fervent desire to change washington as we know it, to bring about what americans so desperately want and need. no more lobbyists, no more equivocation, no more triangulation---essentially, no more politics.

it is his insistence on removing triangulation that bothers me the most. his premise is wonderful, his goal extraordinary. but he has realized, quite shrewdly, that you need to play politics to change them. by calling hillary clinton a "slash-and-burn" politician, a slave to the vested corporate interests in washington, barack obama is doing exactly as he says he doesn't want to do. the times reports that he's gone negative--negative!--against hillary in pennsylvania, "[casting] his opponent in one of the most negative lights of the entire 16-month campaign, calling her a compromised Washington insider." (time magazine's blog, swampland, has more here.)

i think my favorite part of his latest closing argument is this:

"When she talks about experience what she really means is: 'I’ve been around the track quite a few times, I know how it works.’ So she takes more money from Washington lobbyists than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican, because she says, and she said this in a debate recently, that lobbyists are real Americans. Now, I don’t know if any of you have lobbyists in Washington representing you, but I don’t think so… Then this weekend she starts running ads saying, ‘Oh, no, no, he’s actually taking money from these folks,’ even though we have sent back money that was from lobbyists, we sent back money from PACS. But she just ignored the facts. And listen, understand the argument that she’s making. She’s essentially saying: “Yeah, I’m bad but he’s just as bad.’ What kind of argument is that? What kind of inspirational message is that?”

obama operates under two false premises, neither of which he can fully illuminate to a crowd of undecided (or committed) voters: the first is that his campaign doesn't benefit from associations with washington lobbyists, and the second is that the evil "lobbyists" represent a large swath of organizations, including research organizations. the problem: his campaign DOES benefit from his associations with washington lobbyists (and state lobbyists, for that matter), which is fine, because not all lobbyists are bad.

so, let's follow barack's logic: hillary takes money from lobbyists and says they're good, and that's bad; i take money from lobbyists and say they're bad, but i tell people i don't take money from lobbyists because they're bad. i'm bad, but hillary's just as bad.

a simple translation: i play politics, too.

i wish politicians didn't play politics. i wish barack didn't have to play politics to want to change the way the game is played. i wish things were different. but sometimes, planes smash up in the sky.