Tomorrow is the Wisconsin primary. After much consideration, I'll be voting for Barack Obama. I only became sure of my choice in the last week. In the unlikely event any cares, ths is my reasoning.

Both Clinton and Obama have appealing traits and flaws.

Clinton is reportedly a policy wonk. I like policy wonks. Lots of good is done by people who sit around thinking about problems and trying to find concrete solutions. On the downside she's willing to sacrifice free speech to pander to, well, some. For example, this idiotic anti-flag burning law that would have made things that were already illegal more illegal. Or her anti-video game efforts.

Obama, on the other hand, is not just charismatic, he fires people up. That's important. In this day and age, someone who can get a large part of the American people working together for a common cause could be a great boon. He can put a new face on our country. On the down side, he's reportedly a big picture kind of guy. As I said, I prefer policy wonks over visionaries.

I'm also influenced by the idea of electability. But I couldn't find a compelling argument for or against either one.

So, what tipped the scales? The endorsement of Obama by Professor Lawrence Lessig. I've been following Lessig's work, especially in regards to copyright law, for some time. I have a lot of respect for the man. His arguments are good. Here is Lessig's endorsement of Obama. Here is a 20 minute video on why Lessig prefers Obama over Clinton, and a transcript of the same. I also found his 10 minute video on why Obama is more electable than Clinton compelling.

President Bush, talking about our dear sweet friend in the war on terrah, dictator Musharraf, "You can't be the President and the head of the military at the same time."

Delicious irony.

(To be clear, I appreciate the core point, and he's right. I just find it a funny juxtaposition.)

(Source: White House transcription. Backup link. Via Tim Grieve's War Room at Salon.)