I worked hard for Bill Clinton in 1992. He inspired me, yes. But there was something more that made me want to back him: his toughness. The Republicans by this point had dirtied up national politics considerably, and unlike any Democrat in recent history, Clinton seemed willing to hit the GOP as hard as it hit him. If someone aimed a toe at his nuts, he kicked back. Hell, he didn’t mind kicking first. I liked that a lot.

Maybe it’s my age (I was 31 then and 47 now), but I’m sick of going for the nuts. I’m sick of the filth. I’m sick of the extremism. I want the middle. Badly. And I see one candidate with balls big enough to find it. (And it does take balls to buck the Accepted Wisdom of modern American political consultants.) That’s Sen. Barack Obama.

When friends lately have asked me why I’m backing him, I’ve just said it’s because he inspires me and the others don’t. I’ve wanted more powerful words to make the case, but they’ve failed me. Then today I picked up last week’s issue of The New Yorker and read George Packer’s great piece attempting to parse the differences between my party’s two groundbreaking candidates. In it, I found a much better articulation from Greg Craig, a Yale classmate of the Clintons (and a part of Clinton’s impeachment defense team) who had decided to support Sen. Obama this year. Here’s how Packer sums up Craig’s choice:

When I described to Greg Craig the Clinton campaign’s skepticism toward the idea of transcending partisanship, he said, “You’re getting to that five per cent of Hillary that I don’t like—which is to see in every corner a conspiracy or an opponent that must be crushed. Look at her comment ‘Now the fun part starts’ ”—Clinton’s announcement in Iowa that she would begin attacking Obama’s record. “There is a quality of playing the embattled, beleaguered victim that I find unappealing and depressing.” He added, “I want a President who is looking to move the country with positive inspirational ideas rather than to fight off the bad guys and proclaim victory by defeating the forces of reaction. I would like us to inspire the forces of reaction to join us in treating people better, and lifting more vulnerable people and people in jeopardy out of their vulnerability and jeopardy.”

That last line is powerful: ” … inspire the forces of reaction to join us … .” That’s what I want. I want to sit down with my Republican friends and talk. I want to find common ground. I want to live, as Sen. Obama suggests, in the United States of America.

Sadly, the Clintons this year have lost their appeal to me. In an age when the American people clearly want more, they see conspiracies and opponents to be nut-kicked everywhere they look. In a career that included a lengthy stint in politics, I’ve done a lot of kicking myself. I’ve browbeaten strangers, friends and beloved family members who were on what I believed to be the wrong side of any issue, whether it be abortion or the environment or the Middle East. Frankly, I’m sick of myself. I want something different, something more. I want to be better than I’ve been.

Sen. Obama inspires me to do precisely that. And that’s why he’s my choice. If he fails to win the nomination, I will absolutely support Sen. Clinton. She has the skills to be an excellent governing president. She will be light years better than what we have now or anything the GOP is offering us this year. Perhaps she will, as the campaign progresses, figure out the zeitgeist and look for ways to unite instead of divide.

But the desire to achieve a new unity is standard equipment in Sen. Obama. He seems to be made for the job.