I Never Thought I'd Vote for Hillary Clinton
by emptypockets
Yesterday I was undecided, and frankly to some extent I remain so. I've read with interest the endorsements of Meteor Blades and DHinMI (both writing elsewhere for some godforsaken reason) on behalf of Barack Obama. Personally, I am not above buying my political opinions wholesale from either of them (and from the latter I've done it repeatedly before). In each post, they sound similar notes, essentially: (1) Obama is a skilled politician, and no more (or less) than that; (2) ultimately change will not come from the White House but from Congress or the populace; and so what matters is that (3) Obama is best suited to evoke the strongest efforts and loftiest dreams from the real change-makers around him and among us.
I agree with (1) whole-heartedly. As for (2) and (3), I may be misrepresenting or oversimplifying their arguments. To be accurate, DHinMI wrote "What mattered in 1932, however, was the mandate from the voters, the 13 Senate seats and the 97 House seats that came along with Roosevelt's landslide. ...[T]his is maybe the most important difference between a ticket led by Barack Obama and one headed up by Hillary Clinton." Meteor Blades wrote "If Obama wins come November, it will be up to that grassroots, that congregation, not only to hold his feet to the fire, but also, and more importantly, to press forward the extra-electoral politics [that brought] real hope and real change to America nearly half a century ago." What I read in each of those arguments is that Clinton and Obama are (mostly) equally suited to the policy work of the presidency, but Obama is exceptionally suited to the figurehead, or symbolic, work of that office.
I can't disagree. And I certainly don't begrudge either of those two -- or any other Obama voter -- their choice. But, of the 4,727 words in their two posts, the ones that most resonated for me were these 22:
"I know for the political cognoscenti like many of us here at Daily Kos, Obama appears to be running a content-free campaign."
DHinMI flatters me (and other readers) by including us as political cognoscenti (or possibly denigrates the "real" cognoscenti; it's hard to tell with him sometimes). But while my knowledge of political history is poor and my sense of sound policy falters, I am by profession and temperament an empiricist, and I find in myself a deep and abiding love for the specific, the concrete, the quantifiable. When I hear Clinton speak, I hear those things. When I hear Obama speak, I am moved and impressed -- but when he's done, I'm left with nothing. He may, in the end, be a better leader. But I can only vote my conscience. Clinton has done her homework. I don't agree with her on many policy issues, but I know where she stands, I can recognize it as an informed and reasonable viewpoint although on some issues I happen to differ -- and I can respect her for holding to it.
I was listening to some music the other day, and a corny old Johnny Cash piece came on. It's a rambling story of him walking through a small town and talking about the worn-out old flag flying over the county courthouse square, and how every hole and tatter is the mark of a battle braved. The second-to-last verse goes like this:
She waved from our ships upon the briny foam and now they've about quit wavin' back here at home. In her own good land here she's been abused, She's been burned, dishonored, denied an' refused, And the government for which she stands Has been scandalized throughout the land. And she's getting threadbare, and she's wearin' thin, But she's in good shape, for the shape she's in. Cause she's been through the fire before and I believe she can take a whole lot more.
And it may be corny, and it may be trite, but it was released in 1974 and reads to me like it could have come out today. I see Obama as a spiritual leader and reformer, the candidate of "the fire next time," but I can't help but see Clinton as the candidate who has passed through the fire already, and remains "in good shape for the shape she's in." While I hope for great gains in Congress, and a rising up of the American people, I am not ready to count on them. And I am more confident in Clinton's clear purpose and skill being able to move the country forward in the case of a die-hard obstructionist right-wing minority, which I have little doubt we will face. But, oh my goodness. I never thought I'd be voting for Clinton.
my sentiments exactly. A year ago, I was in the "anyone but Hillary" camp. I wanted to like richardson ("historic" candidacy, killer resume) but in the first couple of debates he gave me no reason to support him. So, I looked at the rest of the field, and settled on Edwards.
When it became evident that Edwards was not making the necessary adjustments in his campaign to deal with the media's obsession with "Hillbama", I looked for second choices. But there was no "there" there with Obama. And if you strip away the media onslaught against Hillary, what you see is a competent, intelligent, pragmatic progressive.
***************
I'm still extremely disappointed with the Edwards campaign. Edwards had a lot of progressive support, but it was lukewarm -- if he'd endorsed a few of the "better Democrats" running against Blue Dogs, that support would have become red hot. And Edwards didn't understand the media dynamic at work in this campaign... the media needed an anti-Hillary, and chose Obama. If Edwards had challenged Obama instead of Hillary in the Philadelphia debate, he could have stopped O-Mentum, and emerged as the media's "not Hillary" candidate.
Posted by: p_lukasiak | February 05, 2008 at 10:24
Thank you for a reasoned argument. Thank god, no nastiness. You echo my sentiments.
Posted by: Rhonda Wright | February 05, 2008 at 10:42
p lukasiak, I feel the same way actually. I'm not sure what the correct post-mortem is on the Edwards campaign, and I didn't see any compelling ones written so far. My hope is that he dropped out when he did (which was a strange time to do so) because he had struck some agreement with both of the other campaigns (something more concrete than their pledges to work to end poverty). We'll see.
But in the end, I think the times were against him -- I think the nation is just not ready for a white male president.
Posted by: emptypockets | February 05, 2008 at 10:50
If Obama is successful at winning the Presidency, he had better deliver on all that hope and change he is promising. There are going to be a whole lot of pissed-off progressives if we slump back into the same-old,same-old....
It only takes 41 Senators to gum up the works, and I worry that the Republicans will be delighted to resume their role as professional obstructionists and make it difficult for Obama to follow through with any sort of significant changes. But I guess with Hillary, the problem gets even worse....
Posted by: global yokel | February 05, 2008 at 11:17
Exactly. There is no "there" there. And I base that not on my fellow bloggers' comments, but on careful reading of debate transcripts and a review of Senate records (one of which is extremely short, so it was an easy review). Obama can float like a butterfly, but he has yet to learn to sting like a bee. Hillary, on the other hand -- well, I just hope she's elected and can pick the battles wisely.
Posted by: starryrift | February 05, 2008 at 11:35
Last night, the husband (a true undecided) asked me to give him one reason to vote for Hillary. I told him that, whoever walks into the White House next January is going to have an awful mess to clean up, like the Aegean stables. Hillary, like her or hate her, has her plans made, knows what she wants, and will be able to at least begin the work.
Obama is a one-term senator. We would have to trust that he will be able to use his awesome powers of change and unity to begin to undo the damage. Maybe he can; if he's the nominee I'll vote for him. But I feel more comfortable with the idea of an experienced policy wonk than with another cult of personality.
And I'm in p. luk's camp, I was an "anybody but Hillary" voter last year. But these are my choices, and I feel good about my decision.
Posted by: merciless | February 05, 2008 at 11:49
After Edwards dropped out, it was an easy decision - form vs substance - no brainer, Hillary is my girl.
Posted by: Diane | February 05, 2008 at 12:54
Thank you for this well-reasoned post. No doubt Hillary is the best candidate, just keeping my fingers crossed that there are enough voters ready to use their brains to make the decision, not their emotions. I too am concerned that if Barack makes it all the way, there could be a whole new generation of voters who become disillusioned when the "hope" and rhetoric is tempered by the reality of trying to get the job done and the compromises and pragmatism that will entail. The media didn't push Barack on any policy issues that may have redressed the balance towards Hillary.
Posted by: Melanie L | February 05, 2008 at 13:32
Hillary has an ironic power shared by no other candidate: From the wreckage of a broken, dysfunctional Republican Party with deep rifts among its factions, she would create sudden GOP unity. If Clinton is the Democratic candidate, the Republican base will come out in numbers that have nothing to do with John McCain and everything to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton. As GOP pundits are now openly admitting, they want Clinton this November. They fear Barack Obama.
Even in a year when Democrats are in great position to win in November, if Clinton unifies the Republicans, loses independents and loses the progressive left, her chances of winning the general election are slim indeed.
Let’s look at the alternative. Obama inspires Americans across the political spectrum, with his greatest strengths supplanting Hillary’s greatest weaknesses. He unites independents, the young, minorities and progressives alike. He will not unify the GOP, and indeed will take Republican votes. That same Time magazine poll shows that among those who have an opinion, he has astounding 70 percent positives. Yet 51 percent of voters don’t yet know him enough to even have formed an opinion. With his power of ideas and remarkable personal charisma yet to be fully seen, his upside is enormous.
Obama can unite progressives, independents and Democrats, and discourage rather than unify Republicans.
Posted by: greenhouse | February 05, 2008 at 14:19
I'm sorry, I forgot to say which Time poll. Time magazine’s most recent polling indicates Hillary has the deadly combination of very high negatives (41 percent unfavorable) plus a deeply fixed voter impression (91 percent say they know enough about her to form an opinion). McCain’s greatest appeal will be to independent voters, a large vital block of the electorate that is Clinton’s great weakness. Clinton is a highly polarizing candidate, which damages her among independents. The latter figure means those numbers are not going to change substantially, and McCain will almost surely win independents. This should be a deafening alarm bell for Democrats.
Posted by: greenhouse | February 05, 2008 at 14:24
Bravo, emptypockets!!
Your process was exactly like mine.
I don't dislike Obama, and frankly, after Clinton's 8 years, I'd LOVE to vote for him for 8 MORE years, after he gains more experience in the actual details. He could be of great help to Clinton in the Senate. :)
But I compliment you on your conclusions.
They were exactly the same as mine.
Welcome aboard!
Posted by: Mary | February 05, 2008 at 14:30
greenhouse, in light of the closeness of the race and based on my own gut feelings, any analysis pegging one of our candidates as a saint and the other as a demon -- in either order -- rings hollow for me
Posted by: emptypockets | February 05, 2008 at 14:43
Mary,
I agree. I think Clinton/Obama would be the ideal Dem ticket this year. It would keep the Obama supporters in the fold, and give Obama the time he needs to be really ready to be President. Like Clinton/Gore, but more successful this time around.
Posted by: Cymro | February 05, 2008 at 14:45
Emptypockets,
I don't remember pegging either as good or evil, "saint or demon" in your words. My point was electability in a general election. But by all means go with your gut.
Posted by: greenhouse | February 05, 2008 at 15:42
Nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- will unite Republicans and get them to the polls more than an African American Democratic candidate. Today's Republican party is the home of racism in America. Does that mean we should not nominate Obama? No, of course not. Neither does the uniting of Republicans that a Clinton nomination will produce mean that we should not nominate her. Of all the bogus arguments inveighed against Clinton -- dynasty, Republican-lite, DLC , and so on -- this one strikes me as the lamest.
Posted by: Vico | February 05, 2008 at 15:56
The most important difference between the two candidate's foreign policy concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.
Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it is no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.
Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.
Folks, isn't that what we've been talking about here at TNH for the last 4-5 years? Yet in spite of that, you're more impressed with her experience regardless of her record. Am I missing something?
Posted by: greenhouse | February 05, 2008 at 15:56
And here's an interesting quote for all:
Pat Buchanan on MSNBC 2/4/08:
"The GOP will tear Obama to shreds....He's the freshest meat on the political chopping block since 1972 George McGovern."
And frankly, if we see Frank Luntz on Bill Maher's show praising Obama, we gotta know something's up.
Posted by: Mary | February 05, 2008 at 16:01
Vico, it's not lame and it's backed by polling analysis. Whether that it is true or not remains to be seen, if Obama does in fact become the front runner against presumably McCain in a general election. And as far as Republican Racists, that may be but they represent at most 30% of Bush's true believers. As far as Obama's electability amongst white voters, I think he proved that overwhelmingly in Iowa, a predominantly white state. That result goes totally against the grain of your cynicism and veiled race bating. Obama does unite independents, the young, minorities and progressives alike and he will take Republican voters sick and tired of being bogged down in Iraq away from McCain who wants a 100 year war. So who's talking lame here?
Posted by: greenhouse | February 05, 2008 at 16:07
Pat Buchanan, a credible pundit? Hmm, a republican conspiracy to get a black man to be front runner?? ROLF!
Oh, and this just in from:
Julianna Goldman Tue Feb 5, 12:06 AM ET
Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Kansas hasn't backed a Democrat for U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Governor Kathleen Sebelius says Barack Obama may break that streak.
``People are clearly willing to vote outside their party lines if they believe in the vision and in the person,'' Sebelius, who endorsed Obama last week, said in an interview. Obama brings in voters from all parties and is encouraging young people to ``come to the table as Democrats,'' she said.
As Democratic voters in 22 states go to the polls today, Obama's support in Republican-leaning ``Red States'' will give him more ammunition to challenge Senator Hillary Clinton for a majority of the 1,681 delegates at stake, experts say. Obama, 46, of Illinois, who last week was rated the Senate's most liberal member by National Journal magazine, is favored to win most of the five Republican strongholds -- Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Colorado and Kansas -- holding caucuses.
Democratic Party chairmen in counties throughout Kansas, where Obama's mother was from, say they're getting dozens of calls a day from Republicans and independents asking how to register as Democrats.
``I've had some Republicans that for the first time are interested in voting for a Democratic president because of Barack,'' said Glenn Staab, Democratic chairman of Ellis County.
Staab, an Obama supporter, receives almost nightly calls from the campaign and said he hasn't gotten a single one from Clinton's people. (End of article)
Tell me the last time there was a democratic presidential nominee who inspired and appealed to Republican voters, not to mention independents. If that doesn't spell kicking McCain's ass in November and not boding so well for Hillary, I don't know what.
Posted by: greenhouse | February 05, 2008 at 16:37
The "saint and demon" crack overstated it, and I'm sorry for that. But the idea that the candidates are at two extremes in terms of electability or the Republican attacks they will engender don't sound accurate. The race is simply too tight for me to believe that either of them is unelectable. It's correct that Obama has been less of a target in the past, and another way to say that is to say he has not faced a really vicious high-level campaign. Clinton has been a target for years, and one can assume that means she will continue to excite attacks or one can assume that she has by now learned how to defuse them effectively (one can even assume both).
The only thing I would put money on is that no matter who our nominee is, we will face a unified Republican base ready for the most shameless, nastiest attacks any of us have ever seen. To think that any Democratic candidate can avoid having to face those knives is, to me, to ignore the last 8 years.
Posted by: emptypockets | February 05, 2008 at 16:44
Tell me the last time there was a democratic presidential nominee who inspired and appealed to Republican voters
Lieberman? :)
Posted by: emptypockets | February 05, 2008 at 16:48
Lieberman. Funny pockets.
Posted by: greenhouse | February 05, 2008 at 16:54
Besides, last I heard he was still a Senator against Lamont.
Posted by: greenhouse | February 05, 2008 at 16:58
Guess what -- Clinton is strong with self-identified Democrats. Obama is stronger with Independents. Why is everyone assuming that Obama will get all the Clinton votes come November? Since I think Obama is rather a light-weight, I can imagine lots of Democrats seeing McCain as an alternative. I think we just don't know yet, but I don't buy the argument that Obama is more electable at this time.
Posted by: wasab | February 05, 2008 at 18:03
Try joining the crowd and chanting "Yes we can" for 15 minutes. It will cut off your thought processes and you'll be just fine. If three words is too much, try one syllable words like "hope". Get the word "what" out of your vocabulary, as in "yes we can...WHAT?". The Leader will unite us, put an end to political parties and ideology, and lead us .....somewhere.
Posted by: DeanOR | February 05, 2008 at 18:41