I have my problems with all the candidates for president, in both parties. Overall, I have two items on my wish list. The first is that the Clintons not take over the apparatus of the Democratic Party. And, honestly, my opposition to Hillary Clinton’s campaign is at least 80% related to the impact her nomination would have over the party apparatus. I don’t dislike Hillary, and if the only consideration was her fitness to be president, I could support her. What I detest is her gang…people like Mark Penn, James Carville, Paul Begala, and Terry McAuliffe. To be perfectly frank, progressive activists scored a great victory when we forced Howard Dean in at the DNC over the objections of Team Clinton and the New Democratic coalition. Nominating Hillary would not only wipe out that victory but annihilate our movement in the corridors of power, where we are shamefully weak as it is.
The second item on my wish list is that the nominee enable, or at least not interfere with, a political realignment in the congressional elections. I can site many factors and statistics, and even historical precedents, that point to the potential for sweeping victories for the Democrats in the fall election. Here are some:
Democrats generally are competitive despite a nearly 2-1 financial disadvantage. The DCCC has a 19-1 cash on hand advantage at the moment. That alone suggests we’ll have big upsets in November. Party self-identification and the lean of independents is moving dramatically in the Democrats’ direction. Young voters are overwhelmingly unsympathetic to the Republican message and, in Iowa, turned out in record numbers. Hispanic voters are moving strongly away from the GOP’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. Polling shows that the public trusts the Democrats more than Republicans on nearly every issue. Democrats have enjoyed a very strong candidate recruitment effort, while the Republicans have fallen flat. Many more Republicans than Democrats are retiring. Many more Republicans than Democrats are seeking reelection in the face of ethical or legal questions. The country wants change, and the Democrats represent change. I could go on.
I firmly believe that we will get more progressive legislation out of a Hillary Clinton presidency that has 60 senators than a Dennis Kucinich presidency that has 52. But I don’t think Hillary Clinton can get 60 senators. Barack Obama, I believe, can. John Edwards might be able to do it, too, depending on the Republican nominee and running mate, but I have less confidence in that.
For these reasons, I am less inclined to focus on the subtle distinctions between the big three candidates on this or that policy. I don’t care whether they like Paul Krugman or think Social Security is a pressing issue. I want a candidate that can help bring in a tidal wave of new blood. And electing Hillary Clinton is the farthest thing from that.
Temperamentally, I am more sympathetic to John Edwards’ style than I am to Barack Obama’s. But I’m willing to let the best man win. I will be excited, very excited, by the nomination of either man. I’d be excited about Hillary winning the general election, too, just for the novelty of having this country run by a competent and able woman. That would bring a lot of positives with it. But I can’t take the baggage of her gang. They are our enemy, and have shown themselves to be our enemy nearly everyday since Bush said, “Fuck Saddam, we’re taking him out.”
Well said, Boo. Well said.
Can’t agree more.
What happens after next year will depend on more than just how many Dems are in the Senate. It will depend at least as much on what the president’s priorities and mindset are, and how they choose to spend their political capital.
While I agree entirely with your preferences for the election, I get there by another route that (unfortunately) is probably best described as character. For me Clinton has three strikes against her that mostly don’t rise to the level of policy, but throw a bright light on how she thinks:
1 — The obvious: her continuing, stubborn, refusal to admit she made a mistake on the Iraq invasion.
2 — Her complete confusion about why anyone would think there was a problem with her chief strategist heading the PR firm that was, at the same time, orchestrating Blackwater’s PR blitz on the Hill. Yeah, I saw her excuses, and they only make her notion of integrity, her capacity for outrage, all the more contemptible.
3 — She thinks Colin Powell is a distinguished American “who can represent our country well”. To me this is obliviousness of the worst kind: she is unable to see that there was anything seriously, morally, wrong with the lying that ended in the slaughter of a million Iraqis — Powell, after all, is a member of the club, and that’s what really counts.
The pundits like to yammer about “seriousness”. In Hillary’s case, that means the kind of seriousness we might see in a chess player who sits there contemplating her next move as the building burns down around her — she’s incapable of seeing beyond the game to the real world around her.
What happens in politics is not about just numbers. Intangibles like spirit and boldness probably count more. I believe that a Hillary administration would echo the previous Clinton one: spiritless, calculating, and essentially insignificant.
.. In Hillary’s case, that means the kind of seriousness we might see in a chess player who sits there contemplating her next move as the building burns down around her — she’s incapable of seeing beyond the game to the real world around her.
Nice metaphor! ‘Course, the game, in this case, is the real world.
Personally, I feel I learned what I needed to know about her true potential when I joined many, many other Clinton constituents in urgent attempts to direct her vote against the IWR. Not only were her staff utterly uninterested in constituent opinion, but constituents outside her New York offices, on public property, were forcibly removed by police.
Recall, if you can, the severe marginalization of dissent at the time; the actions of her office were a sharp illustration of what was occurring nationally.
On that day she lost my vote, regardless of her office. Needless to say (as I’m still in New York), should she win the nomination I don’t believe she’ll need my vote in the general.
My concern about Hillary isn’t her heart or her head. From her earliest days at the Children’s Defense Fund, through the chutzpah of her speeches in China, to that speech she made about torture (i.e., George Washington’s Choice) in 2006, I’m pretty sure–as sure as anyone can be–that she knows what’s right.
But I’m very concerned about the choices she’s made in campaigning. I can’t figure if she’s just being led around (or ignored) by the good old boys, or if she’s consciously chosen to align herself with Penn, Carville, et al. Their approach is so bad, and they are so ignorant of the way in which the young nation is and could continue to be changing, that my faith in her management style is weakening by the minute.
Is she going to create an administration of these old folks? (Not age, but mindset!) If so, change will be all we have left in our pockets.
Rember, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are not the victims of their ‘gang’: they are the leaders of the gang. Their time has come and gone. Let them make their peace with the nation and their ambitions, leaving the rest of us to breathe whatever fresh air any of us can find in the stifling, suffocating atmosphere we are forced by so many factors to live in today. Their generosity would be appreciated. If they insist on stinginess, they will lose everything.
my opposition to Hillary is related to her AttitudeUp (no, that’s not a typo, it’s reggae speech for arrogance).
Her AttitudeUp:
“I’m entitled, it’s my turn, I’ve worked so hard, taken all this sh!t. How dare you?”
I’m waiting for her camp to fully implode and will be glad to see the back of her.
She’s now engaging a scorched earth campaign in N.H. – “Clinton Campaign Falsifies Obama Abortion Record” reads the headline on Huffpost’s home page
My 1st choice was Al Gore but he isn’t into revenge and wisely decided not to clean up Bush’s mess. I like Edwards but he’s underfunded and will be crippled by the FEC shut down.
What we need are fresh faces and youth. I go with Obama.
You just hit the nail on the head. I can’t take her attitude that the presidency is something that is somehow owed to her.
And I don’t hate her, I just don’t want her as my president.
I think that Hillary tried to do good things in the past, but she got slammed so much, she gave up & joined them. She probably tells herself that it’s better to get a little bit of good done, than try for a lot and fail.
However, I have a problem with tossing her out like used clothes. I’ve been subject to enough age discrimination in my career. People have value even if they get older or disabled. On the other hand, I don’t want her to be president because it would be bad for everyone else.
I completely agree with you, especially regarding the need for continuing evolution of the democratic party. We have good candidates, and HRC is forced to compete for the nomination, because of Howard Dean’s 50 state solution. The Clintons and gang have never been happy about the increased civic participation engendered by the 50 state strategy and the internet. They represent a change in degree, not a change in the medium of politics itself.
Absolutely. You and Boo hit this on the head: a vote for HRC is a vote for Penn, Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, Terry McAwful…all of those creeps who think they are so effing brilliant but who know nothing. They will not push the Democratic party forward but undermine it and bring it down. And their first act would be to fire Howard Dean, who was DLC and knows these losers better than they know themselves.
We have to remember that we lost the Congress under Bill, and he didn’t give half a damn. The better to triangulate. And the DNC only served to help Clinton. Screw down-ballot. And don’t look toward organizing for the future, grooming talent, any of that stuff.
I mean, who would sound as lukewarm to the news of +80% increase in turnout as Hillary did a few days ago? Those grumblings sound so…republican.
I wish I had printed the story I read years ago where some Clintonista and/or DLCer was quoted (anonymously of course) as saying that s/he “lives for Democratic in-fighting.” That is all that they are good for. They care nothing for the nation nor “their” party. Just themselves.
I’ll be happy in Nov. 2008 when Traitor Joe gets kicked to the curb when the Democrats have veto proof majority. I just find, Sen. Clinton unpersuasive. I think of the “vast right wing conspiracy” statement and Terry McAuliffe loaning her money to buy their house in New York..Bill in Connecticut helping Traitor Joe..her vote on Iran. I agree she has a lot of baggage. I don’t find being 1st lady as stating she will be prepared to lead the 1st day.
If you want to tar Senator Clinton with the actions of ex-President Bill Clinton supporting Traitor Joe, how do you square Senator Obama directly supporting Traitor Joe during the same primary and being just as absent during the 2006 GE? Raises the same sort of questions about both, doesn’t it?
Also, re the Kyl-Lieberman bill, Obama’s convenient absence reminds me too much of his ducking Lamont’s campaign when he had to beg off on a scheduled rally. Obama appears to be missing in action when the tough votes and commitments need to be made. Is that a harbinger of what to expect if he gets elected? Lets ask him sometime.
I don’t..because I support John Edwards. Recently there was a great post about Bill Clinton deriding those of us who supported Ned Lamont.