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.”
