I have to confess to having none of the regrets that Queen of Spain so articulately expresses in her plea for Hillary to end her campaign. I even find some of her points to be annoying repetitions of bankrupt arguments I’ve heard too many times. For example:
However I am finding, right or wrong, many citizens of this country seem to react to you on an emotional level. Emotional, not practical. They can’t seem to see your record. They can’t seem to see your policy. They just hear or read “Hillary” and venom or praise spews.
I thought that with your candidacy, would come reason. I thought that you would be able to get a fair shake by main stream media, by voters, by sexists, and by soccer moms. I thought over time people would begin to see that you really are an effective politician.
I was wrong.
Maybe it is because ‘record’ and ‘policy’ mean so little to me in judging the records and future performance of the two remaining candidates, but I have no sympathy for this argument. Clinton and Obama have similar voting records and similar policies because they have crafted those votes and policies specifically with this presidential race in mind. Even where they differ, e.g. on foreign policy, those differences are accentuated by campaign strategies. The people are not acting emotionally when they look past ‘record’ and ‘policy’ to metatrends in the candidates’ lives and experiences.
In Clinton’s case, the candidate cannot be separated from the movement, or faction, that her husband launched within the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton’s voting record isn’t particularly ‘Clintonian’. But a look at her staff, advisers, financial backers, and supporters reveals that the Clinton campaign is made up of (surprise!!) Clintonites. And war hawks.
In Obama’s case, he does not represent any single faction. As Ron Brownstein points out today, Obama’s coalition is predominately made up of the left and right wings of the Democratic Party, with the middle preferring Clinton.
In 2007, Clinton dominated elite endorsements — a dynamic crystallized by her early lead among the party’s unpledged superdelegates. But within the Democrats’ leadership class — that is, elected officials and constituency group leaders — the trend is sharply toward Obama. Even more strikingly, he is drawing that support from ideologically diverse figures who champion divergent, sometimes antithetical, visions of how Democrats can prosper. At the party’s apex, Obama is now executing a left-right pincer movement against Clinton that demonstrates both the breadth of his appeal and the potential conflict at the core of that appeal…
…Liberals are attracted to Obama’s views on foreign policy, where he stands to Clinton’s left; centrists like his domestic policy, where he has challenged liberal conventions more than Clinton has on issues such as merit pay for teachers. The wider divide is over Obama’s governing strategy. Most attractive to moderates is Obama’s potential as a mediator — his promise to “reach across party lines … and to bring people together,” as Sebelius says. Most attractive to liberals is Obama’s potential as a mobilizer — his ability to excite and activate voters. “Our members really believe to make change, you don’t just need a president, you need a movement,” says Eli Pariser, MoveOn’s executive director.
This is good analysis. My two main concerns are foreign policy and voter mobilization. It was easy for me to embrace Obama’s campaign. For others that focus mainly on domestic policy or who think ‘framing/messaging’ is the most important tool in a coalition building toolbox, Obama has presented problems. But those problems are misguided. Obama comes out of the progressive movement, while Clinton is the leader of the New Democrat/DLC faction of the party. There may well be areas where Hillary is more progressive than Bill, but she is still the leader of a pro-empire, pro-corporate, anti-liberal bloc. It’s essentially a co-option of the Democratic Party by people that do not believe in progressive/liberal values.
And it isn’t just policy. The Clintons crafted their policies (except on Iraq) to please Democratic primary voters. What turned off Democrats in this primary was the violation of different progressive values. Trying to disenfranchise Iowan students and Las Vegas casino workers brought to mind James Baker and 2000 Florida vote. Using push-polling in South Carolina and New Hampshire brought to mind Karl Rove’s tactics against John McCain. Using surrogates to suggest that Obama was a Muslim or a drug dealer called to mind the Swift-Boat campaign against Kerry. Trying to claim victory in Florida when the candidates were precluded from campaigning there was reminiscent of a Scottie McClellan press conference or a Donald Rumsfeld briefing on the war. The Clintons just don’t share basic core progressive values. They not only push Republican-lite policies but they use Republican-lite tactics. And, that, more than anything else, is what has cost them support as this campaign has gone along.
People have a thirst for something else. Obama captures it, and it’s important. Alan Abramowitz describes it this way:
Why is Obama doing so well in these caucus states? The demographic make-up of states like Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Colorado certainly does not appear to favor him. There are very few African American voters in these states and Colorado has a very large Hispanic voting bloc–a demographic than has strongly supported Hillary Clinton in most of the primaries. The major explanation for Obama’s strong showing in the caucus states appears to be the greater enthusiasm of his supporters. Participating in a caucus requires a lot more time and effort than voting in a primary and a much larger percentage of Obama’s supporters than Clinton’s supporters appear to be willing to put out that time and effort.
Why does this matter? First, because it suggests that Obama would be able to attract more grass-roots volunteers to work on his campaign than Clinton and research has shown that personal contact is by far the most effective method of turning out voters. But the most important advantage that Obama would derive from the greater enthusiasm of his supporters is that he would be in a stronger position financially if he becomes the Democratic nominee. That is because he continues to generate more individual contributions than Clinton and because he is raising a larger share of his money from small contributors who could continue to be tapped for additional donations. In contrast, Clinton is raising more of her money from large contributors, many of whom are barred by federal election law from giving more money to her campaign.
I think Erin gets closer to point here:
I truly believed you would be the best person for the job, and I had this nagging thought in the back of my mind that is now at the forefront. The thought that drove me on Super Tuesday to Vote for Senator Obama and the thought that is the driving force as I write tonight: Senator Hillary Clinton divides this country.
It’s not fair. It’s not right. And under just about ANY other circumstance I would go to the mat for you. However we are a wounded and deeply divided nation. We are a nation at war. We are a nation at odds with each-other. It’s ugly. I thought you could get people past it. I really did.
When I told myself it was gender that got people going, I refrained from asking and wanting you to step aside. Simply on principle, I wanted to see you run and win because they said it couldn’t be done. Because it was my belief, this was all about being a girl.
It’s not, and I was wrong.
I firmly believe while the gender issue has given you a handicap I hope we all one day overcome, it is NOT the reason people have a gut reaction to you or your campaign or your legacy.
Erin doesn’t really try to explain what it is (if not gender) that explains why people have such negative feelings toward Hillary Clinton. But at least she admits it’s not about gender. It’s about values.
My opposition to Hillary’s campaign is based on taking sides in a factional fight. The best part of it is that Obama doesn’t want to run a faction. He wants to run the whole party. He wants to run a 50-state strategy and try, as best he can, to unite the country. If Hillary drops out, I will have not the slightest degree of regret. I’ve had it with Clintonism. I’d had it with their act by 2001. But the Clintonites performance during the Bush years has only solidified by ardent opposition to their faction.
