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.
I agree 100 percent with this post. Nothing to add to it, just agreement. We’ve been over the ground many times. She’s smart, tough, and would make a great prime minister in a Parliamentary regime. But she like her husband are wounded by what the reactionaries did to them in the 90s, and to go back further, by his loss of the governorship first time round. That made them cautious and forced them to adopt the marketing strategy of winning elections, which is to research the demographic and cater to enough pieces of it to win elections.
That model is now done for the time being, because the demographic has experienced massive alterations, the first signs of which were the unprecedented and unexpected Democratic victories in 2006. She doesn’t know how to deal with it.
And it is good that she and her husband are going to pay for their at best tacit support of the invasion of Iraq. There’s no law that requires the President to sit still while the Constitution and our security are being threatened by a boob in office. We know this because Jimmy Carter spoke out.
‘nuf said.
You’re right that the main “debate” that’s going on in the Democratic nomination process is more about process and factions and not about policy. It’s hard to recognize this factional debate amidst the noise of the emotional sniping back and forth (e.g. the charges of racism and sexism and the generational differences between Obama and Hillary).
I’ve now been at least partially convinced by you, and others, that Obama will be the better choice because his strategy does not appear to involve knee-capping the liberal base. Hillary strikes me as more willing to pull a Lieberman–to buy into Republican framing and criticize those on the left to gain the short term advantage of appearing “moderate”. We do not need the restoration of Clintonian triangulation that critically weakened the liberal brand the last 15 years.
Still, I would rather see progressive liberals be the party’s battering ram and not align itself with a centrist policy–whether Obama’s or Clinton’s. We should organize to stiffen the spine of recalcitrant Democrats and their ilk (blue dogs, Clintonites, etc.). And take them out if necessary. We should support the nominee but make sure they do not sell out our core principles–trust but verify.
RE “pincers”.
An anecdote: a coworker, Republican, ex-military, surprised me yesterday by saying Obama was someome he could vote for. Hillary? Not in a million years.
The support McCain sheds on the Right he can pick up in the middle. Obama, being more competitive there, has a better chance of shrinking McCain’s total numbers.
I agree with most of what you’ve been posting on this subject. I don’t have your degree of visceral dislike of the Clintons, but I am entirely ready to never see either a Bush or a Clinton near the White House ever again.
It’s very important to understand the visceral dislike the Clinton faction has for bloggers, the (New) New Left, the antiwar movement, and progressives generally. Ironically, they blame us (or an earlier incarnation of us) for destroying the Democratic brand. We, in turn, blame them for overseeing the final destruction. We have been at war since the moment Bush gave the Axis-of-Evil speech. I didn’t start this fight, but when I began waging it, I looked around, and the Clintonites were all arrayed against me. I won’t forget.
I don’t disagree at all. Maybe “visceral” wasn’t the best word for me to have used, because the reasons we have are entirely logical.
Give us a thousand more Howard Deans, and let the DLCers vanish…
yes, we all know how much the Clintons hate bloggers
That because there’s a photo of bloggers with Bill Clinton, that that means they love bloggers?
If that’s the case, then the photo with both Clinton’s and Rezko means that the Senator definitely has ties to Rezko. Right?
Why should Clinton withdraw? Why not respect the voters? Why not let this process go forward and the candidate with the most votes win?
The candidate with the most votes won’t necessarily win the nomination if neither candidate has the required number of delegates (2,024, I think). Thus, to avoid a credentials fight at the convention and a nasty floor fight ala 1968 that could leave the eventual nominee damaged beyond repair, one of the candidates would have to withdraw and endorse the other, and that ought to be the one who has lost 8 straight contests (and counting) instead of the one who has won 8 straight contests.
Or we can just fight it out until the last man, woman, or child is left standing and watch John McCain take the oath of office in a few months.
Because the only way she can win is by a brokered convention where she enters the contest with less pledged delegates and fewer states won. Because Obama is mobilizing a whole generation of young voters, pulling in independents, and Republicans. Because he can compete in almost every state in the union and Hillary cannot. Because tearing down Obama now hurts his chances and divides the party. Because he can raise more money, and not from corporate lobbyists, but regular people.
What does she gain by forcing a brokered convention that she can only win through brute force?
She won’t win the presidency that way. It’s not going to happen.
As I have pointed out, even if she wins Texas, she is unlikely to pull more than a couple of delegates out of it. At this point she is just forcing Obama to waste money.
True, but at some point it seems like she would realize that (1) she is wasting her money to get him to waste his money, and (2) that he has more of it to waste than she does.
Hillary may be smart and tough but she’s not wise; nor are they, as a couple, being honest with the American people. Also, we see through their ruthlessness.
We need some honesty for a change, not more of “it depends on what the meaning of is, is.”
In reality, no matter how you slice and dice it, they are running for a third term. Listen to her carefully. It’s ‘we did this..’ …’we did that…’ Bill, in his stumping for her, “we created 22 million jobs.” Seems to me they’re alluding to a co-presidency.
Those who yearn for a return to the 90s overlook that the Clinton years ended in a bust on 2 counts: moral and economic values. The GOP is ready for Clinton run for a third term. Count on it.
I brought up the latest primary results on the phone with my recently-retired mother, an ardent supporter of both Clintons, and she immediately concluded that Obama was ahead because of sexism.
Since it was my mother, I let the subject drop, but I’m really tired of the suggestion that Hillary Clinton is such an appealing candidate that the only reason anyone opposes her is because they don’t think a woman can do the job. I’m quite certain Hillary Clinton can do every bit as good a job as Bill Clinton did.
And that, and not her gender, is why I stand in opposition to her. Bill Clinton was an awful president who only looks remotely palatable now because his successor turned out to be the worst president ever. And for some time now, everywhere Hillary has been, Bill has been right there with her. I was not favorably inclined to Hillary Clinton to begin with — on the weight of her voting record, incidentally, starting with the AUMF and her unflagging defense of her vote on that matter — but bringing Bill into it sealed it for me. I voted for a Republican presidential candidate for the only time in my life in 1996, so much did I loathe Bill Clinton, and not going to vote for him or anyone closely associated with him. (I voted for Bill in 1992.)
In summary: I don’t like Hillary Clinton’s voting record, and I deeply distrust most of the people in her circle. Having a penis would not change any of that.
And, since all of the candidates I actually liked have dropped out of the race, that leaves only Barack Obama, whose politics, as Booman constantly notes, are not that different from Clinton’s, but whose conduct during this race suggests to me that his approach is fundamentally more constructive and, frankly, honest that of either Clinton.
The Clintons’ time has gone. And it wasn’t such a good time; those kids that died in Iraq as Clinton’s UN sanctions bit will always be a greater stain on his presidency than the one on a tatty liitle dress.
As For Hillary R Clinton she is fighting an irelevant battle using the dirty politics of the Bush years.
To me its as easy to say Bush/Clinton years as the Bush/McCain years; triangulation? Strangulation! The attempted murder of liberalism; and for that both Bushes and both Clintons have much responsibility.
Malcolm