« Confessions in Search of Conviction
India’s Highest Court & The Case Of Handlebar Moustache »



A Clinton Supporter Asks: If Obama Wins it All, What Then?

February 13th, 2008
By DAMOZEL

Print Print

First the Obama campaign successfully shut down any resistance from the Clintons by succeeding in getting them tagged in the Clinton-loathing media as ‘racist’ or, at least, ‘racist-like‘.  (i.e., racist if you ignore the actual meaning of the word ‘racist,’ plus all known facts about Clinton and ignore common sense and the plain meaning of her remark.)

Once the obstreperous pit bull Bill Clinton was muzzled (as I concede he needed to be), Obama’s campaign proceeded to—how shall I put this?—creatively reframe Hillary’s health care package, his own relationship to corporate money, and Hillary’s stance on various issues.  Not only did Obama not step in to prevent his supporters’ use of right-wing style slur tactics against Hillary, but his wife went on Good Morning America to say that she just wasn’t all that sure that she’d be able to bring herself to support Hillary if Hillary got the nomination.  Yep, that’s what she said.  And that’s how the ‘Clinton rules‘ work:  one rule for Bill and Hillary, another for whoever is on the opposite side of the fence.  FOR NOW.

Then Obama’s impassioned supporters jumped into the fray.  Look under any Hillary-friendly or Obama-skeptical blog post by a fellow Dem and you’ll find them there in the comments, getting the drift but missing the point and snapping like crocodiles at any question about the appropriateness of making Obama our candidate before we’ve had more time to get to know him or the media, more time to vet him. 

Do you wonder, as I do, how people got the idea that this relative newcomer to national politics has the credentials, experience, and other requisites for cleaning up after George W. Bush?  Saying so is a sure recipe, as I’ve found, for getting called a fool,  a moron, an idiot, amoral, brain-washed, a Hillary shill, a tool of the Clinton establishment, and  a tool.

If I raise questions (because the questions are definitely are out there), I’m accused of ’stirring the mud’ (as if you could stir mud if it the mud wasn’t there in the first place) or of ‘innuendo.’  Obama supporters seem to think that it’s unfair to bring up allegations that are out there if I can’t personally prove they are true.  Of course, my point isn’t that they are true, but that they are out there.  So far the media’s given him the same sort of pass they used to give to George Bush.  What happens when the honeymoon ends?

Meanwhile, not one supporter has risen to the challenge of telling me—if I’m stuck with Obama, I really need to know—what superior or equivalent credentials or experience they can cite to indicate that he is currently better qualified than Hillary to be the Chief Executive of the United States. 

Most of them try to lecture me about Hillary—me!—arguing, with a sublime disregard for logic, common sense, or the facts, that her qualifications and experience aren’t any greater than Obama’s, or not enough greater to matter, in light of  his ‘charisma’ and his (their faith in him ensures) pure, untarnished record.

Most say they don’t care about credentials or think his credentials are sufficient.  They like Obama; and that’s all that matters.  I like him too, or till recently I did, but they…  they ‘LIKE him like him’, as the kids say.  And if you say you don’t, they’re all up in your face, demanding that you step outside so they can administer a moral drubbing.

Moreover, they don’t think his voting record in Illinois shows anything important about him, such as an alleged unwillingness to take a clear position on hard issues that might render him less, you know, ‘electable.’  (No, don’t tell me your rationalizations again—I’ve heard them all, and remain skeptical.) 

Yeah, Hillary’s made mistakes. But that’s because she’s made hard choices.

I understand why Obama’s supporters love Obama.  It’s the same reason Republicans used to love George W. Bush.  He represents, or seems to represent, our image of what a perfect Democrat should be.  They’re sick of being on the defensive and of defending the Clintons.  Why not vote for the candidate they really like?

True, Hillary doesn’t have Obama’s much-touted ‘charisma.’  I don’t care. I distrust charisma.  It’s an aura, a glamour, a trick of the light, too often taken for the outward and visible sign for an inner and invisible grace. Those who compare his candidacy, apparently unconscious of the irony, with JFK’s and Reagan’s have got it exactly right.

Meanwhile, those of us who have supported  Hillary have done so for exactly the reasons that Obama’s fan base derides her.   She is tough, a bit battered by hard experience, hardened to being disliked, a little soiled by her mistakes,  persistent, politically astute, intellectually flexible, wary, wiley, and all the things that her critics take for insults but which are really the constituents of the ability to make realistic judgments and politic (as opposed to popular) decisions. 

As Obama himself put it, she’s ‘likable enough,’ but the charm that we hear about isn’t generally on display when she’s campaigning, partly—of course—because any sign of her femininity draws her a whole different set of rebukes ‘n ridicule. 

I believe she’d make the tough calls that these dangerous times require and that she’ll already recognize the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t'  component of 44’s job.  It’s going to be a long, hard slog picking up after Bush.  Not much glamour or glory in it and therefore, not a job for a glamorous and glorious candidate, I’d argue. Our next candidate needs to be a determined, stoical, and experienced one who is inured to being blamed.

In any case, the US presidency isn’t the election for president of the senior class. It shouldn’t be merely a popularity contest.
Is Obama up to the job?  Yes, his supporters say.  They ‘know’ this because he has inspired them to believe it.  Maybe they’re right.  But I remain skeptical. 

Of course, there is a bright side:  his ascendancy is apparently pleasing to the Hillary-fearing right-wing pundits.  (Obviously, it’s because they too are under Obama’s spell and want him to be president, am I right?)  It’s nice, I guess, that he has the ability to make even the right wing do the right-wing happy dance.  And he made a thrill run up Chris Matthews leg (good for Tweety; I’m so pleased he’s found another politiican to love).   

So anyway: Obama. Is he as wonderful as he seems?  Perhaps. Forgive me if I don’t take it on faith.  For one thing, I am entirely offended that he has sat by while his campaign and his supporters use every tried and true right-wing tactic to undermine and deride Hillary—-and, by extension, her supporters. 

Now I’m told he’s apparently “on track to make his case” that the party should ‘coalesce’ around his candidacy. 

So now what, my fellow Dems?  What are you going to do now?  Because it’s not just me.  Hillary supporters across the country are beginning to express their outrage at the way that Hillary’s been treated—not just in the media (we’ve come to expect this) but by other Democrats. 

Three weeks ago most of us would have said we didn’t really care which one got the nomination or were on the fence.  I certainly was.  A couple or few weeks ago, it took me 25 minutes to choose between Hillary and Obama.   I really wanted Edwards. I hadn’t looked into either of the others. I didn’t really want to take sides.  

But then the fence on which we fence-sitters were still sitting—”after all, we’ve got two great candidates,” we said to ourselves— got blasted out from under us by the shocking tone of the attacks on Hillary and on those of us who supported her by the anti-Hillary contingent of our very own party. 

Many Democrats will be waiting to see how the Obama camp goes about mending their fences, assuming the fences can be mended.  "McCain isn’t that bad, except for the war thing," mused one of my friends—previously very well-disposed toward Obama, as I and my co-bloggers used to be.  "Maybe it would be better to let the Republicans clean up Bush’s mess."

I realize that the ‘conventional wisdom’ is that we’ll turn out to vote for Obama anyway.  He and his campaign advisors certainly seem to assume that they’ll have the support of the whole party no matter what they or their ’surrogates’ do or say. 

Oh, really? 

Here’s what Ms. Obama said when she was asked on Good Morning America if she’d vote for Hillary if Hillary got the nomination.

ROBERTS: So what if Senator Clinton defeats [Obama], becoming the first woman nominee. Could you see yourself working to support the first woman nomination?

OBAMA: I’d have to think about that. I’d have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone. (The Huffington Post)

Good idea.  I’ll have to think equally hard if Obama gets the nomination.  Shall I vote for McCain?  Nah.  But I can stay home. 

Or I can write in ‘Hillary Clinton’ or ‘John Edwards.’  After all, I’ve been pretty turned off by the ‘tone’ and ‘approach’ of the Obama campaign.

Or—depending on how Obama handles the alienation of a good portion of the party—I can vote for Obama. 

Perhaps you think it doesn’t matter. Sure, he can do without my one vote.  But what about other, equally outraged Hillary supporters?  Does he think he’ll win without any of us us?  We’ll see. 

We’ll also see how many supporters ‘help’ Obama by responding to this post by telling me—again—"You’re don’t DESERVE to vote for Obama!"  "You’re too STUPID to vote for Obama!"   Such a persuasive tactic.  I’m always moved by that one. 

If Obama gets the nomination, defeating the very powerful Senator from New York many of his supporters are pleased to refer to as ‘Bill Clinton’s wife,’ what then, Obama campaign and my other fellow Dems?  What then?



This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Hypocrisy, Democratic Party, Primaries, Negative Campaigning, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, Surrogates, Bill Clinton, John McCain, Democrats, Media Criticism, 2008 Elections, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Media, Sexism, Racism, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 89 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    DaM; It was Hill the Chill and Bill that started with the niggerizing of Obama, and posts like this are classic distortions.

    And Michelle's remarks were classic hedging your bets. She does not want to appear overconfident and say that that is not necessary. As for Hill's 'tone'. If they are niggerizing YOUR hubby, woukd you be even as gracious?

    Hill has a sense of entitlement exceeded only by the Bushes.

    As for your titular query- what then? Well. then there is a chance to reverse the Bush debacle. Hill has shown she has not the spine to stand up against the Right- despite her claims, and she certainly is too monied by corps to really do anything of a significant nature even if she had the will. Come 2012, w her in charge, Iraq will still be larded with Americans, and the homefront will still be being bled by NAFTA and similar atrocious economic policies endorsed by her and her hubby.

    As for experience- O's got more of it as a legislator, and more in actually making decisions. Being First Lady of the nation and Arkansas, I'm sorry, simply do not count.
    • ^
    • v
    I think the author has missed the point of why Obama supporters support him over Hillary. She is a part of the same divisive and divided political machine that has dominated this country for the 15 to 20 years. We're tired of it. She may a lot of "experience", but that's why I'm not voting for her. She's experienced in the same political games that have torn this country apart. Frankly, I'm tired of it.
    • ^
    • v
    Do you wonder, as I do, how people got the idea that this relative newcomer to national politics has the credentials, experience, and other requisites for cleaning up after George W. Bush?


    Well, I certainly have doubts about someone who voted time and time again to assist Bush in creating the mess.

    1. Obvious, Iraq Authorization for Use of Force.

    2. Also Obvious, Kyl-Lieberman amendment

    3. Just odd, the 2001 Bankruptcy bill which Clinton "voted for but hoped it would die". WTF?

    But what's amazing about this post is it's attempt to cast all Obama supporters as mean spirited chauvinists of some sort.

    Considering the tone of the post itself, that attempt falls hilariously flat on it's face.
    • ^
    • v
    Are you honestly ignoring the Obama bashing that Clinton and Clinton supporters have engaged in since he started to gain momentum?

    Honestly, what pushed me over the fence to Obama's side what the fact that she is willing to destroy the character and career of a someone who stands between her and power. Had this been a civil race, maybe they could even have been running mates...

    She's been able to divide the democrats. I'm sure she'll do the same for America.

    I wish she had lived up to what I had hoped she'd be. I really was looking forward to the first female president...
    • ^
    • v
    I don't know why Clinton didn't vote on the 2005 bankruptcy bill, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that it was a good reason. She did release a statement that said she was against it and also voted for amendments to make it less awful. So at least she changed her mind. Considering the number of things that Obama has said he didn't support but then didn't show up for the final vote (including the immunity thing yesterday, although he did vote on the amendment ) I don't think it can be held against her.

    Also Obama is open to being questioned about his present votes in Illinois but don't assume that they were all because he didn't have the guts to stand up for something. He voted present for a bill he helped draft because he was informed it was probably unconstitutional. Hillary is disingenuous when she makes it sound like they are all chickening out.

    Anyway Damozel, you're asking for the impossible, which is that people prove that he has more of the type of experience that you find best. I think he has more experience than her in what I find most relevant. For instance, I like Obama's policies a lot more than hers and think the idea that there is little policy difference is false.

    His policies are focused on bottom-up structures, while hers are top-down. They are both "progressive" but his greatly reflect his community organizer background while hers reflect a politician/lobbyist mentality (not necessarily negative even those have negative connotations). Ironically, I'm having a hard time finding specifics in her plans compared to Obama's, but in most of the policy proscriptions I have found reflect my summarization. For instance, her housing plan calls for a foreclosure/interest rate freeze, as well as giving money to people to help them with their payments (at least I think, this is what it sounded like in her speech but I can't find details). All of these things work against market forces and will have lots of unintended side effects. Even if they "worked," the best case scenario is that the prices would remain elevated and long term it would be harder for middle income people to buy houses (not to mention the effects of property taxes on fixed income). The best case scenario would give us a Japan situation with stagnant prices over at least a decade.

    By contrast, Obama proposes using a similar amount of money but letting the market deflate. A lot of his proposed money would go to local governments to purchase foreclosed homes, fix them up and then rent/sell them as affordable housing. He is not entirely against intervention, as he is for allowing judges to change the loan conditions during bankruptcies, so people can stay in their houses at a value that reflects the lower price.

    In any case, I consider myself a pro-market progressive, inasmuch as I think that the markets are a very powerful tool for distributing wealth and encouraging innovation, but that they mess up a lot (especially when there isn't enough oversight or regulation) and that we have a moral duty to help those in need get back on their feet. To me, Clinton and (even moreso) Edwards, have ideas that are more anti-market and as a side effect, inflationary, so I don't support them as much.

    So since that's my thinking, (and I think that it has a LOT greater chance of getting support of 60%+ of the population) Obama has the most experience and a better mindset. If you have different priorities, then you might disagree and we can debate which priorities are more important. But the theme that Clinton has more experience is like saying that my boss has more experience than me because he's been working 30 years in science and I've been working 2, even though our skillsets are completely different and I have much greater experience in things that he needs to move forward in a new way.
    • ^
    • v
    Having no emotional stake in this contest, I would only suggest to the HRC supporters to take a read of the article over at RCP today by the writer named Jay.

    If I am properly absorbing his gist, Obama's victory string might well be the result of voter-converting momentum or, it just might be Obama-favoring demographics in the most recent states. The remainder of the states, he states, will move away from the demographics that have been so rewarding to Obama.
    • ^
    • v