If I Vote for Obama, It'll Be Because....
The preacherly cadences in Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” speech last night in Nashua deepened his two greatest symbolic promises: Domestically, he makes being an American beautiful again because, in him, it makes achievable what is still incredible to many -- a 400-year-old hope that we can untangle the race knot we’ve tied ourselves in since 1607. “It’s not something he’s doing,” Dartmouth Professor Joseph Bafumi told the New York Times; “it’s something he’s being.”
Internationally, therefore, Obama reminds multitudes of what has fascinated them about America – not just its wealth and power, which can be trashy and brutal even when irresistible, but a folksy universalism that disposes Americans to say “Hi” to anyone rather than “Heil” to a leader, to give the other person a fair shot, and, out of that kind of strength, to take a shot at the moon.
Indispensable though they are, our wealth and power often subvert what’s best in us. But because Obama knows that human failings make it more complicated than either conservative moralism or leftist anti-capitalism alone explain, his promise runs deeper than the poetry of campaigning. But can that promise really become the prose of governing? Can we take his symbolism for substance?
Obama says “Yes we can,” arguing that the movement his campaign is building will sustain him as president against countervailing powers. But a campaign isn’t a movement, and the 1960s taught that even a swelling movement is no substitute for the sustainable, organized power of a political party or coalition of parties, unions and churches that can mobilize disciplined multitudes again and again in support of a program.
Many have been elected who could not govern. At David Dinkins’ inauguration as New York City’s first black mayor in 1990, the audience teared up as the Rev. Gardner Taylor of Brooklyn’s Concord Baptist Church opened his invocation by intoning, “God of our weary years, God of our silent tears..." But people’s high sentiments foretold little about what they would get, which was a big let-down, and not mainly because racists crawled out of the sewers of Archie Bunker’s neighborhoods to elect Rudy Giuliani. That's not why Giuliani displaced Dinkins.
Hillary Clinton’s tears in New Hampshire remind us that she, too, has endured and overcome a great deal and, like Obama, is “being” as well as “doing.” But she also knows what governing actually entails, and it’s unfair to say, as some do, that she knows too much about it because of all the baggage she carries from her husband’s presidency.
Obama doesn’t yet know enough about governing to discredit Bill Clinton’s argument that electing him would be a roll of the dice. One might retort that JFK was a roll of the dice, too, but in consequence we got the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam disaster. Kennedy and his brother Bobby had to learn civil rights on the job, something neither Barack nor Hillary will have to do, but face it, Barack's learning curve is at least as steep as he is smart.
His really impressive personal struggle and the profound intuitions it has given him about public rights and wrongs are refreshing in a politician, much more so than anything was in candidate Jack Kennedy. And Obama's American self-becoming has made him the catalyst of a campaign that, while it is not yet a movement and may never be a governing coalition, has nevertheless earned him a strong claim to Americans’ critical support.
His campaign confirms many Americans' yearning to believe again that, unlike that of almost any other nation in history, the national identity of the United States was founded not on myths of primordial kinship, of “blood and soil,” but on a more universal experiment that enjoins all Americans, “by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government through reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force,” as Alexander Hamilton put it.
Claiming one’s identity as an American, therefore, means standing up personally as well as politically for this daunting civic-republican challenge, against exclusionary racial, religious, and other strains that have persisted alongside and within our republican framework.
That is what Rosa Parks did, and it is what Obama is doing -- first by being what he has made of himself, and second by running for president. And I must say here, as one who has argued for years that Americans must let race go as an organizing principle of progressive politics --because too much of even what passes for anti-racism only ends up recapitulating racism itself -- I can't help feeling that Barack is everything I've hoped an American leader on this problem could be.
But Hillary Clinton's claim to be doing some of this American heavy lifting is deep and credible, too. Yes, she has made mistakes and cut some big corners, but so would Obama, unless the "movement" behind him proves stronger and has more staying power than I believe it has. If I vote for him in the New York primary on February 5, it won't be because I discount Hillary Clinton's own symbolic and substantive leadership but because my yearning to get beyond race will strong enough to impel me to try this roll of the dice.
Comments (76)
Just listening to him last night was such a treat. Though there are other reasons to vote for him, I pointed out to my husband last night how nice it would be to listen to a president who spoke like that rather than cringing with the "fingernails across a chalkboard" reaction that's provoked every time Bush opens his mouth.
January 9, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Obama is that we are not talking about Obama himself very much at all, probably because he hasn't really been around that long or done that much, so there isn't that much to talk about.
Instead of talking about Obama, we are talking about how Obama makes us feel about ourselves. Up till now the Obama phenomenon is about how good he makes us feel about ourselves.
The campaign(s) are going to be long and brutal and the question will be, will our self-flattery finally be enough to carry the entire country behind it?
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 9, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talking about how Obama makes us feel about ourselves is not irrelevant to one of the strongest arguments for him, namely, that he can inspire. Inspiration is the prerequisite for progressive change, since only inspiration can overcome the movement conservatives & their stranglehold on America. Jim's important point is that a campaign is not a movement. But there is no transformative movement, & the liberal argument for Obama is that a leader-galvanized campaign is the next best thing.
I'm not saying that Obama's the right candidate, but trying to clarify the strongest case for him.
Todd Gitlin
January 9, 2008 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's another practical matter at hand.
If we are going to see some serious change in Washington under a Democratic presidency - major healthcare reform, for example - we still might have to bring some Republicans votes with us. Certainly being able to do so would help a great deal.
So how does that happen? Well, you could be the consummate DC insider, the technocrat, who knows which levers to pull to get things done. Or you could be the person who speaks inspirationally, in a way that brings people with you because you put the case for change so damn persuasively. Hopefully, you can be both.
It's pretty clear what Obama is, but project into the future... imagine President Obama delivers his first major policy speech. On healthcare. And he finds the same inspiring rhetoric whilst lightly sprinkling the speech with policy detail.
The effect could define the course of his presidency.
But like you say, that's not to say that Obama is the right candidate. But his public speaking, and the way people respond to it, is one of his strongest attributes. And it is a big deal.
January 9, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it is a big deal. We need a leader who is genuine in reaching out to the American people. The response for a great many people is that Obama is the real deal. You can't fake that.
The problem for Obama is that too many people who hold immense power don't share his idealism and more to the point have priorities that run counter to the interests of the average American. Resolving that conflict would be the biggest challenge for Obama. Just knowing what is truly and morally right is wholly unrelated to reality. We want to believe that Obama can translate what he has said into our reality. That is a tall order.
January 9, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to believe that inspirational rhetoric would just bowl Congressional Republicans right over, but that would require believing that they actually respond to something besides money and extreme political pressure, and I can't quite convince myself of that yet.
Getting Republicans on board as something other than spoilers is going to require having the hard-nosed political skill to back them into a corner and force them into it.
January 9, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, so he hasn't sold you on the romantic bard kumbaya sing along. Looks like he might be going after folks like you with this one:
A.P.'s Quote of the Day, January 9
Carville just said on Larry King that he told the Clinton campaign that that was a straight-out blatant warning, and he thought it should be taken very seriously. It will be interesting to see if he pleases those looking for that quality in the coming months. The Clinton campaign is a good enough stand-in for Republicans in Congress, no?
January 9, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not doubt that simply by being a black man, and of Kenyan ancestry, Obama is well-positioned to help the US image in Africa immensely and to do a lot of good on that continent. And that is one good reason to vote for him. And if I had heard a lot of Clinton's supporters say that they were voting for Clinton because they believe that simply by being a women she will inspire women around the world and do a lot of good for global gender equality, I can respect that as well.
But what I'm hearing anecdotally this morning is a lot of "I voted for Clinton because we women stick together". "I'm voting for Clinton because all the guys are ganging up on her." And while I can accept that these reactions are understandable, they do not strike me as a particularly compelling basis for choosing a President, a person on whom the well-being of millions, perhaps even billions, of people will depend.
I mean, how good is it exactly for women in other countries if Clinton is voting to drop bombs on their children?
January 9, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, c'mon...voting to drop bombs on children?
What I'm hearing are plenty of reporters saying these things and no voters.
January 9, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because the Obama campaign has neglected to remind voters of the record. And Bill Clinton spent a week fudging her record and Obama's record. They also sent out a last-minute mailing lying about Obama's record on choice. I think Obama is not likely to continue to let these these distortions pass.
January 10, 2008 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This, however, gets to the follow-up question that is sure to be delved into in a long primary race ... which is, what goals will he pursue, where an ability to inspire people to feel good about themselves in being inspired by him will overcome entrenched vested interests?
Because once the inspirational change is firmly associated with the ability to attract support from all across the political spectrum, the ability to deploy that inspiration as a political weapon is hostage to the faction least inclined to be inspired on a particular issue.
January 9, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the sort of pop identity politics what they taught Jim during all those lessons about "civic republicanism"?
After hearing all morning about people who apparently voted for Hillary Clinton on the basis of identity and emotional bonding alone, perhaps we could try to remember that Hillary Clinton is not The Eternal Woman Who Has Suffered, but a concrete and specific woman who has made several dangerously bad foreign policy judgments during her time in the Senate; and perhaps we could also remember that Barack Obama is not The Eternal Black Man Who Has Suffered, but a concrete and specific black man with his own particular agenda and qualities of judgment?
And once again, why do so many otherwise sober and grown-up human beings continue to refer to Senator Clinton as "Hillary", and now apparently refer to Senator Obama as "Barack"? Doesn't succumbing to this kind of celebrity-culture pseudo-bonding, which the Clinton campaign actively promotes in its signage and other communications, completely undermine any claim to political seriousness?
January 9, 2008 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that my post is not about Obama as The Eternal Black Man Whom Dan K. Imagines but about him as a transitional figure who, by virtue of being black, consciously as well as somatically, can get us over that hump. Don't be stuck there. Same with Clinton.
As for first names, I suppose that throughout the 1950s as Dan understands them, Americans referred only to "President Eisenhower" and never to "Ike," and that in the 1970s it was only Jimmy Carter who wanted to be called Jimmy, and so on.
We can all be a little better than this.
January 9, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would you please share what you mean by hump here? What hump is Obama getting us over if it is not about him being black?
January 9, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a guess (Jim Sleeper will correct me if I'm way off), but the hump is less Obama's being black than the reaction and response from "the rest of us" to the participation and leadership that black folk can bring to our civic culture.
January 9, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "hump" we need to get over is that of essentializing race -- making "color" the wellspring of "culture" just because that's what white supremacists and oppressed blacks made of it, for obvious reasons, across 400 years. The "hump" is not only racism itself but a lot of what passes for anti-racism -- obsessing about race as redemptive.
This is a difficult argument to make well, because blacks, trapped in the race-box whites have kept them in, have generally had no option but to embellish and deepen a protective racial identity in ways that are sometimes perverse.
But there is another side to it: Precisely because most African-Americans were abducted and plunged wholesale into the American experience at no initiative of their own and with scant material or cultural resources to fall back on, they have had the greatest possible stakes in the American republic's living up to its stated creed. Blacks have been among the most eloquent champions of the republic's promises but also among the most nihilist of its assailants, for obvious reasons.
I argue in "The Closest of Strangers: Liberalism and the Politics of Race in New York (Norton, 1990)and in "Liberal Racism" (Rowman & Littlefield,2002)that the long struggle of countless blacks to join and champion the republic is "the most powerful epic of unrequited love in the history of the world." Moreover, even if every broken heart could be mended and every theft of property and opportunity redressed, still there would be a black cultural community based on the memories and virtues of survival in adversity.
But that's not the same thing as saying that having a color should automatically mean having a culture. That's reductionist and, at a certain point, it depletes individual dignity more than it enhances it. We all -- blacks, whites, including white racists and white liberals who dote on race -- have to get over the hump of denying that race should and will recede in importance to the point that it carries no more power in determining your prospects than, say, a difference in eye color among whites.
But to get over that hump of denial about race, we will need transitional figures like Obama, who both embodies and has worked his way through what I am talking about. In Bakke, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that before we can hope to get beyond race, we must first take more account of it, not less. The question is what we mean by "first" -- how long and in what ways. Obama strikes that balance perfectly, at least as a campaigner. He is faithful to the collective cultural memory without making it determinative of his and others' prospects.
I should add that I wrote the two books just mentioned after ten years of immersion in inner-city black life and politics, in Brooklyn, New York. I sketch this in the introduction to The Closest of Strangers; there are copies available from Amazon, etc, and in libraries.
January 9, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you mean by the hump being something other than his race is even less clear after reading this.
January 9, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Out on the campaign trail, of course, Senator Obama is trying to straddle the question ... he would want to avoid alienating those for whom it being about his race implies pulling a lever for Obama.
However, even setting aside fudging that is about political strategy and tactics, the question about whether or not its about his race is an incoherent question. It assumes that its a yes or no question, and assumes that there is some single, coherent way for the campaign to be about his race.
In the United States, a political contest in which a black man or woman is running can never entirely be about something other than his race.
On the coherent question ... is it only about his race ... the answer is certainly not. Its about a theory of change ... a coalition theory of change ... and, further than that, a particular theory about how the coalition required by that coalition theory of change is formed.
And, yes, of course that implies that it is in part about race, because the black electorate is a core part of that coalition. And on a crucial question in forming a coalition, as to whether they are first class or second class members of that coalition ... Senator Obama has to make far less effort to explicitly make that case, since on that particular score, his identity goes a long way to make that case ... if a black man can claim the nomination for President, then their membership in that coalition clearly does not come complete with a glass ceiling.
January 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I went to the final Obama rally in Concord, and have spoken to a lot of Obama supporters here in NH over the past several days, and I'm finding there is a bit of a gender divide here. I hear younger people saying, "I like Obama because he views the world the way I do." I hear a lot of older people saying, "I like Obama because he is a a symbolic transitional figure who will help me (or us) get over my (or our) many conflicted views about the significance of race in America."
Both valid responses I suppose.
January 9, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Assume you meant "generational"...and I take great comfort from that, which confirms my sense of things in general. The younger you are, the less race (like sexuality) seems to matter. Plenty of exceptions to that, of course; we're not a social utopia yet...but very heartening.
January 9, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry rj, you're right. I have gender gap on the brain today I suppose.
January 9, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, didn't notice... :)
January 9, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough about Carter, and Huckabee is also trying to get voters to call him "Mike". But when you refer to Carter in your writing, do you call him "Jimmy"?
January 9, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is "Hillary" because "Clinton" is not quite sufficient to name her, i.e. do we mean Bill? That will evolve, and may drop away completely, although I doubt it. I try to say "Clinton" and it feels not-quite-right. I say "Senator Clinton" and it feels fussy. Part of her natural identity is Bill, so she is Hillary.
Some of us try to balance the natural use of "Hillary" with "Barack."
January 9, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Wright is right and I thank him for making a point I should have made, too, in my response to Dan. Most people are not being sexist, or too familiar, when they say "Hillary" as shorthand to distinguish her from Bill.
January 9, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Others would say that Senator Clinton makes the same distinction without disregarding her stature. Disregarding her formal political stature can also be seen as sexist due to calling her by her first name. Just as it can be seen as demeaning to Barack on the basis of race not to refer to him as Obama or Senator Obama. We do not refer to Biden as Joe nor Dodd as Chris...despite them having been candidates as well.
January 9, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not sexism I am concerned about, but deliberate infantilization of American voters. I believe it has been a deliberate strategy of the Clinton campaign to manufacture the same sort of sentimental first-name pseudo-bond that people have with other popular celebrities like "Rosie", "Oprah", "Jennifer", "Martha" and "Katie". That bond leads people to follow the exploits of these celebrities closely in the gossip media, identify with them emotionally, and respond empathetically to every up and down of their personal lives.
Remember that video of the Brittany Spears fan sobbing over how people were attacking her beloved Brittany? In that person's fantasy world, Brittany Spears plays the role of secret best girlfriend. That's what the Clinton campaign counted on happening in New Hampshire, and it appears to have worked with some people.
January 9, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it fussy to call her Senator Clinton? It isn't any fussier than Senator Obama.
January 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't succumbing to this kind of celebrity-culture pseudo-bonding, which the Clinton campaign actively promotes in its signage and other communications, completely undermine any claim to political seriousness?
Of course, but who ever said politics was something serious? It's a sell, just like toothpaste.
That's American politics. It's never about "the issues."
January 9, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, didn't we like Ike? Didn't we want Harry to give 'em hell? (Never mind Rudy and Lamar!...)
I'd suggest that the Clinton support you're bemoaning is simply an immediate reaction to the truly disgusting and just plain nutty coverage she's been getting, which would be broadly seen as such if the target had been, sorry, male (and trust me, I NEVER play the "gender card"). It's quite likely that her substantive drawbacks will ultimately prevail with voters; they do with me. But I have to say if I'd been a NH voter I might well have voted for her just as a way to tell the media to knock it off already, knowing we're still at the very beginning of this race. (And we're better off with a real race anyway; I want our candidate to have been tested, tested, tested before they face what the Republicans will be throwing at them.)
January 9, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful piece, Larry Johnson and MJ Rosenberg would do well to take a some cues from you on how to write about the Dem primary.
January 9, 2008 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
We will have recovered from both racism and sexism when we can simply vote for the best candidate for President and leave it at that.
January 9, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respect others' choices but lose patience with complaints about acting on feeling to choose a candidate. I submit we all do, but some of us know it.
Do we compare policy positions and select two from column A and three from column B? OK, but what guarantees do we have those policies will be pursued? The character of the promiser. What guarantees that they will be achieved? Ditto.
The president orders or persuades others to do various jobs. Even the people following orders will respond better to inspiration than mechanical insistence. If nominal authority were sufficient there would be no difference between the results produced by inspiring generals and hated ones.
And of course we want our executives to follow the law, so if a program is not yet law, the executive cannot enforce it. Conversely, he or she cannot shirk the duty of following laws still on the books. Good character will ensure the law is followed, even when the executive is unhappy about it.
And when presidential candidates announce programs that require legislation, the social question again arises, since what is arm-twisting and bully-pulpit use but trying to inspire people to act? The compelling character will achieve more than the calculator.
Worth noting is that the hardest part of artificial intelligence is effective social behavior. The easiest part is comparing two lists and choosing on a mechanical basis.
Go ahead, listen to your heart, and rationalize it later. The after-the-fact rationale is the check on giddy enthusiasm. It is not the decision itself. That has already been made.
January 9, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I very much concur. Experience without leadership means nothing. No amount of experience motivates or inspires individuals to work as a team or achieve goals. That requires leadership. We see it over and over and over in all sectors of our lives.
January 9, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton’s tears in New Hampshire remind us that she, too, has endured and overcome a great deal and, like Obama, is “being” as well as “doing” something. But she knows what governing actually entails, and it’s unfair to say, as some do, that she knows too much about it because of all the baggage she carries from her husband’s presidency.
I just don't buy this argument that Clinton is more experienced in government than the other candidates. She really hasn't served all that much more than Obama, and I'm not convinced her time spent as First Lady prepared her for anything.
And, as Dan notes, she's made some incredibly disastrous decisions while in office, starting with, most obviously, voting for the war. What governing entails should include good judgment.
What's more, I especially don't buy the "baggage" argument, that somehow because she's taken the brunt of the right wing hatred machine, she's more prepared to take that on in a general election. This is Obama's clear advantage here, as he has much less history to attack, and all they'll be left with is basically arguments about how we can't have a black man as President, or that he has a Muslim-sounding name, both of which would be very ineffective.
If it was closer to the 1990s, maybe I'd buy the argument that Clinton's first-hand experience with the vast right wing conspiracy helps. But today, we all know the routine, we all know how it works. Many books have been written about it, Media Matters documents it on a daily basis for us.
I'd say any well-read blogger is just as prepared as Clinton in terms of what the Right wing is prepared to do to any Democratic candidate in the GE.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
January 9, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'd say any well-read blogger is just as prepared as Clinton in terms of what the Right wing is prepared to do to any Democratic candidate in the GE."
Bingo. Apparently these folks think Obama didn't read the papers (or blogs) during the Clinton impeachment, or during the Swiftboating of Kerry, or regarding Rovian skullduggery.
January 9, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the rightwing smear machine says is the least of our worries - this is the scary smear - "in many ways, however, he is just what Bill and HIllary were years ago - an on the make Ivy league educated Democratic lawyer eager to seize power in Washington." Howard Fineman, 07/01, describing Senator Obama.
In one sentence, Fineman manages to smear two democratic candidates. Ever hear or read him describing republicans like that?
January 9, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
90's Redux, Hillary Wins, Fox News in action:
Did Hillary Cut Short Trip to China Because Bill was Cheatin' at Home?
Is Bill's Jealousy Driving Him to the Bottle (like his Dad)?
Did an Inflamed Hillary Threaten to Waterboard Philandering Bill?
January 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know we've already driven this into the ground, but like many of us I just don't buy "Clinton = experience." You try to tally it up, and you just don't get much.
She was a first lady; so was Barbara Bush, otherwise notable for letting us know who nice conditions are at the Astrodome.
She took one initiative in the White House, a noble one. She learned from both her mistakes in the politics of achieving health care and from the virulence and dishonesty of the GOP and corporate opposition, but she learned the wrong lessons: lie low, say nothing, avoid positions.
She has been in elective office roughly as long as Obama or Edwards, and she has no record of change or accomplishments: I recall she keeps mentioning a child-care initiative. Is that the best she can do?
Of course, she's been wrong consistently on anything to do with foreign policy, and while I tend to see the rest of her campaigning mostly as about avoidance, it's lack of fleshing things out could, I suppose, be called someone who still needs to go through a learning curve, no?
She's got a great personal narrative, as do Obama and Edwards, about learning how to lose, how to take a beating, and how to hang in there. But that's inspirational, loosey-goosy "character." It's not the experience Jim is asking us for, and it's not superior to the personal narrative of her opponents.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 9, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
she has no record of change or accomplishments: I recall she keeps mentioning a child-care initiative. Is that the best she can do?
Perhaps somebody more informed can expound on this (or correct me, as the case may be), but my understanding is that the she's being somewhat disingenuous on even that fact. What some of my better-informed friends have noted off-hand is that the initiative to which she refers was actually Ted Kennedy's baby, and that Hillary nearly buckled and abandoned her support of it in the face of GOP resistance, and only Kennedy's hectoring and haranguing her kept her on board, however reluctantly.
If that's true, and like I said, I only heard 3rd hand about this, it's hardly a profile in leadership.
January 9, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was said earlier that part of her experience has to do with facing down the rightwing smear machine, and that she alone has the experience to withstand that. That doesn't add up to presidential experience, and I'm with you. I don't buy the whole experience thing.
And when it comes to judgment, the vote for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution cannot be overcome, in my mind.
But even looking at the "I'm tough enough to withstand the rightwing smear machine argument"...I think, if she's the general nominee, all the rightwing smear machine toughness is going to do is remind the public of the nastiness of the 90s...And she'll drag down the entire Democratic ticket.
And is it just me, or is there something entirely contradictory about saying "We can't go back" and the "remember how great the 90s were" narratives? Both coming out of Clinton.
I really do not want to see her as the general nominee. Groundbreaking as it may be, she is, in my mind, the weakest Democrat out there.
January 9, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
CTVoter:
You write:
"And when it comes to judgment, the vote for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution cannot be overcome, in my mind."
You make a very fair point, and I respect you for not being able to vote for Senator Clinton because of her on-the-record support in the form of an actual vote for Kyl-Lieberman. Obviously, this was a significant vote for you, a determinative one in fact.
May I ask you, however, how you feel about the fact that Senator Obama did not even participate in the vote on this legislation that you consider to be so determinative? Is that a fair question; does Senator Obama get a bye for not voting yes or no on this critical legislation?
Bruce
January 9, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deeply disappointed that he chose to avoid this issue.
But you're wrong about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution being the determining factor--I brought that up as an example of where I disagree with Clinton's judgment--since I already don't agree with her campaign's argument about her experience, I was bringing up the issue of judgment, since that is the argument the Obama campaign uses to bolster Obama.
I have other problems with Senator Clinton, not just the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. Wasn't Clinton the only Democrat to vote for it (out of those who voted)?
January 9, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I got the right thing up on Google (Amendment 3017), the tally was 76-22; had to be lots of Dems voting "aye" (which is why the rallying cry is "more and better Democrats...).
January 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're correct--thanks for pointing that out. The roll call is here: Kyl-Lieberman vote
Biden, Dodd voted no. Obama didn't vote. Clinton voted yes.
January 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The million dollar question...
January 9, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have mixed feelings about Obama but I hold Hillary to a different standard precisely because she does have access to all that "experience". She's got a full stable of foreign policy advisors including her husband and her votes matter a lot more than some others. She wants us to see her as a veteran leader fully able to be Commander in Chief from day 1. OK. I'm judging her on her Commander in Chief votes on the Iraq War resolution and on Kyl-Lieberman. Her "experience" disqualifies her with me because I figure I know what she'll do in office.
With Obama, I at least have hope and hope is about all there is some days given our current government.
January 9, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had the same thought until I put all the pieces together. This was part of her pro-choice smear campaign against Obama. Recall, Hillary was with a bunch of women when she said ' I don't want to see this country fall backward" it was blatant pandering for the female vote uttered during her 'heartfelt crying jag' to infer that women would fall backwards on this issue of choice, to back alley abortions. She also sent out a pro-choice mailer distorting Barack's record and smearing him as anti-choice. Which was a real swiftboating of Obama, given that it was Hillary who would not stand up agains the most restrictive ban on abortion in South Dakota. Neither did Emily's List. Obama was the only senator to do a fundraiser to support the repeal of the ban. Hillary though sought to paint him as anti-choice and on that issue she felt the country i.e. women would fall backward.
Pretty shrewd and calculating wasn't it? Amazing how she stayed on message to have had such an emotional moment. She even said some of us are ready to lead and others aren't while all teary eyed too.
I think so too as well the most conviving, manipulative and equivocating and oldest Democrat candidate as well.
January 9, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't be shy: tell us how you really feel!
The "we can't go back" statement now makes a good deal of sense in light of the attempt to paint Obama as antichoice.
Not only was she on message (in spite of all the emotion), she also pointed out that some of us are right, and some of us are wrong.
January 9, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I was having an 'emotional moment' given that I am a sixty year old woman and all, I feel entitled to win anyway possible, cause I am in this to win it, you see. Hey whatever it takes, I'm 'your girl'. Please forgive me for that weak moment I am only human.
I would really like to know what Hillary has been right about. It can't be experience cause she has the least elected office experience of all the candidates other than Edwards at this point. It can't be the war vote or using nuclear options against Iran. Or maybe I am looking at it wrong. Perhaps she is right because she beleives in using all of our military might pre-emptively and endlessly to wage war in defense of our national security. That must be it. Darn silly me. I thought seeking peace without military means would be the right way. I thought that strong nations have strong leadership and can use diplomacy to further humanitarian rights globally. I just hate it when I'm wrong. It must be my poor judgment in confusing words for actions. I believe it was Churchill that said I would rather jaw, jaw, jaw then war, war, war.
I wonder if Hillary thinks he is wrong too.
January 9, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Least inspiring campaign slogan, EVAH:
Because all those other schlubs are obviously in it to lose it...
Hillary's been right about putting a hold on that whackjob nominee for the FDA, and she was right to challenge the Pentagon last summer...
But her "experience" at governing isn't more than Edwards', unless you consider being First Lady experience. I don't, you don't, and my sense is that many people don't.
Hillary is right because (to quote from her response MOnday) she has "so many opportunities for America". (I'll leave it to the linguists to parse what is meant when a person "has many opportunities for America")
Hillary is right because she withstood the debacle that was the White House from 1997 on.
Hillary is right because she's the most scrutinized and criticized candidate that there ever has been, and therefore, because she's still standing and speaking in complete sentences and hasn't gone completely insane, that means she's tough.
She's right because she's earned this chance. Not because of her record in the Senate, but because she endured the rightwing smear machine. I give her credit for that, but the argument about "experience" and standing up to corporate interests just is ridiculous.
And she is, quite simply, the most divisive candidate out there. The most divisive politician out there, outside of George Bush.
January 9, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
She married the right guy to advance her career.
January 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you post comments like this, bluebell? It's wingnut crap, besides which, he held her career back, he sure didn't advance it, she had far better prospects without him.
January 9, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she'd thought she'd have better prospects without him, she'd have divorced him. How would you have liked Nancy Reagan running for Ronald's 3rd term? I don't like the precedent. I don't like these oligarchical dynasties. I don't want the same old people back in office not solving the same old problems.
January 9, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
why bother
January 9, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd point out that, race, gender, and history of accomplishment notwithstanding, Obama's call to civic engagement and activism, and his now semi-proven ability to motivate such action, are substantial points in his favor in and of themselves.
The democratic party and our democracy in general is only strengthened by his emphasis on activism and seeming ability to create activists out of previously apathetic citizens. Coupled with his ambitious plans to create tools for social organizing through government, and I think we can say in the sense that we agree with Justice Breyer's theory of 'Active Liberty', our democracy in general would be well-served by an Obama administration.
January 9, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the value of symbolism, certainly.
But the Presidency is simply a position too important and too infrequent in turnover to be decided in any basic way by symbolism.
Presidents are elected only once every four years, and, if they are to be successful Presidents, only once in every eight years. Far too much rides on the personal and political qualities of the President to leave the decision about who's the best President to anything but those attributes which contribute directly to his or her effectiveness and commitment to the right sort of change. In the end, the value of a President has to be "cashed out" in terms of progress in the lives of the hundreds of millions of people in America, and, to a degree, the billions of other people across the world. On that account, mere symbolism has to play a quite minor role.
January 9, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Jim Sleeper's book "Liberal Racism," he complained that the civil rights lost its legitimacy when it was recast from a narrative of black people servicing white people (by cleaning their moral toilets of the stain of racism) into one of black empowerment. Essentially, he was saying that he likes his blacks "of-service" to whites. When blacks or Afro-Americans do something for ourselves, it is racialist and unappealing. This column is just proof the people like Mr. Sleeper are fantasizing their own redemption through the person of Sen. Obama. It will take a lot more than a vote for an African-American man for Jim Sleeper to get past the attitude that we are here to serve whites. He's simply using Obama as his racial butler--to open the door to his self-anointment as "racism-free."
January 9, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I read that color biased drivel and decided to just ignore it. He was just going to get worse I figured with all that pseudopsychoracialdysfunctionality running around in his head to have even written that post let alone a book on it. Those thoughts are seriously entrenched. Not worth the time to even counter. He is too blinded by the color of folks skin.
January 9, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful post. I am in substantial agreement with it. Yes, every vote is always a roll of the dice. I too am prepared to do that for Obama. That doesn't mean I see this as nothing more than a crap shoot. But that's part of any vote a person ever casts. It's part of agreeing to marry or take a job. It's part of every decision. You do your best to make a bet that someone or something is going to carry your vision, your dreams, your hopes, your expectations. That's always part of it. Not all of it, but part of it.
I'm honestly hoping that the man can inspire many Americans to make the needed sacrifices to get things done... the many, many things we need to repair and accomplish. Of course he can't do that alone. Of course it will take heavy lifting on the part of many. But heavy lifting always starts with a dream. And signing onto it. Making that bet.
Every dream will be disillusioned to some extent. But don't stop dreaming. As Langston Hughes, a great black poet said:
January 9, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will vote for Obama if Obama is on the Democrat ticket in November . . . Until then . . . The phrase "In Hell" comes to mind. I base this opinion on two watershed displays of character by Obama.
When faced with the oppurtunity to stand up for the rule of law and human rights in the Mukasey nomination vote, Obama blew town and made glib statements about his vote not counting and his voice being worthless in the matter. A leader would have stepped into the breach and used his oratory flavor to at least make a show of defending the American people against effects of torture worldwide. The contest would have been over. Every freedom loving Democrat would have only had one choice at the ballot box in every state of our nation. Obama choose to publicly phone in"Could not care less". Yes . . . Biden, Clinton, Dodd and McCain no showed also and I was offically done with all of them, too. BUT Obama chose to rub it in the face on all Americans. Obama admitted that he had sufficent notice to be there for the vote or fillibuster but could not be bothered to do the right thing.
The Senate's purpose is to deliberate. This thread is about Obama's ability to speak. Only when Obama's voice and political clout could made a difference . . . He pubically declared that he was an intentional 'no show'. That is character . . . Although not the sort of character I demand in a President. But it is campaign season . . . And Obama may have just made a piss poor decission in the heat on the race (also not a character trait I look for in a President) but he did make the statement with a shorter than his patented five to seven day rebuttal so I was willing to listen.
Obama then chose to remove all doubt. When faced with the opportunity to display leadership in the area human rights by working to deny retroactive immunity for telecomms . . . Obama (again) blew town to campaign, made a glib statement about supporting Senator Dodd and stated that his personal voice does not matter.
What else does a Senator have to fight the good fight?
January 9, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama deserves criticism for an apparent habit of ducking tough votes, but I'm not sure the Mukasey vote is the best example of that, since it was called on short notice and the other four presidential candidates in the Senate missed it as well.
Nevertheless, I'm uprating your comment because I am sooooo tired of Obama supporters throwing tantrums and downrating any post here that dares to suggest that their candidate does not walk on water.
January 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have gotta stop typing on my Treo . . . Sorry about the typos.
Again, I am not saying that I am correct on this situation. Given the facts, this is my interpretation. This is my view . . . What I believe and why. This is what is important to me . . . and I did take it personally. People who are willing to sale MY freedom do not send me into my happy place.
I am always open to the discussion. Audacity and hope can only exist in freedom. Obama may peak there but he has yet to prove that he lives there.
While I am a potential Obama vote and I am a potential Clinton vote . . . I find myself drawn to the candidate that has yet to violate this trust. I find myself drawn to the candidate that has come to the same choices that FDR can to. I am an Edwards’ guy. This fact colors my vision and will color folks opinion of my thoughts and observation.
If someone could defend Obama telling the American people that he did not find our rights worth standing up for maybe my vote would change.
January 9, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. CommonDreamer felt it necessary to rate my preceding post a "2" yet did not address the situation or my reluctance to consider Obama worthy of my vote in the Primary. This is typical of someone who is upset that the object of their adulation has been caught pant less with a hooker or a dead boy.
If I am incorrect in my understanding, tell me so but don't vote me unpopular cuz you are butt-hurt your buddy is a jack_hole.
Look . . . There are two defining issues today - the Iraqi Occupation and our human right rights being eroded and supplanted by fascist plutocracy. This is more important than what body parts hang down or skin pigment or who hurt someone's feelings by acting like a politician while running for office.
The Declaration and the Constitution are signed by individuals who knew they were signing the death warrants on their families and themselves in the name of freedom. Not personal safety. Not corporatism. Not societal order . . . FREEDOM. The five Senators running for President crapped on that. Dodd partially redeemed himself by fighting for those he represents on the Telecomm Immunity issue. Obama went out of his way twice to tell us, we did not matter. This is what these folk find acceptable to do to the people who depend on them and the form of government they are sworn to uphold.
If that does not keep you up at night I do not know what will.
January 9, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see myself as a liberal Democrat and I think that if Obama is the Presidential candidate he will lose. This country is ready for a woman President, whoever she may be, but not a black one.
Maybe someday I'll get Obamamania, but I'm not there yet, however, if he's the candidate, I'll vote for him
January 9, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a liberal Democrat, and I think just the opposite: this country might be ready for a black president, but not a woman president.
Electing a black president allows people to fool themselves into thinking they're not racist. Electing a woman president? What does that prove? In an age with multiple woman governors, senators, and representatives (yes, far fewer than is representative, of course), a woman president might not seem all that radical...
Just a thought.
January 9, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say the "personality of any female or black candidate is the factor in "whether the country is ready for..." And since personality is such a huge factor here, then that is a subjective thing for each of us. I like Obama and am not thrilled with hill. To each his or her own. But as far as woman or race or whatever... I'd love to see diversity! Just depends on the person.
January 9, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can not argee with you on this premise . . . Sex and race do not matter in the eyes of the majority of folk eligable to be voters. If people show up at the polls, sex and race will not matter in the ballot box.
The determining factor in today's politics is corporate cash and media ownership. Clinton and Obama are both sufficently tied into both.
Does this make either of them the best choice? In my opinion, no . . . But I am not the arbitor of such things.
January 9, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Scheer has a good column today at truthdig.com. He said that Democrats have to really focus on substance as they decide on their candidate. Because if fighting racism and fighting sexism by nominating an African-American or a woman is what this is all about maybe the Democrats' ideal candidate would be Condi Rice. Obviously, he's not serious, but he makes a good point.
January 9, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Sleeper
I still miss your column in the New York Daily News. I know you try to slip around it but David Dinkins was a miserable Mayor. Guliani wasn't elected by racists from Queens, its own stereotype, but lots of liberals from Manhattan who were sick of crime and more to the point the feeling that Blacks were given a free ride in New York by Dinkins even as taxes rose and services went down.
Koch, not Giuliani started the City on its rise from the ashes. Giuliani was arrogant and a bully and ultimately wore out his welcome. But it is too easy and wrong to suggest that racism was in anyway responsible for his victory.
To be clear I worked for Cuomo against Koch. Then voted for Koch, Dinkins, Guiliani and Bloomberg.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 9, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, Thanks. I'm sure you're the last person who remembers that column, which I ended in 1995. The Daily News keeps them only on paper from that far back, but I'm putting some of the best of them on pdfs and setting up a website with other pre-internet stuff so that I can link it when relevant. I'll let you know when the website's up, in a few weeks or so.
In the above post, though, I do think I made clear that Dinkins was not a successful mayor (obviously, this wasn't the place to go into it), and I said explicitly that Giuliani wasn't elected because racists crawled out of the sewers in Queens and Staten Island. (In the 1993 mayoral race, there was a huge Staten Island turnout because of a referendum on separating from NYC, so people estimate that Giuliani got an extra 25,000 votes because of that, but it's not enough to account for much, since Dinkins had alienated a lot of Asian, Hispanic, and liberal voters who's voted for him in 1989 against Giuliani and would have done so again in 1993 had Dinkins not disappointed them.. So we agree on this. And we even voted for the same people most of the time; in 1982 I did a big Village Voice profile of Cuomo touti