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

Posted by Damozel |

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

Comments

[financial hack]

what specific credentials or experience they can cite to indicate that he is currently qualified to be the Chief Executive of the United States.

I think it is a good question that needs to be answered with more than "inspriation" This is my perspective...

I would say if you want to look at the leadership either would bring, look at their campaigns. That shows their leadership at this very moment. He has done what everyone said couldn't be done - he organized and is running a campaign that is beating Hilary from out of nowhere and from a position where Hilary dominated from the start. Hilary, on the otherhand, has thrown away a lead that should have never been lost through her campaign. In my eyes, that says it all - the campaigns show how each would run the country and Obama's has been far more successful and organized.

[biwah]

Hillary is not losing because of sexism. Obama has done nothing, through surrogates or otherwise, that will cause a lasting rift within the party.

If nominated, he will be the best general election candidate we've had in a long time (HRC would be good too), and people will get behind him regardless of what happened in February.

[damozel]

FINANCIAL HACK. I don't give a damn about 'leadership,' whatever that means. I want a president who can do the dirty work of cleaning up after Bush.

BIWAH. You mean, 'in your opinion.' This is the Obama supporters' typical fallacy: to confuse opinion with fact.

[Adam]

Much of this post is attacking overly vociferous internet posters or e-mailers. I don't care to defend these. I maintain that Obama has been respectful, and his campaign, aside from a few mailings that have been a little bit agressive for my taste, has been respectful as well. ("Will you support the other guy/gal" is the classic trap question, designed to set up negative spin no matter what the answer is. Either you're making plans for defeat, or you think your opponent is evil. Any answer deserves to be ignored.)

If you're still angry at Obama in November for things his supporters said in January and February, and that keeps you from voting against McCain/for Obama, that strikes me as rather shortsighted. This may look like a dirty campaign from up close, but to the general public it appears civil, and drastically more civil than the Republican campaign was. Did you see the two Super Tuesday debates? The contrast in tone could hardly have been more dramatic.

You're willing to excuse Clinton's past mistakes as making "hard choices", but unwilling to accept Obama's "present" votes. I couldn't care less on either of these issues. This is the sort of partisan stuff that makes for a soundbite or an attack ad or a hatchet job column. Nobody should be basing their vote on this stuff.

[damozel]

I do not 'forgive' Clinton---I just think she has better credentials. I have no warm and fuzzy feelings toward her. Weighing the experience, credentials, etc., it seems to me that she is clearly the more qualified.

I very much wanted Obama as a VP---after 8 years, I'd happily support him for president, provided nothing happened to make me think otherwise.

I do not want him as president NOW. I am not at all convinced we'd be better off with obama than McCain. Obama might be a fab successor to McCain.

It's not short-sighted; it's simply a bit cynical. But that's where I've landed.

[biwah]

Damozel, obviously I am stating my opinion. In the original post you decry the aggressive tenor of Obama folks, presumably mostly bloggers and commenters. Then you jump on me for saying what I think as a "typical fallacy" of all Obama supporters. Broad brush much?

Anyway what part of my opinion do you disagree with? The part about the Democratic party surviving the trauma of this primary season? It's pretty silly to suggest it won't, but maybe you can make a case otherwise. It will take more than some hurt feelings and disappointment in the thick of February, is my point.

[cloudy]

I, like you, didn't start out with any strong opposition towards Obama but a couple of things have changed my mind.

A recent interview with Michele Obama on Larry King (where she reiterates her remarks about not voting for Hilary) I found passive aggresive and insubstantial. More of the "vote for him because he is MORAL and has character" and not so subtle digs at Clinton. I don't need a politician to be my moral compass. I don't need government that legislates from the the position of Right or Wrong (Obama's comments about being RIGHT from day one). Sometimes there is only bad and worse. What then?

His new ads running in Hawaii (where I am) touts his Universal Health Care plan, a lie. I also saw him rallying in one of the Potomac states this past week (Virigina?) also touting his "Universal Health Care" plan. Health care is an important issue to me and in my opinion, he is risking one of the best chances we have at true Health care reform with his attack ads and fear mongering (she will make you pay for coverage you can't afford!).

I will be caucasing for Hilary on Feb. 19, though I realize I'm fighting an uphill battle here where people think "he went to high school here!" as reason enough to vote for him.

I think, if anything, this Primary season has made me more cynical about Americans. I really want to get behind whichever candidate is chosen. I want to see real change for us. In an election where everyone is yelling about change, all I'm seeing is more of the same. I think Edwards and Clinton (my dream ticket) could have done this, but the more I see of Obama, the less faith I have that he can.

[damozel]

BIWAH, You are right and I am sorry. I am afraid I've become pretty angry and aggressive myself.

[biwah]

Really? Thanks, I'm impressed!

We're all excited but this will pass, one way or another.

[D. Cupples]

Yes, BIWAH, you have a point about all the excitement.

I'm just glad that people in THIS discussion are pretty calm and civil.

[Adam]

Damozel, I'm considering McCain as well, but leaning toward the Democrat, whoever it is. One big reason is that thanks to getting out of Iraq and repealing the Bush tax cuts, a Democratic president is probably more likely to reduce the deficit, even with greater domestic spending. And of course, there's the risk of another Thomas/Alito/Roberts/Scalia-type supreme court nominee. With McCain, a lot depends on his VP choice, as I need to like the VP of a guy who's 72 when he takes office. I won't be voting for any ticket containing Huckabee.

And let's not count Clinton out yet. This nomination won't be decided until Texas/Ohio at the earliest. Three weeks is a long time, and I'm betting the media will start to throw out criticisms of Obama just to fill air time and column inches. Watch for it.

If Clinton wins, I think you get Obama as the VP, and another run in '16. (If Obama wins, my money is on Richardson to get tapped for VP.)

[Penelope Snow]

Did I just write that? Yeah, what she said!
My thoughts EXACTLY. What happened to the concept of "critical thinking" that Obama supporters MUST have learned in college? He is a powerful communicator-the antithesis of Bush in that respect-but I see a lot of personal characteristics that remind me of Bush and frankly make me really nervous. McCain is starting to look not really all that bad, almost (if you fuzz your eyes up) like a democratican...or a republicat! and At least he's for real. But hey, who needs authenticity when you are inspired? Oh wait, that's the problem with drugs, reality stews for you while you get lost in the euphoric high. The question is, can he inspire himself? The audacity of asking your supporters to "Believe"...an outright plea for suspension of disbelief, what a strategy! People, this isn't a TV show, and the GOP, leaders in Iran, China are deaf to the siren song, just like us-the other half of the Democrats, who are going "what gives"??!

[Penelope Snow]

Financial Hack-so...because Bush had a successful campaign and (kinda) won twice that shows he's got leadership? Tsk, tsk.

[Sophie Roae]

I will vote for Hillary, however if it is Obama who will be running, I will vote Republician, before I vote for him - that's all this country needs.

[Obama Fan]

This was a fantastic and historic win for Barack Obama and our country! I believe he will do a great deal to attempt to unite this country!