On the packaging of candidates we could have had

Posted by Damozel | First, if you're wondering what I think about Hillary's decision to continue running, the answer is I don't know what I think of it as a strategy.  Naturally I would like to believe that she could still somehow prevail.  I am not sanguine.  People are speculating that she is now running for the VP slot.  We'll see. 

But --- and this matters more to me --- I most definitely admire her for her unswerving commitment to see the process through.  Despite the pissing and moaning in the media, and whatever the outcome, I predict that the day will certainly arrive when people will look back with awe and amazement at  Hillary's insistence in going the distance against all odds and wish that they had chosen her.  She is indomitable.  I like that in a Democrat and so should other Democrats.  Alas, many of them are so beguiled by the media myths about Hillary that they just can't see what a force of nature she really is. 

Obama could learn a lot from her and he'd be a better (future) president for it.  Instead, I imagine we'll be stuck with him in his current incarnation --- all rhetoric, all the time.   

At The New Republic, E.J. Dionne bemoans the race we ought to have had between the Democratic candidates.  The article expresses the author's wish that we could have seen a race between the Hillary who has emerged and the Obama who doesn't exist, though naturally it's not expressed quite in that way.  In reality, of course, any perceived changes in the candidates simply have to do with changes in voters' changing perceptions, often as a result of the media's framing of them. 

Hillary and Obama are pretty much who they have always been.  I never believed in the 'elitist' image of the Clintons --- come on; Bill was governor of Arkansas ---- and I never bought into Obama's image as the herald (if not the messiah) of a new political awakening. 

The article is full of praise for 'the new Clinton,'  so-called.

Hillary Clinton found a compelling voice and a plausible strategy only after she had squandered her chances of winning the nomination without a divisive struggle over superdelegates and convention rules. It took a series of defeats to galvanize her campaign and help her put forward a better self....

The new Clinton is a wonder to behold. In the 1990s, Hillary and Bill Clinton were trashed by their enemies as elitist, Ivy League, McGovernite liberals--i.e., exactly the way Clinton's people are eviscerating Obama.

But over the last month, Clinton has emerged as a working-class hero who gets knocked down, always gets up, and thus wins favorable comparisons with Rocky Balboa...Nothing becomes her so much as hardship. (TNR)

I agree with all of this, except the part that implies that she ever was anything else besides what she appears.  She is both an Ivy League liberal and a person with first-hand, life-long knowledge of the plight of the working (and disenfranchised poor).  Of course she is.  The 'elitist' Clinton and the 'working class hero Clinton' are as much media creations as Obama: Untainted Herald of a New Age in American Politics or as Obama: Secret Supporter (or enabler) of  Rev. Wright's brand of theology.  None of the attempts of the media to paint them as no more than their packaging are accurate:  both are real, faulty human beings with the usual mix of good and bad.  I just happen to prefer Hillary's faults, as well as her virtues (one of which is her willingness to fight for herself and her position). 

I don't have a need to believe in the moral unassailability of a presidential candidate and I've never understood why it's necessary to bicker over which one is prettier and smells better.  An American president needs to be someone with the outlook of an optimist and the qualities of a cynic --- wily, wary, cautious, suspicious, able to read between the lines, and so on.  If anything, seeing Obama's halo knocked askew has made him seem less impossible to support; if his campaign were less hypocritical, I'd be feeling far less unhappy than I do about the prospect of ending up with him as a candidate.  I don't trust charisma or self-serving hazy promises of a new approach to politics; I remember Jimmy Carter's campaign, and we all know how well that presidency turned out.  (Shut up, Jimmy Carter).

So unlike Dionne, I don't wish we had the two of them packaged as the now Clinton and the previous Obama; I wish the unmasking had begun earlier or the masks had never been imposed on them in the first place.

RELATED POSTINGS

Comments

[Adam]

I have absolutely no problem with Hillary staying in. At this point, all that matters is her message. Just don't attack the presumptive nominee, and everything is cool by me.

In fact, I think the very best thing she could do for the Democratic party would be to stay in, campaign as if Barack Obama doesn't exist (i.e. positive message or attacks on McCain), win WV and Kentucky, and withdraw either on May 20th or June 4th.

At that point, the real question becomes, what does Hillary want? The VP? Obama to take her debt (i.e. pay her off, since it's mostly a debt to herself)? Let her (or Elizabeth Edwards?) draft the healthcare platform? Allow the Hillary-supporting delegates from MI/FL to be seated?

I think any or all of those things should be on the table, if she's willing to concede the race on those conditions. As I've said many times, Obama will absolutely need the enthusiastic support of Hillary to win the general election. He needs to do what is necessary to secure that.

---

I've said before and I'll say again: Hillary absolutely should have won this thing. The current Time article does a very fair analysis of the issues:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

None of those things are about either policy or personality. They are all about strategy, and I agree they are all mistakes she made.

Both Obama and Hillary learned something from this campaign, and adapted. In the last month, Hillary has worked the internet for money just as hard as Obama has, she's organized on the ground as vigorously as her budget allowed, and she found a message that resonantes with the current mood (essentially borrowed from Edwards with some foreign policy hawkishness thrown in). Obama has learned how to take a punch, how to steer the media cycle when things are going bad for him, and how to do retail politics.

[Sparky Duck]

See how proud of the Hill you are when McCain is the President. However, i still do not think she needs to go away, while I would be happy if she piped down a bit

[Working Class White Guy (as labeled by the MSM)]

Yeah, well I'd appreciate it if Obama piped down a bit... and his supporters too. Obama supporters don't seem to realize that every time they open their arrogant mouths they offend us (Clinton supporters) with their self righteous indignation. Why the hell can't she keep running? Why should she be quiet? Because it's not convenient for you? Because free speech ends when your candidate is ahead?
Obama supporters can pretend all they want that Obama is winning by a landslide in this nomination race - but the total vote tallies are never going to bear out that FALSE myth (put forth by the MSM and Obama surrogates). Clinton has a lot of support and she will speak. She will run. If either of our candidates loses to McCain it will be that campaign's fault - not the fault of the person that loses the primary.

[Danny]

I'll never vote for Obama. NEVER! I may just vote for McCain I hate Obamas supporters that much and the people who call themselves liberal progressive's have done that for Obama.

"NAH! NAH! NAH!" - in the words of the Rev. Wright

[Yo]

Well, Danny you can come over with me because I am voting for McCain because I will NEVER ever vote for that man! I can stomach a Republican for four years in the White House. I am re-registering as a Repub as soon as Hillary drops out and you'll see that hundreds of thousands of others will do so as well. Obamanation will not be the next POTUS

[Adam]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/9/135248/7567

Another one, by a Hillary supporter:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/10/215448/685

But, by all means, cut off your nose to spite your face. After all, JP Stevens's replacement on the SCOTUS will only serve for 30 years or so...