I am beside myself with joy that the Democratic Party is about to nominate Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as our candidate for President. I am thankful that I have lived to see this day, and I pray that on November 4 one of them will be elected president.
In my lengthy previous post (which was really meant to be only a comment on Senator Clinton’s moment of emotionality), I indicated that I would likely vote for her, for a variety of reasons. It seemed to me, when I wrote that post, that Hillary looked like the likely nominee, but that when she won the presidency she would not likely have very long coattails, and would therefore still have a very closely divided congress to deal with. I felt her history and her demonstrable personal strength and tenacity would equip her to deal ruthlessly with that congress. After all, Bill managed to hold onto the presidency, even after the Republicans took Congress. Then President Clinton was impeached, of course, even after he capitulated on some key issues to try to work with the Republicans. When I see Hillary, I see the words NEVER AGAIN behind her strong, steady gaze, the gaze of a woman that can govern this country.
I still think Senator Clinton would be a terrific president. My electoral logic, however, was flawed – and new information has become available. And it is for that reason that I am now supporting Barack Obama.
First, I failed to take into account how many Republican congress members are retiring: 37 in the House and 5 in the Senate. Many of those seats are vulnerable, and even safe seats will cost the party more to defend than if they were held by a safer incumbent. So it appears that the Democratic majority in Congress will almost certainly grow, making it more possible for an idealistic president to get an ambitious, progressive agenda through.
Senator Obama had a clean sweep today, winning Kansas, Washington, and Louisiana (and the Virgin Islands, BTW) by very, very large margins. His delegate count will almost certainly exceed Senator Clintons by the time Virginia, DC and Maryland vote next week. And everywhere he wins, Democrats are turning out in amazing numbers – in some states we are seeing twice the number of Democrats turn out in the primaries than Republicans. If that trend follows him to the convention and he becomes the nominee, there is every indication that he will bring so many people to the polls for the General Election – more, I now believe, than Senator Clinton – that he would likely bring a great many Democrats with him to Washington, and therefore won’t need to be the ruthless tough customer in dealing with Congress that Hillary would have to be. And really, beloved, haven’t we had more than enough ruthlessness in Washington?
Here’s an open question: can the turnout of young voters and African Americans in the primary be duplicated by Obama in November? Pundits say no, but I think this year is different. There has never been a woman, or a man this young, or a black person for that matter, on the national ticket. Also in Louisiana, 30% of white voters went for Obama while only 18% of black voters turned out for Clinton. And every recent national poll shows that in a head-to-head contest, Obama bests McCain; one poll showed Obama ahead by 7 points, or 3 points outside the margin for error. And many are saying that a contest between Obama and McCain would be more civil and constructive than a head-to-head with Clinton and McCain. I don’t necessarily buy this, but it is interesting that one Republican strategist has already said he would refuse to run negative ads against Obama if he is the nominee.
There are many very good reasons for supporting Senator Clinton, and I have one dear friend in particular who may not understand or agree with me on what I say here. I am very excited at the prospect of having both of these people on the ticket together, whichever one comes out on top. We have an opportunity to make an historic choice no matter who wins. When I voted (absentee) on Super Duper Tuesday in New York, I cast my vote for Senator Clinton, but allocated two of the six Delegates I could designate for Obama. That was where I stood then, and I am glad I voted that way. But things have changed, and unless something dramatic changes again I am supporting, praying for, and hope to spend much of my summer working for the election of Barack Obama.
11 responses so far ↓
http://barackobama360.blogspot.com/ » The Obama Campaigner // February 10, 2008 at 4:02 am |
whydidyoudoit // February 10, 2008 at 6:08 am |
According to the demographics, I should be voting for Hillary Clinton: I’m a white, 60-year-old, highly educated woman from the Northeast. But I’m voting for Obama. I’ve waited all my life for a viable woman candidate for the presidency, but this is not the right woman. I want a woman of the highest ability and virtue, who would serve as a glorious role model to all young women. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
She rode into power with her husband, and together they’ve acquired a long and seriously flawed history of self-serving and secretive financial and political dealings. The most cursory research will prove that true. She started out her political life supporting the racist Barry Goldwater. She is as comfortable with deception and trickery as George Bush. When I hear woman saying, “Oh, but that’s how you get things done in Washington,” I literally cringe.
I am passionately supporting Barack Obama. He can beat the Republicans; she cannot. Obama has attracted Independents and even Republicans to his camp, and in a general election they would vote for him, but not for Clinton. Clinton voted for the war, and has never apologized for it. Obama has spoken out against it from the beginning. Obama brings us hope–and not just that. Take a serious look at his ideas and experience.
Please, I beg of you, Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.
Diane Wald
John-Julian, OJN // February 10, 2008 at 11:42 pm |
That’s OK, QFC….
Most of us pass through first, a hedonistic phase, then a pragmatic phase, before finally reaching the mystical.
I salute your maturity
QFC // February 11, 2008 at 10:39 am |
Diane, I hear your longing for virtue in our politics and applaud it. But I want to caution against any association of Hillary Clinton with racism, an assertion for which there is no evidence, and the articulation of which would only undo our shared hope that Obama’s nomination would have a civilizing effect on the campaign. Instead, let us applaud her tenacity and staying power in a very tough environment as having crushed, once for all, the myth that women are too much this, or too little that, to lead.
Sen. Clinton’s youthful “Goldwater Girl” period can hardly be cited as evidence of racism: Goldwater’s libertarian and nonconformist views led him to oppose the Civil Rights Act, certainly a deplorable position in hindsight, but one that is not, in itself, evidence of racism on the part of all his supporters (though many were). Some young people found Goldwater’s libertarian and nonconformist stands (which by the end of his life included support for abortion rights, Queer civil rights, and opposition to the ban on gays in the military) quite attractive in the early ’60’s as an antidote to the “Little Boxes” era of the 1950’s.
Senator Obama would, I believe and hope, be a great president, on his own merits, if he has a supportive Congress. We do not need to criticize Senator Clinton unfairly in order to get Senator Obama elected. In fact, I hope that if his nomination becomes inevitable in the next few weeks, we will start hearing calls for unity – and a unity ticket.
Obama/Clinton 2008! I think that sounds really good.
QFC // February 11, 2008 at 10:48 am |
Bro. JJ, I thank you. Coming from you, the slightest hint that I have attained any level of mysticism – even political mysticism – is truly a compliment.
Political mysticism – oxymoron of the year, or catchphrase of postmodern activism?
Amy // February 11, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
Hey dear friend! The house is a bit emptier now that your visit is over.
I hear you, and I hear it all around me. You know, in the work that I do, I’m constantly coming up against presenting our messaging on the “fear” side of the motivational spectrum, or the “hope” side. I know that I am mostly motivated by the “fear” side of the spectrum (What if? This is what you will lose! See what we’ve done that needs to be fixed!), but I have learned that that only works for a portion of the audience.
I work hard to reframe my messaging toward the “hope” side of the spectrum, especially working with college students, where the “fear” messaging falls almost completely on deaf ears.
So, I agree. Obama=hope. But I stand by my support for Hillary. For me, Hillary does not equal fear, in opposition to Obama’s hopeful potential. It’s a false dichotomy. For me, Hillary=hope, too.
I also reject the supposition that second-wave feminimsm is now monolithically racist. I don’t accept that a vote for Hillary is (implicitly) a vote for racism. I don’t think that a vote for Obama is (implicitly) a vote for sexism, either.
Everyone should vote for the candidate that inspires them. And vote again in the general election, whether or not their favored candidate gets the nomination. Because there’s too much at stake.
See? There I go with the fear messaging again.
QFC // February 11, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
Thanks, Amy! I enjoyed our visit very much and U.C. and I are looking forward to seeing you again in March.
Thank you also for your extremely well-reasoned and articulate stand for Senator Clinton – and for not being too upset with me
We will be a better, stronger and more hopeful country no matter which of these two people are elected.
Let me add one more comment. It is bizarre to me that, at least anecdotally, we are hearing stories of white conservatives, Reagan democrats in many cases, saying that they would sooner vote for Obama than McCain. My father is among them, as I found out when we spoke by phone yesterday. And though he has struggled mightily, my father still has, alas, some vestigial racism in him, being raised very, very poor and white in the depression-era Mississippi Delta. Oddly, his third choice (after Obama and Clinton) is…wait for it…Mike Huckabee!
Analyze that, political scientists.
Amy // February 11, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
The conservatives who say that they would rather vote for Obama than McCain and the liberals who say that they would rather vote for McCain than Clinton should get together for a beer.
Grandmère Mimi // February 11, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
QFC, an excellent post. I’m pleased that we agree. If Clinton is the nominee, I will cast my vote for her without reservation. I want a Democrat in the White House. I happen to believe that Obama has the best chance of getting there.
FWIW, I believe that a ticket that includes Clinton and Obama in any order is highly unlikely. The chemistry between the two is not good.
QFC // February 11, 2008 at 6:57 pm |
I hear you re: the unity ticket. But I think people with worse chemistry have joined up to great electoral effect: Reagan/Bush, Kennedy/Johnson and Roosevelt/Truman, just to name three.
Hope sprints eternal, to coin a phrase
Grandmère Mimi // February 11, 2008 at 8:53 pm |
OCYCBR