Fighting Old Battles
I harbor no ill will against Hillary Clinton. I think she has been a fine Senator. Although there are fine points of disagreement between the three top candidates on the Democratic side, on most issues they are in agreement. Timing may be different. Details might differ. Loyalties and constituencies might be different. But the similarities are pretty close. This is not a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, like what we're seeing on the GOP side.
In any other situation, she might be a great candidate for President. I might even support her. In fact, if she turns out to be the nominee, I will support her because there are things like the Supreme Court that desperately need a change of party in the White House.
But there are two reasons why -- besides my attraction to Obama's person and what I believe he can do for this country -- that I would rather she not be the nominee.
1. I don't like dynasties. Bush 2 has been an absolute failure. There have been a couple of dynasties and near dynasties -- sort of --. We've had one other father-son set -- John and John Quincy Adams. Both served one term and neither were especially effective. Then there was Grand-father/Grandson tandem of the Harrisons. William Henry barely lived long enough to unpack the inaugural gifts. Benjamin wasn't especially effective either. Two Kennedy's have tried to succeed John. One was assassinated and the other found ways of sabotaging himself. There is a reason why Jeb's not running, though many party loyalists would love to have him in the race. He knows the nation doesn't want another Bush any time soon. Having husband and wife as President sounds so -- well Argentina!
2. The second reason has to do with the direction we're looking. Even though Hillary will do her best to look forward, the 1990s stand before her, clouding her vision. Yes, the nation was better off in the 1990s than now. Though Bill apparently had problems keeping his zipper closed, he was a fairly effective President, probably the most effective outside Ronnie we've had since DDE (and the only 1 other than Ronnie to serve 2 full terms until W showed us why we should have thrown him out in 04). As we're seeing on the campaign trail, Bill is fighting old battles, even comparing Obama to old enemies. He plays the victim, and I think it will effect how Hillary governs. GW has had a testy relationship with the press, and apparently Bill disdains them. That has to effect the way communication happens. We might not like all the press all the time, but they are an essential part of the conversation. Without them we the people can't hold our leaders accountable. They are the necessary conduit of information -- and we of course must be discerning users.
A Washington Post piece today makes this so very clear -- that old battles are being fought.
Folks, however nice the 1990s might have been for many -- this is 2008. This is a new decade and a new century. We need leaders who will look forward. And from this vantage point, Obama seems to be the only candidate with both eyes looking forward!
Comments
I want Democrats to boldly re-embrace the New Deal and the Great Society and to push toward the future as the party of economic, racial, and gender justice, of human rights and peacemaking and environmentalism. I see Clinton as part of the problem--but I was disturbed yesterday to hear Obama praise Ronald Reagan in Nevada! That sounded like the DLC and John Edwards' response was right.
I THINK Obama was just trying to appeal to moderate Republicans and say that Reagan ushered in change (he did, all negative) as he hopes to do. But I understand the anger that ripped through Democrats across the blogosphere. Obama may have just thrown the nomination to Clinton.
And that's a shame, because I think Obama may be part of the solution in getting the soul of the party back--and Clinton as part of the problem.
I think Democratic "Net-roots" need to be careful in trying to have an ideologically pure candidate. The party has always oerned across the board. Remember that the New Deal was enacted by a party that ranged from Strom Thurmond on the Right to people of the far left.
You and I may not like Reagan's policies, but he is quite popular in America. If a nod his way helps bring in a few votes, then so be it. But to abandon Obama over a statement like that is simply shooting yourself in the foot.
Perhaps that's the Disciple in me that has sought to put differences into context.
No, I prefer Obama over Clinton not out of "purity" concerns, but because the DLC-type Dems like Clinton do half of the GOP rightwing's dirty work for them.