Category: Politics

[digg-reddit-me]

For Part 2 of this two-part case, check out The Case for Barack Obama.

I realize, of course, that Hillary Clinton will not be withdrawing from the race any time soon. And I realize that, from a short-term political perspective, it makes no sense for her to do so. She just won New Hampshire, Michigan, and more overall votes in the caucus in Nevada. But all the same – if Senator Clinton truly believes in the values she claims to, if she would rather liberal values prevail than gain power herself, if she would rather America unite under the next president instead of becoming further divided – she must withdraw her candidacy. Whether she throws her support behind John Edwards or Barack Obama makes no difference. Either individual can unite the country. Hillary Clinton cannot.

Here are 11 reasons Hillary should withdraw now:

1. Her experience argument is bogus. Even if it were true, historically, experience is a poor predictor of presidential success. Further, anyone who claims to be prepared to be president “from day one” is lying – because no experience can prepare you for the presidency.
2. Her most successful and most-used tactic against Barack Obama in the primaries and caucuses – suppressing voter turnout – will ensure her loss in the general election as it alienates many of those who she most needs to appeal to – younger voters (under 55), black voters, and swing voters. The Clintons have also introduced identity politics into the primary – and have tried to encourage racial polarization, especially between Latinos and blacks. The Clintons are running a campaign very different from most primary campaigns – they are attacking Obama with a ferocity usually reserved for attacking Republicans in the general election. In an election that splits the country roughly 50/50, Hillary can’t afford to lose anyone. At the rate she is going now, she won’t be able to put together a winning coalition.
3. Bill Clinton became an admired elder statesmen after retiring from the presidency. The fact that he was still chasing skirt became a quirk rather than a political liability and a possible threat to the Democratic Party. And things like this might be considered charming. Now, he’s become Karl Rove with Secret Service protection, a bigger media presence, and with the same lack of conscience. Even top neutral Democrats are telling Bill to shut up. I’d like the old Bill Clinton back.
4. If Hillary Clinton wins, her success will become a lesson in how women should achieve power: marry well; put up with any humiliations your husband throws at you, and then, maybe, if you fight dirty, and ask your husband to run your campaign, you might be able to ride his coattails to your “own” political success.
5. The Clintons are relying on the laziness and stupidity of the American people to attack Barack Obama unfairly: through lies, distortions (eg. regarding Reagan), and other unconscionable means. It just goes to prove the most dangerous place to be in America is between the Clintons and an elected office.
6. Her three most significant political acts: botching health care reform and setting it back for a generation; deciding to stonewall independent investigators, Congress, and the press on Whitewater, and voting for war with Iraq.
7. The Democratic Party has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-align the country and reinvigorate liberalism and America. Hillary Clinton has shown no interest in seizing this opportunity or any capacity to rally Americans to a broad consensus. She remains a highly polarizing figure. Her winning strategy does not involve winning a significant majority but eking out a 51% win by micro-targeting, niche marketing, and espousing incremental targeted policies – all working off of a broadly Republican status quo.
8. The Clintons are fundamentally and irredeemably corrupt. And we don’t need to have a Clinton dynstasty to rival the Bush dynasty.
9. No other candidate can rally the Republican base and right-leaning independents as effectively as Hillary Clinton.
10. Hillary Clinton use language exactly as George Orwell lamented in “Politics and the English Language” – to hide her true intent and demonize her opponents.
11. Her breakthrough moment came when she her eyes got misty over how much effort she had put into making the country better.

Bonus reason: George W. Bush, and some number of his supporters, see her as the best candidate to protect the Bush legacy of torture, preemptive war, and executive overreach.

Hillary –

For the good of the Democratic party; for the liberal ideas you have fought for; for the good of the country – drop out of the race today.

We know that Obama is not perfect. But he’s the best chance we have of creating an electoral shift around liberal ideas. If you can take a step back from your campaign – I’m sure you would realize that. You are running against him with a fury Democrats normally reserve for Republicans. You seem to believe that creating a Clinton dynasty is the only chance America has to “not fall backward”. But you’re wrong. Get over yourself.

Please Hillary!

Sincerely,

-a committed liberal, Democrat, and Barack Obama supporter

Edit: I am not hiding my name as one of the commenters alleges. My name is Joe Campbell, and I stand behind this post.

Another Edit: Welcome Andrew Sullivan readers!

Updated: The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Make your feelings known.

Updated: Responding to some of the comments suggesting that Obama and Hillary are the same.

It’s probably about time to mention the “Hillary hacked New Hampshire” story that has been gaining traction.  The basic crux of the story is this:

• The Clintons absolutely needed to win New Hampshire to arrest Obama’s momentum.
• The Clintons are ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to win.
• Virtually all of the polls from New Hampshire in the last few days before the primaries showed Obama up by 7-11 points.  These include the Clintons’ own polls – leading some of her top advisers to privately concede the election to Obama.
• The exit polls showed that Obama won by approximately 5 points. ((Fox News removed the headline the writer for the Guardian refers to by the time I viewed the link.))
• The exit polls and the polls conducted before the election accurately predicted the levels of support for McCain, and the entire Republican field, and for Obama and every Democrat except Senator Clinton.  Which is why the first reaction from commentators was to suggest that the votes for Dodd and Biden and the undecided overwhelmingly broke for Senator Clinton.  But the exit polls did not show this either – they showed Obama marginally winning those who decided within three days of the election.
• Obama won votes not counted by Diebold’s machines by a large margin.
• Hillary Clinton won the votes counted by the Diebold machines by an unusual margin even “after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables”  The conclusion is not necessarily vote-rigging, but as Chris Chatham reasonably observes: “As you can see, something appears to be highly amiss. There may be an unmeasured third variable (it’s probably not urban vs rural) or there may be something more nefarious.”
• Dennis Kucinich attempted to get a recount of the New Hampshire ballots, and the Secretary of State conceded.
• Now, we get to wait and see what happens.

Jon Stokes over at ArsTechnica points out an important fact often ignored in post-election analysis:

In a truly democratic election, the burden of proof is on the state to provide evidence of the election’s integrity. This sentiment is behind the idea that ballots should be counted under the watchful eyes of the public’s representatives. So elections are held to a much different standard than criminal proceedings, where the burden of proof is on the one who brings a charge of wrongdoing.

Or What is Wrong with the Clintons

[digg-reddit-me]In 1992, a man from Hope inspired Americans, and a plurality voted him into the White House. But something less hopeful lurked underneath the surface of this aspiring political dynasty. Joe Klein, writing as Anonymous in his fictionalization of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, Primary Colors, told the story from the perspective of an idealistic young aide corrupted both by the process and the charismatic candidate himself. The major subplot of the novel involved a close and lifelong friend of the Stantons (representing the Clintons) who when confronted with the venality, ruthlessness, and pure lust for power of the candidate and his wife killed herself in anger and sorrow.

George Stephanopoulos, writing in his memoir of the campaign and early Clinton presidency, attributed the suicide of the close Clinton confidante and advisor, Vince Foster to a similar emotional breakdown. ((Page 187 of All Too Human.)) Writing shortly after Foster’s death, Margaret Carlson of Time magazine, quoted Foster as saying: “Before we came here, we thought of ourselves as good people.”

Politics, as Stephanopoulos describes it delicately, is about “play[ing] the game for the sake of getting good things done.” Any realist – any student of history – any politician – will tell you that there is a large element of truth to this. What was Lend-Lease but part of a game FDR was playing to drag us into World War II? What was Lincoln’s careful campaign formulation of allowing slavery to stay where it was but preventing any new slave states from from joining the Union if not a political stratagem? But there is a sense among those who worked with the Clintons that they sold their soul to win this game – that their lust for power overrode all ethical impulses, and that they sullied everyone who believed in them.

There is a risk of this disappointment in every campaign – including Barack Obama’s. Power corrupts. Washington corrupts. Dreams and ideals and promises are broken upon hard reality.

But sometimes, our leaders, all too human as they may be, help us rise above the game. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream; John F. Kennedy called on a nation to go to the moon; Abraham Lincoln called on the “better angels of our nature”. All of these men were corrupted by power; none of them were perfect; they were all politicians. Yet each man met their moment; each individual transcended mere politics even as they participated in the political game. They had the judgment to know when to compromise and when to stand firm.

The Clintons had their chance. They demonstrated their character – and were found wanting. Bill Clinton recently said that to vote for Barack Obama is to “roll the dice”. He had a point. Obama may be corrupted as easily as the Clintons were. But at least with Obama, there is a chance the story might turn out differently. We need to, in Bill Clinton’s words, “roll the dice”.