Comments on: Super Duper Tuesday Wednesday Morning Quarterbacking!

By: David

David — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:16:48 +0000

Historiann,

You are right that Obama is largely an unknown. These days, I’ve just come around to the point of view that I’d rather go with the devil I don’t know than the one I do.

And I think Biden, Dodd and Richardson would have gotten lot more scrutiny if they had, you know, actually won any votes, the way Hillary has. When you are a front-runner, everything goes under the microscope, as the Clintons well know.

At the same time, I also think the Clinton style of politics is going to produce a lot of enemies, on both the right and the left, just as it will produce a lot of victories.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:22:23 +0000

All right LT! Welcome! You make great points–the Clintons made a lot of mistakes and burned a lot of people in the 90s. Each voter will have to decide if that’s 1) evidence of HRC’s character flaws, or 2) is inevitable if you’re 60 years old and have been in public service and/or politics since Yale law school. Was the same level of scrutiny brought to bear on Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson, who are all HRC’s generational peers? And is the absence of political missteps in Obama’s case affirmative proof of his superior character, or is it just proof that he hasn’t been in electoral politics or high-visibility public service long enough to have made as many enemies and mistakes?

By: LTownsend

LTownsend — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:11:28 +0000

I agree with so many of these posts, especially David and Said Friend, but OK, at the risk of repeating what’s probably already been stated: two things: 1. what about her stance on the war in Iraq? and 2. I don’t think she’s a slam dunk to beat McCain. Perhaps most worrisome is her unwillingness to say uncle on the Iraq thing. That inability to admit mistakes reminds me of someone…. Oh yeah, Dubya. And the less than clean politicking — Bob Kerrey’s “Barack Hussein Obama will be a wonderful ambassador to the radical Muslim world with madrassa training” (not sure I got this entirely right but still…) I agree wholeheartedly that Hillary is subjected to crap that male politicians never have to cope with — see David Brooks in a snarky op-ed in the NYT on her treatment of a competing healthcare plan back during the healthcare debacle — she’s a strong person who can play with the big kids. So what? In fact, I am in a continual debate with my husband about this, who DID have an overbearing mommy. But with two candidates who are so similar on their positions (I must admit ignorance on the healthcare differences), character does become important and I’m bothered by much of the old Clinton history — lack of loyalty to friends and colleagues (see Lani Guanier) and the defection of so many staunch Clinton loyalists in government to Obama must mean something. As for Obama playing to the right, what about Clintonian triangulation? And what about how they sold welfare down the river during his administration (sorry!). There’s a lot to worry about with this dynasty, not the least being that they have sometimes borrowed from Karl Rove’s playbook on the campaign trail.

By: B. Dagger Lee

B. Dagger Lee — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:17:23 +0000

Thanks for the description and the post-analysis in the comments. I dropped a link to you in the “I Blame the Patriarchy” message board, so you might get a little feminist traffic.

yrs,
B. Dagger Lee

By: David

David — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:37:22 +0000

Yeah, but Clinton caved on the gays in the military issue. He lost the health care battle, and then tacked to the center for the rest of his presidency.

As for Hillary, she’s already shown that she will cave for political reasons, as her vote on Iraq demonstrates (at least to me).

I see that the new meme is that Obama supporters are cultists who have no logical reason for supporting their candidate other than that he is the messiah. Come on. It’s entirely possible to watch his campaign, read his positions on issues, watch him in the debates, listen to his speeches, look at his record, and conclude that he’s the better candidate, plain and simple.

By: Said Friend

Said Friend — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:42:13 +0000

I like the distinction between Democrats and cultists (I’m battling the cultism of my housemates all of the time these days, and will be raising that distinction to them the first chance I get). But back to the demonizing of Hillary…..I do think there are some dubious and embarrassing things about her campaign (Celine Dion, anyone?). What most bothers me is the fact that Mark Penn, the dork who wrote that book on microtrends and whose PR firm serves Blackwater as a client, is her campaign manager. This affiliation is of the icky kind. And having Bill in the White House will raise all sorts of problems (as we’ve already seen), some of them constitutional. On the other hand, as I was explaining to a cultist last night, Bill Clinton never once betrayed us on policy issues, and although he is known as a centrist, he did begin his presidency with the fight for gay rights in the military. So calculating he was not. I’m not yet convinced by the argument that Hillary will be so swayed by conservative forces. And I’m not yet convinced that Barack Obama won’t be swayed by the conservatives (let’s not forget all of his centrist talk about uniting, etc.). Barack Obama may be a great man (and I think he is), but he is not a panacea.

By: David

David — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:49:50 +0000

Well I guess I should add that I’m not a loyal Democrat. I’m officially registered with the Green Party, though I voted for Kerry in 2004. My main worry with a Clinton presidency is that she will let herself be pulled to the center the way her husband did, and that desperately needed progressive reforms will be jettisoned if she calculates that they work against her own political interest. Who knows, maybe Obama would be just as calculating. But at this point I’d rather go with the devil I don’t know.

Anyway, I appreciate the debate!

By: Historiann

Historiann — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:54:51 +0000

I don’t consider Massachusetts her “back yard” (CT is, though)–not with the Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick endorsements. And I’ve given him props for his victories, although I don’t think the outcome for IL was a suprise. (Utah? Delaware? Enjoy! I’ll take California, thank you very much.)

I think I agree more with Jane Hamshire here:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/rashamon-wednesday/

although I *hope* this isn’t settled at the convention. One way or the other, I hope we have a nominee–whoever it is–by the end of April.

If Obama supporters really stay home in November if HRC is on the ballot, then they’re not really Democrats, they’re cultists. I’m for whomever wins. Loyal Dems suppor the nominee. (I’ve never voted for the candidate in the primary who went on to become the nominee.) Nothing succeeds like success–and we need a big win in the fall.

p.s. to Said Friend: Yes, Horatio Alger, very good! And I think you’re referring to the rift that opened up in the feminist movement over 15th Amendment, which granted African American men the right to vote in 1870. Sadly, this put an end to 40 years of cooperation between the antislavery and feminist movements. There is a wonderful Bedford reader on this subject by Kathryn Kish Sklar called Women’s Rights Emerges Within the Antislavery Movement, 1830-1870, described more here at: http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/usingseries/hovey/sklar.htm. I think you make an excellent point about the absence of narratives that laud women achieving power and accomplishment. Who are the powerful women in most popular narratives? They’re the Wicked Quees, Wicked Stepmothers, and witches who live in enticing gingerbread houses, right? And in terms of American history, there has never been anyone writing Horatio Alger-like narratives for girls and women. Nancy Drew, until fairly recently, gave her drippy boyfriend Ned the credit for all of her supersleuthing acheivements. Laura Ingalls just grows up to marry a struggling farmer like her father. Am I missing any important children’s/youth writers?

By: David

David — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:34:41 +0000

It’s weird. I live in New York and I have voted for Hillary Clinton twice as Senator. I really didn’t understand why people disliked her so much, and I didn’t really have a preference between Obama and Clinton until the last couple months. But now, I don’t know, I’d be very disappointed if she won the nomination. What ultimately turned me totally against her was Bill’s behavior following the loss in Iowa, the condescension that just oozed out of her campaign for some time there until they realized it was counterproductive. It made me think that if Hillary becomes president, Bill will hold some extremely powerful position in her administration and be utterly unaccountable to anyone. Now I really hope she loses. If it were between her and McCain, I might not vote. But that doesn’t matter because I live in New York and my vote will never matter as long as the country stays with the electoral college.

Obama did well in the caucuses, Ann, but he deserves more credit than that. Many of the big wins for Clinton were right in her backyard (NJ, MA). And Obama decimated her in a number of primaries (IL, AL, DE, GA, UT), not to mention his close wins in CT and MO, the latter after everyone had called it for Clinton.

By: Said Friend

Said Friend — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:16:01 +0000

Yes, Barack has a lot going for him. But why is it that it seems impossible to revel in Senatorella’s strengths, assets, accomplishments? Why does she need to be defended so much? I recently had an unpleasant conversation with a younger housemate of mine (I reside in dewey young Historiann’s age bracket), who declared that she would vote for McCain if HRC won the nomination. There I was again, having to explain to this younger woman (who has the luxury of taking Senatorella’s early struggles in public life for granted) the significance of HRC’s commitment and accomplishment. Bill Maher, too, has felt the need to defend HRC’s honor. In the last Real Time, he made the point that although HRC is reviled by the Republicans, there is actually nothing hateable about her. The problem lies with the haters, he said, not the hatees (I’m paraphrasing). So why is Barack the automatic darling and Senatorella a crowd killer? My theory: The upwardly mobile plight of any man, whether black or white, is infinitely more palatable than the upward climb of a woman. Barack’s journey (or “movement,” as it is now called) fits in rather well with the old Horatio Algier (hope that’s the guy’s name; help me out Historiann) fantasy. There is still no national fantasy honoring a woman who comes to power. The power of representation and the representation of power are still very much at issue. Lately, I’ve also been thinking about that that terribly divisive 1860 convention(Historiann, help again) where African American men were granted the vote and women were denied it. Do we have a parallel struggle here? Is there something telling in this?