Clinton for President: One Blogger's Case

A year from today, Americans will go to their local polling places in schools, community halls, and firehouses around the country to choose the 44th President of the United States. As a lifelong Democrat and a committed liberal on social issues - and as a blogger - I believe Senator Hillary Clinton from New York is quite clearly the best choice as our nation's next chief executive.

I say "as a blogger" because that distinction matters. The 2008 election is our first national vote to be truly influenced by the lightning-quick communications of intertwined social networks, weblogs, and online communities; 2004 and its Howard Dean boomlet was a mere appetizer. That cycle anticipated the digital weave of political organizing but it pre-dated the actual loom itself, and many of the innovations - particularly in the area of video-sharing - that we've all enjoyed over the last three years.

Further, endorsing Senator Clinton as a blogger is in many ways far more important than endorsing her as a consultant, as a writer, as a local Democrat. My small online network of friends, and readers, and correspondents links me to a much wider network of networks, and the link to this endorsement will reach further than any phone call or email or pamphlet. It may not influence a single vote. Indeed, I don't expect it will. But I do believe it will cause some small sub-group of readers to think a bit, and some smaller group of them to write. And so the conversation continues.

In truth, I've been for Clinton since the morning of November 3, 2004 when we awoke to the terrible news that the failed and outrageously immoral administration of George Bush and Richard Cheney would continue for four more long and painful years; the news that we Democrats had failed to nip the neo-con scourge closer to the main branch of Republicanism, that it would metastasize and drag our national reputation farther from the sunlight into the gloom of slow disaster. I thought then (as I do now) that former Vice-President Al Gore would not run again for President, and that he was engaged more successfully farther upriver from electoral politics. And I've been telling people who care about politics for the last three years that I believed the Democrats would nominate Clinton and that she would win election.

Three years ago, I had one overriding reason for hoping Clinton would run for President: her ability to win as a progressive Democrat.

I have to admit that it sounded crazy to many I sounded out on the possibility. Doesn't the right-wing despise her? Isn't she polarizing? Aren't people sick of the Clintons and their baggage?

But I believed then - and frankly, I've been rewarded in that belief - that Senator Clinton was tough enough, and mean enough, and organized enough to deal with what had become the snarling monster in our midst: the conservative smear machine, the ministry of disinformation that has infected the Republican Party. I saw what happened to John Kerry, an accomplished enough liberal Senator from Massachusetts. Money wasn't enough. A resume wasn't enough. And I'd also seen what Clinton accomplished in New York - overcoming the carpetbagger image, brushing aside the snide anti-feminist caricatures, and turning her so-called "baggage" into strength. I saw her polling numbers rise and not just in the city, and when Giuliani stepped aside (sick but also trailing badly in the polls) I saw her easily dispense with a lightweight named Rick Lazio.

I've spoken with Hillary Clinton on exactly two occasions, once in a rope line for a simple handshake greeting and once after a prominent charity dinner in New York the year before the 2004 election. That conversation lasted perhaps 45 seconds, but I was immediately struck by just how far off the media caricature of her personality was; we discussed a mutual friend and talked about the night's speeches. She was engaged and smiling and I recall she made a small joke about another Democratic politician, and then she was moving off to shake other hands and crack other small jokes. Hillary Clinton, I'd just learned, was charming.

And that charm is something of a secret weapon. It accounts for her wildly successful retail politics in New York State, where she took every Republican upstate county save one a year ago. It accounts for her popularity in the Senate, even among political enemies. And it accounts for her performance thus far in this race for the Democratic nomination. Quite frankly, Hillary Clinton is the most compelling personality on the stage.

She is also cunning. Shrewd. Quick. Calculating. Opportunistic. All strengths, you see. Sure, there are those who will say combining those traits with her gender creates an unflattering, unfeminine portrait - the kind of woman Americans instinctively dislike.

To which I say: baloney. There are two answers to the gender conundrum created by the first serious female candidate for President, and neither of them is good for Republicans. The first is obvious, but understated by the national media - it's a demographic strength. In the primary, 60% of Democratic voters are women. And in the general election, the largest group of independent voters consists of women. Hillary Clinton was never going to get the older, male, conservative vote. It literally doesn't matter to her at all. Getting a huge percentage of independent women and an overwhelming turnout from Democratic women is a vital strategic advantage, quite possibly an election decider. Secondly, demographics. Okay, that's twice. But I mean less immediately obvious ones. For the first time in our history, female graduates of U.S. colleges outnumber males. In New York, women have caught up to men in compensation. Women dominate the growing nonprofit sector, increasingly more active in causes and policy than men. And for the first time ever, there are more single women than married women in the United States.

This is not to say that Senator Clinton should be elected to the Presidency because she is a woman, satisfying as that may be to feminists. It is to say, however, that being an accomplished, charming, well-funded, and eminently capable woman increases the likelihood that she will be President. And it may increase the possibility of an effective administration.

I do not wish to diminish the other Democratic hopefuls. I admire Senators Dodd and Biden and could easily vote for them. Senator Obama is a dramatic big-picture speaker, and his generational view can be compelling. Governor Richardson has not appeared comfortable as a national candidate and may well run for the Senate from New Mexico. Former Senator Edwards has appeared desperate and his strategies have permanently damaged his reputation, but there is some truth in his populist message. And I believe that efforts to attack and diminish Senator Clinton just before the primary season have the smell of panic and failure about them, and they provide ammunition to the right-wing machine to exploit next fall.

Many of my fellow bloggers, Democrats, and progressives will find this post cynical and sadly lacking in both specific policy and greater vision. They have a right to feel that way; nowhere in this post is there a defense of Clinton's Iraq vote, her husband's mixed record as a progressive, her recent Iranian sword rattling, and other areas where my view may diverge from the Senator's. I've written here mainly about Senator Clinton's ability to win. Other posts will follow. But conservatives and Republicans should, I'd suggest, quietly put down that stone if they've cast a vote for President in either of the last two elections. Nothing can equal the win-at-all-costs cynicism and dishonesty - the disgraceful lack of vision - of this administration and its cronies.

Nor should this endorsement suggest any formal connection to her considerable campaign apparatus; there is none. I have blogging buddies in several campaigns, and indeed a considerable number of friends who would prefer Gore, Obama, Bloomberg or even Giuliani. This is just my personal view, a year away from the national election.

Hillary Clinton is not a perfect candidate for President, nor is she the guardian of some imagined liberal purity. She's a hard-nosed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, and she compromises on a daily basis to maintain that status. The hard right accuses her of being a socialist who wants to create an all-powerful Federal hegemony over individual liberties. Many on the left accuse her being an extension of Cheney-Bush. In reality, she's a progressive Democrat with wide streak of political realism about what can and can't be accomplished within the realm of national policy - a viewpoint that was hard-earned on the national stage, I might add.

To all the doubting progressives out there, I'd ask: who's your favorite Democratic President? FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton? Which one was pure, didn't compromise ideals, didn't moderate his personal views? And of that group, who accomplished the most? I'd suggest it was the man who was the most cunning. Shrewd. Quick. Calculating. Opportunistic.

Briefly, to policy. It is my belief that President Hillary Clinton’s administration would mean the following:

• No Supreme Court justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito
• National health care
• A sane foreign policy built upon constant negotiation and real intelligence
• Competent management of the Federal government
• A best-possible-under-the-circumstances exit from Iraq
• No torture and the return of habeas corpus
• A stronger dollar, less deficit spending, and the end of the Bush tax cuts
• A greener national energy policy
• Federal funding for stem cell research

And that’s about it. Compare that list to where we are now. Who wouldn’t take it, nine from years from now? What more do you hope for? Again, think of what Presidents do, and who they are. They're not preachers or wizards or dreamers.

To recover from these eight horrific years, we must be realistic. To pull the United States from its international stagnation and quagmire, we must turn a cool and calculating – and progressive - eye to the world. We need a competent hand at the tiller. We need someone who not only believes in "big shoulders government" but can put that belief into action.

But first, we must win. And that's why this blogger supports Senator Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

UPDATE: Tons of reaction out there to this piece, almost all of it from Democrats. Starting with DailyKos, where linfar posted a diary consisting of a link here and asked for comments. There were plenty. First, a couple of the anti-Clintons:

Tom Watson does not "say it all".  It's a lot of twaddle motivated mostly by the fact that he was for Hillary early and now wants credit -- if not a decent federal job -- for his prescience. But notwithstanding the froth &f oam of the piece generally, he is right about one thing: Hillary Clinton is the most compelling personality on that stage.  She benefits from the right-wing caricature because now that people are actually seeing her as she is, she's a lot better than they said she'd be. People are pleasantly surprised.

***

Read the blog report and didn't find anything in it about HRC that impressed me one way or another over the other candidates.  Wow, she's not a republican and wouldn't support torture or whatever, but what's the big deal about that? And even more, it goes on to say that she's electable.  Wow, I could go for that if somehow our other candidates were not electable, but that's not the case.

***

Well-written article, Mr. Watson but, again, most of your support for Hillary boils down to horse-race issues, her "ability to win as a progressive Democrat." What makes her more electable than Edwards or Obama, or Dodd if he had the name recognition? You paint her less-than-progressive votes on Iraq and Iran as being the product of a "wide streak of political realism about what can and can't be accomplished" - how does supporting Bush in Iraq (until the polls turned against it) and on Iran qualify as realism? Basically, it seems that you support her because she's the front-runner and the establishment candidate. I guess it's human nature to do that. But after 6.5ish years of rally 'round the President with Bush, I can't think like that anymore.

But there were plenty of Clinton supporters on a site that generally skews anti-Clinton. Here's a couple of snippets:

That Watson guy is right on ... and anyone who thinks the Clinton agenda would be meaningless, or "not real change," is coming pretty close to the National Review caricature of progressives as well-heeled ingenues who think politics is a philosophers' game without real consequences.  Clinton would get the job done--a job worth doing, despite the millenarian views of the Obamistas (who don't see that their candidate is a conservative and compromiser by temperment) and the Edwardsians (who would rather fight the good fight and lose, than fight the OK fight and win).

***

My theory ... is that the Edwards supporters, God love 'em, skew a good bit younger than the norm here. That's the only explanation I can think of for their constant, vociferous and very literal comparisons of the Clintons to the Republicans. No one who came of age in the '90s or earlier would ever commingle the two.

Meanwhile, Matt Ortega - a blogger I really respect - rejects my arguments here in detail. Please read the whole post and give Matt your comments (he makes some excellent points) but here's the gist, I think:

Senator Clinton is certainly not “an extension of Cheney-Bush,” but she is unquestionably the quintessential Washington insider candidate in what is obviously a “change” election following the disastrous Bush reign. Senator Edwards sees this. Senator Obama sees this. She uses the phraseology about “change” in her campaign and messaging but insiders are less likely to push for the significant change that, in my estimation, is desperately needed in the post-George W. Bush era. It seems to me that many Hillary supporters connect her candidacy to President Bill Clinton’s presidency, but it is a false nostalgic return to the ’90s.

I also got some heated reaction over at HuffPo, where this is cross-posted. Thanks to Arianna, HuffPo is also anti-Clinton territory these days. Some samples:

Hillary's only progressive if you believe her rhetoric and ignore her record. Their idea of electability didn't work out so well in 2004, yet here we go again. You may think she can win without my vote, and you may be right. You better hope so, because she won't get it.

***

If Hillary is the nominee, you can say good-bye to people-powered politics, the 50 state strategy, and any role for the netroots, the grassroots, or outsiders of any kind in the Democratic Party. With Team Hillary in command, the party will revert to a strict pay-to-play business model favored by Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe.

***

You certainly learned a lot about Hillary in your 45-second "discussion." And we learned two things about you in your incredibly wordy post: 1) you like Hillary and, 2) you are very naive. Hillary stinks.

***

Some sheep just want to vote for a woman. Nothing else penetrates their thick skulls. I have seen this happen over and over with women candidates. Even the very stupidest and corrupt women get votes just for being a woman.

Yet despite Ms. Huffington's best anti-frontrunner efforts, there was some postive to go with the attacks:

You hit a lot on nails on the head. As a NH Blogger and activist my endorsement of Hillary always brings up the "is she progressive?" questioning. Here in NH all but the most vitriolic lefties are finally looking at her records.  I've also met her. She was generous with her time with me. Five minutes following a major policy speech. I had the same reaction that many who have met her privately in NH have. My goodness, she's nice. She's real.

***

A distinct plus for me, though, is her strength, poise, and mental quickness while "on stage". It's a rare quality, and unfortunately, if a candidate doesn't have it but the opponent does, the opponent often stands a better chance of getting elected. Even if he or she is...well...not exactly presidential material.

Have you ever ridden a bumpy-gaited,startle-prone, stumble-bum horse that you have to guide and prod every little step of the way, as opposed to a smooth-gaited, sure-footed and steady one that can automatically pick the best route? Hillary, for all her imperfections, seems more that second kind of horse.

And Ezra Klein weighed in, as well with a mixed reaction:

Tom Watson makes the case for Hillary Clinton. I don't disagree with much of what he's said. My problem is what he hasn't said. That Hillary Clinton, when she declares that Iran cannot be allowed to procure nukes and military force will be used if necessary, is lying. That and health care are my threshhold issues. Clinton has convinced me on health care. In some ways, I think she's the best of the set on the issue, and the most sophisticated in her political approach to it. But on foreign policy, her advisers, and many of her statements, scare me.

Comments

[JoeCHI]

The Politics of Identity Politics:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/4/115111/084#readmore

[Lonnie]

TAKE OFF THE BLINDERS!
I view Hillary as I view Bill - corrupt politicians (throw G.W.Bush in too)!
You need to study economics to see that you she cannot balance the budget when she will increase spending (health care / upcoming mortgage bail-out).
How can she manage the bureaucratic monster that is our Federal government when she has never managed anything larger than a very small organization?
Will she use the same foreign policy and intelligence that her husband used to stop Osama Bin Ladin and Al-Quaeda?
Hillary has a very strong chance of winning the election. You will see the real poor choice she is when her feet are in the fire.

[Linkmeister]

How quickly Lonnie forgets. GWB had never managed any large organization either. Don't talk to me of Texas; he was a figurehead governor there. The real power in Texas resides in the LG's office. He was the outside guy for the Texas Rangers; he was the sales guy for the (failed/bailed out) oil companies he "headed."

In Hillary's case, she's got an entire shadow group of people who'd be more than willing to come into government agencies, clean them up (by purging the political hacks -- see Nancy Nord at CPSC for the most recent example), and run them effectively.

As to foreign policy, she'd have to work awfully hard to be worse than the Current Occupant (h/t Garrison Keillor) and his neo-cronies.

[Jeff]

You might be interested in the Wounded Warriors Project. It's a nonprofit organization dedicated to raising awareness for U.S. troops severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this conflict. Here's a link:

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow

Thanks,
Jeff

[Bruce Bernstein]

The Watson Manifesto.

Some very peripheral points:

Tom says:

And for the first time ever, there are more single women than married women in the United States.

This jumped out at me, so I fact-checked it. It is a little misleading. The data includes:

1) all women over 14 years of age (15 and over).

2) widows

3) married, unseparated women with absent husbands (i.e. husbands in Iraq or otherwise deployed overseas).

The impression you give that there are more women of prime marriage age (30s, 40s, 50s) who are single than married is wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html

It IS true that the number of "single" households, women and men, continues to increase as a percentage of the population.

Tom says:

In New York, women have caught up to men in compensation.

This statement also seemed counter-intuitive. I couldn't verify it nor disprove it. Can you supply some form of documentation on this?

I suspect that if it IS true, there are some caveats and qualifications to the stat that you are not telling us.

[Tom W.]

Bruce - it's hardly a manifesto, more like a long-delayed public acknowledgement of where I've been for months. Just felt like the right time to stop hinting.

On your stat point, from NYT last month (I probably should have qualifed with "young women":

For the first time, women in their 20s who work full time in several American cities — New York, Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis — are earning higher wages than men in the same age range, according to a recent analysis of 2005 census data by Andrew Beveridge, a sociology professor at Queens College in New York.

For instance, the median income of women age 21 to 30 in New York who are employed full time was 17 percent higher than that of comparable men.

Professor Beveridge said the gap is largely driven by a gulf in education: 53 percent of women employed full time in their 20s were college graduates, compared with 38 percent of men. Women are also more likely to have graduate degrees. “They have more of everything,” Professor Beveridge said.

[Anna Bouchard]

I couldn't agree more with Tom Watson. An excellent commentary, especially putting John Edwards and Barack Obama into accurate perspective. Hillary is the strongest candidate we have.

[Captain-Sky]

I Wonder If Barack Obama Thinks That Bill Clintons Previous Presidency Is So Corrupt,Why Is He Employing At Every Corner Past Clinton Administration Personnel,Or Is It Just The Ones Who Chose Not To Support Mr Obama,I Agree With Mr Watson Aswell I Couldn't Have Posted It Better Myself,And By The Way The Anti-Clinton Haters Are Republicans Disguised As Democrats,That Enters These Post And Ask For Detail Commentary Reports Because If They Were Democrats They Wouldn't Be Attempting To Find Detailed Information About Positive Reports About Senator Clinton,Like Mr Berstein He's A Communist Synthisizer.But Mr Watson You Missed One Key Point About Mr Edwards,It Seems To Me He Sits And Waits For Senator Clinton To Speak,And Then Raises His Hand In The Air Like Some Elementary Kid Attempting To Tell Everybody That Will Listen That Senator Clinton Gave Two Different Answers,Or If You Want Some One Who's Honest You Should Vote For Me,If You Want Someone Whose Dishonest,Calculating,Polarizing,& Unelectable,Then You Should Vote For Senator Clinton He And Mr Obama Are Just Alike With The Honest Story's.Mr Obama Stated From The Beginning That He Were Going To Run A Positive Campaign,But When He Fell Behind In The Polls,He Went To Full Metal Jacket The First Of His (LIES)He Stated That He Were The Only One Who Did Not Vote For The Iraq War,No He Did Not But Then He Didn't Have A Vote Either,So Why Doesn't He States That In His Omissions Of The Truth,I Could Go On And On But I'am Sure Whoever Is In Disagreement With My Assertions,Can Find This Information Like Mr Berstein Found His.

[Tom K]

Tom:

I guess you know I don't agree with your ultimate point, but this was a well-written, well-reasoned and highly persuasive piece.

And I don't just say that so that everyone will note the contrast with your coverage of the recent debate and thereby reflect, again, how right I was and how wrong you were in that exchange. That is the furthest thing from my mind (though I suppose it is inevitable).

[faux facsimile]

You want to win. We get it. But what's the value of winning if you don't stand for anything?

There's a difference between an opportunist and a tough campaigner. For the former, winning is an end in and of itself. For the latter it is important, but it is not the end-goal.

If you want to see where a strategy based purely upon winning leads, you need look only at the present Democratic Congress and its appalling disregard for basic rights and liberties in this country. I mean, it sure is wonderful to have the 4th Amendment gutted by the folks we helped sweep in to office.

[Michael in ND]

Hello,
Wow; I agree 100%. Great post. Now, we need Hillary to pick Evan Bayn as her running mate. Unstoppable!!!
Thanks for your post. Go Hill !

[JerryD]

Tom,

Thank you for this excellent piece! President Hillary Clinton can achieve these items! You stated this very simply, yet eloquently. Outstanding! Let's make America great again!

Also to those who are mocking Hillary's (spending) on programs.... Not only does she come up with ways to fund any program she suggests....but do you realize how much money we will save that can be used for these types of programs by withdrawing from the incredible money pit we know as IRAQ!!!? Our present administration allowed trucks with $3 billion in cold cash to be delivered through-out Iraq. (This is insanity.)

No Supreme Court justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito
National health care
A sane foreign policy built upon constant negotiation and real intelligence
Competent management of the Federal government
A best-possible-under-the-circumstances exit from Iraq
No torture and the return of habeas corpus
A stronger dollar, less deficit spending, and the end of the Bush tax cuts
A greener national energy policy
Federal funding for stem cell research

[good writing skills]

Wow,great work,I agree i've been watching her to there is charm underneath,she is so concentrated on her run for the presidency,she thinks everyday on how to help this country,it's time people give her credit,so it limits her to show that charm its there,she has a heart of gold i see it. and when all is said and done she is the nominee ,we will see the real Hillary, A warm heart caring loving mother,her personal life with bill is not our bussiness.she's helping all ways to especially to the poor children,underpriveliged familys.not a soul can ever deny that.And for helping all of American's from top to bottom.She is one tough lady,and she deserves to be President,I dont care about her papers,do the other canidates have there papers, I dont want yesterdays news I want news for the future.I don't care what they say about her,the msm makes up so much crap its pathetic,This happens every 4years,I caught on to that noise long time ago and that is what it is, or they wouldn't have a job at 6 million figures to make noise and scandals,you can't believe them jokers,they try to make you believe what they believe.She has Strength,Vocabulary,Skills,and the most Understandable one to Run, Change this Country from a bad position to a Solid Stable America.I wish Hillary all the best.A proud Supporter

[JC]

I do not doubt she is charming, I do not believe she is as polarizing as they say, BUT the problem I have with these posts is their first principle--that the characteristics we should look for in a pol are shrewdness and calculation. For those in the trenches who have only known mud, a good mudslinger is the political equivalent of casey at the bat--a champ, a sure winner, a proven fighter. I grant that Clinton is all those and more, BUT the problem with this thinking is that this kind of politics is a cul-de-sac. While we are busy throwing mud at each other the world is crumbling around us at a breakneck pace. Clinton's plan is to fight our way through the thicket and beat the conservative quotient in this country into submission. It will leave both sides bloody and exhausted. We need an end run around all this. Mr. Watson there is something more important than winning. If win on the terms you are proposing we have already lost. What price would we pay? Ask yourself. It's okay if we torture a few people if we can get those 271 electoral votes. It's okay if we give the telecoms a pass on charging us to listening in on our most intimate conversations. It is okay to pay $250,000/yr to recruit soldiers away from the army so they don't have to take an oath to protect the constitution. A war in Iran is okay? It's okay if someone perishes on the hospital steps, so long as we get to that 271? One more election like that will undo us all. I respectfully, but fundamentally, disagree.

[Slappy]

"And I believe that efforts to attack and diminish Senator Clinton just before the primary season have the smell of panic and failure about them, and they provide ammunition to the right-wing machine to exploit next fall."

Very true. Very true.

I prefer a candidate who is really out to make a HUGE change. The Republicans accomplished what many would have thought impossible 30 years ago. When the Dems own everything in D.C. except the Supreme Court in 2008 they will have the opportunity of a lifetime. Who is more likely to take advantage of that? Not a compromiser. The Republicans didn't compromise anything. Time to bury the GOP deep and piss on their grave. I hope Clinton has retained all that rage she must've felt when her husband was Prez. I hope.

The shit-eating grin on my face will be so wide and glorious as I watch all the conservatives go ape shit. No candidate will cause them more grief. More pain. Cause more nightmares. That alone makes me more than happy to vote for her.

And yes, I am bitter.

[Tom W.]

Bravo - Slappy's back! (And yes, he does identify a nice, little dividend to a Clinton election).

And thanks for the near-compliment TK.

[Canaan]

A refreshing, rational and cogent case for Senator Clinton I would add that so many on the left still don't get this Giuliani guy. They don't recognize the danger he represents. They go on and on how he's a moderate Republican, pro-abortion. Rudy would provoke terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and then react to them in a way that will make us look back whistfully on Rudy Lite (Bush-Cheney). Rudy represents an historical watershed -- a great leap forward into unholy darkness.

The same Clinton attributes you cite that make her electable -- cunning, shrewd, tough, ruthless and quick -- are attributes we need in our national security 'decider'. Right now, our President is outsmarted by our adversaries. That has to stop before America turns into a dumb, blind, wounded bull that has to be put down by the rest of the world. Is Clinton a hawk? Her eyes are as sharp as a hawk's. Better a hawk than a dumb, raging bull.

[John]

Hillary is such an ambiguous president candidate. First she votes against ethanol then she changes her mind and decides to support it in her energy plan. In the last debate, she contradicted herself in different subjects, which is obvious in this video that compares her many contradictions at the same day: http://www.weshow.com/us/p/22225/the_politics_of_parsing_by_hillary_clinton
You guys that have watched the debate or this video that shows just some of her obvious contradictions should agree with me that we just can't vote for a so clearly pathetic candidate.

[Ralph]

Why should I support her? She does not represent many of my views. She cannot even bring herself to admit that invading Iraq was a bit mistake. Sure, she'll admit that it was poorly managed, but why is she is afraid to state the obvious? She panders to the conservative independent voters by approving the resolution to classify the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization -- but they will never vote for her anyway. Edwards is the most electable. First, he's a white man, second, he's from the south, third, he's got much lower negatives than Hillary. I hope I am wrong, but we just may lose the White House if Hillary or Obama are nominated. And she is NOT a progressive. She's a conservative Democrat! Just because she claims she wants universal health care, that does not mean it will mirror those in Canada or Europe.

[Esoth]

TW, as a Yellow Dog Democrat, I'm seriously unmoved by the whining from the way-left, from the very people who are trying to submarine Obama from his own flanks, whenever he deals with them sharply. You have all this concern about how Obama will present in the fall, but what of those more satisfyingly liberal candidates, who caterwaul in response to criticism? If they whine and kvetch when Obama fights back, will they melt into a puddle of tears when faced with the full barrage from the right in the general election? And how smart would Obama be, if he abstained from responding in a way known to work, out of an excess of concern over hurt feelings, and instead tailored his comments to the liking of those attacking him?

The Bush debacle is not the vindication of liberal politics. If anything, Bush’s miserable performance is confirmation of his qualities that were always in plain sight. So the fact that Bush has been so deplorable, yet so electorally successful, is a constant reminder that the general voting public holds liberals in extreme low regard. I have no necessary aversion to bipartisanship. I remember WJC’s approval ratings at the turn of the century – he had a way of driving liberals crazy, too, which is something forgotten because of the right’s Clinton mania, and because of his wife's superior commitment to being craven before liberal interests.

As a practical matter, what do you suggest as the way to dampen down Obama’s natural debating brilliance? Perhaps he can adopt a patently false, cringe-inducing, basso/ rumbling chuckle, preferably to be used to drown out his opponents’ voices.

[Tim Davenport]

>>Briefly, to policy. It is my belief that President Hillary Clinton’s administration would mean the following:

That is not an option.

Here is the question: (a) tsunami of new voters, long coattails, landslide for the Democrats behind Obama; or (b) implosion and Dukakis-II behind Hillary Clinton, after a series of her dirty tricks and six months of Rovian filth campaigning?

A civil libertarian supreme court hangs on you Clintonites answering the question correctly.

This race is OVER!!!

Now let's get the party united.

t

[Michelle]

Hi Tom, I came over from your comment link @ thefield.

My girlfriend and I, who are both strongly pro-Obama, were just having a conversation trying to put words to reasons why people might be supporting Senator Clinton. This part of what you wrote really resonates with our convrsation: She is also cunning. Shrewd. Quick. Calculating. Opportunistic. All strengths, you see.

I'm a feminist from decades back, and I don't see that the immediate segue into gender is all that useful -- or at least it skips over what I feel is the deep nugget of insight in that sentence.

One of the questions before us now is: What is a strength? I myself don't feel that cunning, calculating and opportunistic are strengths in actual human beings. To me those attributes are weaknesses that are currently rewarded by a sick society.

You also wrote: In reality, she's a progressive Democrat with wide streak of political realism about what can and can't be accomplished within the realm of national policy

This political realism argument falsely naturalizes the status quo in a way that makes it extremely difficult to articulate anything that is actually occurring outside of the landscape it illuminates. In practice, this stance functions as self-referential and limiting.

Senator Clinton's campaign is an excellent example of how this works. She is actively promoting and defending what she defines as normal and inevitable, while trying very hard to crush anything that falls outside of that definition.

IMO, this political realism stance is a self-perpetuating feedback loop. We act this way because it's how things are and things are the way they are because we act this way. No one who does this seems to take responsibility for that second part, though. Instead, its active proponents present the situation as if it exists without any sort of human agency, as if they have no other choice.

I think we are seeing the existence of another choice in Senator Obama. The existence and actions of his campaign disrupts the false normalization of the status quo. This makes it harder for proponents of "this is the way it is" (like Senator Clinton) to perpetuate that situation without being questioned for what they do and how they do it.

I really appreciated reading your essay and am glad you linked it. I'm trying very hard to understand the dynamics around these campaigns; thank you for the opportunity to try to put this piece into words. I'm going to keep thinking about all of it...

PS I don't have a favorite Democratic (or Republican) president. That's the thing. To me, gender is not really the issue you are making of it. To me the issue is what kinds of traits this society rewards in its leaders. And the issue is whether those leaders will step up and take responsibility for the way their actions and choices perpetuate a status quo that is not (for some of us, at least) normal or inevitable.