Voting Clinton

Kurt Andersen writes this today, explaining in part why he's pulling the lever for Barack Obama and why those on the fence should consider doing so: "...every white vote that Hillary Clinton gets will be counted as a race-based anti-black vote."

Oh really? Well then, Kurt - go ahead and rack it up.

Because on Tuesday morning I'm voting for Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, easily the most-qualified Democratic candidate for President of the United States and a woman entirely worthy of breaking - as she puts it - the highest glass ceiling in the land.

For the erudite and urbane Kurt Andersen, who I've worked with in the past, to suggest that voting for Senator Clinton is somehow akin to buying into some media-based narrative of racism is preposterous and offensive. But I understand feelings are running high. I think Jason makes a far more reasoned case for Senator Obama, who I personally think should be number two on a Clinton-topped ticket next fall.

Senator Clinton has the experience, the domestic policy chops, and frankly, the moxie to take on the Republicans in November. I laid my case out in this post late last year, and nothing has moved me off of it - even as the race has tightened to a toss-up with John Edwards' departure.

But Andersen suggests I need to consider changing my vote - as if the vicious sexism of the national media, and the silence of the Obama campaign on that blatant misogyny hadn't solidified it. Says Kurt: "Clinton voters need to understand that if their candidate wins, they will be part of a depressing morning-after metric rather than a hopeful one."

Hey Kurt, if Clinton wins, the morning-after metric won't be depressing, baby. Not for millisecond.

UPDATE: Al Giordano sounds like it's patently offensive to even consider "the ridiculous notion" that Barack Obama would ever serve as "guttersnipe" Hillary Clinton's running mate. Michelle Obama refuses to say she'd support Clinton if her husband was defeated, positing that he "is the only person" who can move the country in a different direction. Senator Obama himself says that while he'd hold onto Clinton voters, he doubts the New York Senator would hold on to his. Kevin Drum accuses mild-mannered Times economist Paul Krugman of running a "jihad" against Obama, just because the columnist believes the Senator's health care plan is weak. And even Nick Kristof, whose work I admire deeply, suggests it'd be somehow "Pakistani" to elect another Clinton, making the  same dynastic argument that many find to be deeply sexist. What's in the water?

Comments

[Mike P]

Well, speaking only for myself, I have to agree with your friend's pro-Obama post in that you definitely seem to belittle Obama supporters for wanting to believe in his campaign. Clinton isn't my first choice, but I do think she would be a good president. The flip side, though, is people calling Obama supporters "kool aid drinkers", we're accused of naivety and worse, that we're somehow ignorant (and that Obama himself is ignorant) about the right wing smear machine, etc. Support your candidate all you want, but aren't we all supposed to be Democrats in the end? I might be wrong, but from reading this blog, I get the feeling you'd almost sit the race out before voting for Obama (is you wanting him as number 2 a little "wait for your turn, young pup?")

I could be wrong and would be happy if I am, though, on that last point.

[kathy]

unbelievable---your 'friends' comments are almost racist. I, a like time Dem and poly Sci major, have watched this election intensely. The media bias against 'anything Clinton' has neverd been so bad (exception: impeachment)--I have been stunned by the comments that have been called racist and the comments that have been taken out of context and twisted to fit the story. I and my friends have written numerous e-mails to CNN and MSNBC-to no avail. I am left with the thought that either the MSM is one or more of the following: (1) not nearly as bright as we might think (2) carrying out a corporate agenda to slant the election in their own interests and/or (3) easily swayed by a herd mentality-rather like 'get on the bandwagon' brainwashing technique. No matter which, all favor Hillary for me because it tells me that her nomination scares corp. interests.

[Tom W.]

Hey Mike, I didn't use that phrase - that was Chervokas summing up. I do think many Obamaniacs (not all) are a bit on the messianic side, whereas I don't believe in American political movements residing in the chief executive - simply because they never have, at least since Andrew Jackson.

[tek]

I noticed that this morning for the first time ever, the campaign news has a picture of Hillary and the caption says she's "the candidate on everyone's mind." They actually have two pictures of her! She must be doing well.

[stellaa]

Ahhhh, I will scream. Has everyone lost all reasoning. An internet and MSM fueled viral candidacy has taken over everyone's heads. Is he saying he is so afraid to be lumped as a racist by a racist media that he would vote for Obama?

I need to share this from my daughter, she is 23 who has been vilified by her friends for not choosing Obama. Mind you this is a girl that is a community organizer so she picked up all the BS from Mr. Obama:

I think to capitalize on people's dreams and wishes, when you are just your average appeasing, compromising, not particularly progressive, politician is almost cruel. I know dad finds it exciting, but I find it deceitful because I know he will not turn out to be what they want him to be. Obama's fall from the pedestal will be a hard one to watch because of what he has come to symbolize. But Hilary is not an ideal, she is not a concept, she is a human being with thousands of visible and televised scars, and therefore I think we better know what to expect from her, we can prepare ourselves for her inevitable humanity.

We had two elections in the last century fueled by youthful fire : Kennedy and McGovern. I remember working into the night, we believed, but we lost, and lost bad, cause we turned our backs to the established party.
McGovern though, was not an idol, he had substance as he has proven. Kennedy the charisma king, no experience, remember: Bay of Pigs. If you want historical parallels use the whole history, not just the bits you choose.

I refuse to idolize anyone. I refuse to be transcended and transformed by a campaign designed by Mr. Axelrod, who wanted a story rather than issues. I refuse to capitulate at a time when the nation was primed for real Democratic policy shift to get the watered down corporatist feel good while they screw us version.

I will get my inspiration from poetry, philosophy and literature. I don't need religion. I need a president.

If I hear one more right wing aristocrat tell me (Shriver, Kennedy and McCulskey, Eisenhower, to name a few) that their children inspired them to vote for Obama I will barf.

Well my daughter inspired me to vote for Hillary. She identified with Hillary's voice .

I refuse to vote based on a number of bloggers and pundits telling me via polls who is likely to win. This is not fantasy football, this is my vote.

I refuse to vote for the one the old white male club wants to anoint with the torch of leadership. By the way, Mr. Mathews, Latinos have their own leadership, they are not waiting for the Kennedy's to tell them what to do.

I refuse to vote for a campaign that twisted Bill Clinton's remarks beyond recognition.

I refuse to vote for people who demonize a public servant and canonize and an appeaser.

I refuse to vote for people calling the Clintons triangulaters and Obama a unifier.

I refuse to vote for an alleged force that will melt the Republican opposition into adopting our goals.

And to Oprah, lady last year you were pushing The Secret, this year you tell me to vote for Obama cause he is brilliant, well, I don't think so. When the affordable housing failed in Chicago, his answer was that it failed because of the neighborhood demographics, aka African American poor people, not his donor Rezko. I guess the media missed his empathy and compassion. I guess his brilliance nudged out those virtues.

[Slappy]

Oh give me a break already. This petty bullshit over Obama and Clinton is getting old and its not helping anyone but the GOP. We all have issues with every candidate. Liking Obama doesnt make you sexist or a stooge for the old white male club. Liking Clinton doesnt make you racist. But calling all these names and using these petty arguments does make you an unwilling supporter of the GOP. Quit it.

One reason I was an Edwards guy was because I realize this country is still not over race and sex to a degree that it wont make a difference in a national election. The fact that Obama and CLinton are where they are is a sign we are getting there but this infighting shows we are not there yet. And this is amongst the people who will vote for one or the other whether they like it or not because the alternative is far worse. This infighting isnt over issues, its over interpretations of quoted statements of underlings of the candidates. Again, give me a break.

You may not like Oprah. Her opinion is meaningless to me but to think it is worthless or that any candidate would turn her away is foolish. It is certainly a positive for Obama and is to be considered when pondering who is more electable. Who is more electable is a far more constructive argument.

[Tom K]

*I don't believe in American political movements residing in the chief executive - simply because they never have, at least since Andrew Jackson.*

Nothing to do with current politics (to my mind), but I don't know where you get this. Both Roosevelts embodied singificant political movements, as did Reagan. Are we supposed to believe WJC was reelected in '96 because of the popularity of the D party that had just lost the House? (OK, maybe that was more a cult of personality than a political movement; I was trying to find a modern D to balance Reagan -- if it doesn't work, what can I say?)

[Jude]

I agree, Tom, that the (intimidating) suggestion that a respected Democratic peer casting a vote for Senator Clinton could, in any intellectually honest way, be later filed under a blanket-rationale of buying into the media-manufactured race-card narrative is terribly offensive.

[Bluegrass Poet]

I don't trust charisma.

I am very concerned about the level of vitriol against Clinton.

And I do think that the current narrative is that any opposition to Obama is racist.

Kevin Drum now says that Obama's Harry & Louis ad is just hardball politics while Clinton is playing dirty tricks. How does that happen?

I am disenfranchised in all of this. My state doesn't hold it's primary until May. I wish we had one national primary day instead of two years of presidential election.

Which brings me to the fact that Obama got elected to the Senate and then immediately began to position himself to run. When did he ever lead on anything?

[Tom K]

Of course you could vote for Clinton without any racial considerations, just as you could vote for Obama without them. Or for Clinton without sex-based considerations. You might just honestly be a statist war-monger, in the first instance, or a statist peace-monger, in the second. Most supporters of both are probably exactly that.

But that don't mean that HRC hasn't got a whole lotta making up to do, if she expects vigorous support from the black community. 'Cause like it or not, fair or not, she does. (And, by the way, it mostly is).

[Tom W.]

TK - you really don't have much understanding of these two candidates and the Democratic race, statist peace-monger indeed! Hee-hee. And by the way, it mostly isn't - nor is Obama's making up with Democratic women all that fair, but he has to do it or many will sit on the sidelines (you can read their many comments on this blog - there's real anger there, and I respect it).

Slappy, I think you're off-base on the electability thing - and you undercut it with the Oprah mention. There won't be peace till the battle's over.

[Tom K]

Thanks for noting my lack of understanding -- as I'm not a D, I am sure there is much that I miss. But it would have been more helpful if you identified a little more clearly what you believe supports your conclusion.

Certainly, both candidates are statists, by any sane definition. They wouldn't fit in today's D party if they weren't. (Nor, for that matter, in the R party, as the party treatement of Rep. Paul shows.)

Are you saying Obama is not a peace-monger? Do you object only the (facetious) term, or do you deny he is running on a more dovish platform than the other major candidates? Cause if he's not a peace-monger, but so far he seems to play one on TV (except when called upon to show he's tough, when he's likely to say something dopey even by hawk standards). Basically, he's unformed on foreign policy, but certainly a dove compared to HRC.

I have no doubt there are women angry at Obama. But since he's not going to get the nomination, that doesn't matter. Hillary's the one who'll have to mend fences, if possible. And while I think the whole brew-ha-ha is wildly overstated, for the most part I see the Obama people's point more clearly than that of the Clintons, by a good measure.

[Tom W.]

Uh Tom, he's voted to continue funding the war EXACTLY the same number of times Clinton has. Indeed, in the Senate their records are identical. He is running on a platform that is, in fact, not more dovish than Clinton. You should read up on it.

[quixote]

What's in the water?

I've been wondering the same thing myself. Where did this "The King Can Do No Wrong" mood come from?

Obama's not bad. He's better than any Republican. But he's not a progressive, by any stretch. In fact, not in speech, he rushes to the right every chance he gets. (Health care, coal gasification, reserving impeachment for "serious crimes," how we should all give more respect to religion, and on and on and on.) But somehow, the reaction is "Oh, he doesn't really mean it."

Huh?

Seriously. What is in the water?

[Redstar]

I think my fellow blogger NYC Weboy really shines in endorsing Hillary Clinton and deconstructing some of the mystique of Obama over at his site:

http://nycweboy.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/the-hillary-cli.html

(I go on and on in favor of Clinton too at my site, but I'm particularly proud of Weboy's most recent post. Hence the blogwhoring in his honor)

[Tom K]

*Uh Tom, he's voted to continue funding the war EXACTLY the same number of times Clinton has. Indeed, in the Senate their records are identical. He is running on a platform that is, in fact, not more dovish than Clinton. You should read up on it.*

I think I need to get the publications from HRC press, becuase out in "the world" the facts are not as you say (or, more precisely, the reality is not as your partisan marshalling of "facts" would have it).

To my mind, voting to fund a war in progress is an entirely different subject than voting to get into one. We don't know how Obama's foreign policy would play out, but we do know to a high degree of probability with HRC, based on her record (a conclusion that is reinforced by the WJC record that she is intermittently running on.)

She favored Iraq, he opposed it; she favored the bellicose Iran initiative; he opposed it. Two for two. Over and out. Whatever horsespit you choose to sling about it.

[Tom W.]

Actually TK, you might further check the record - Obama didn't oppose Kyl-Lieberman. He didn't even show up.

[Tom K]

*Actually TK, you might further check the record - Obama didn't oppose Kyl-Lieberman. He didn't even show up.*

How Clintonian of you! He said it was a bad idea (issuing a press release confirming his opposition 9 hrs. after the vote apparently), and he DIDN'T vote for it. Clearly, that is not enough to distinguish him from someone who DID vote for it.

Get back to me when you're got something that passes the laugh test. And remember, when all this is over you might have to look at yourself in the mirror from time to time, if only shave.

[Tom W.]

TK- your response is a joke, but it's not a funny one. Sure, I don't agree with Clinton's Kyl-Lieberman vote, but it's her call as U.S. Senator. Obama has a long pattern of not showing up, not voting. You used his non-vote (and much-later statement when he saw how the wind blew) as evidence of his "peace-monger" status. Just check the record. And stop with the mirror shit, really, it's offensive - I know exactly who and what I'm voting - and arguing - for.

[Tom K]

Tom:

You continue the behavior, and demand that the criticism cease, in the same post. Amazing! You get right with truth, and I'll lay off the criticism.

I have no interest in Obama being president. But I am offended when you say he opposed Kyl-Lieberman "much later statement when he saw how the wind blew" when his non-vote the same force as a vote against, and he issued a statement on the subject within half-a-day of his vote. Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong, but he was clearly different that HRC, who voted for Kyl-Lieberman, and the difference clearly consists of being less bellicose.

You wanna strech yourself into a pretzel arguing that wet is dry, I'm gonna call you on it. Even though I have no interest in the outcome of this race, and even though (okay, "especially if") it ticks you off.

Because it should tick you off, given your own beliefs --and "who you are" -- to be forced to face what you already know: that for some time you have not been engaged in seeking the truth, but rather in getting HRC elected. And while you have the ability to advocate for her honestly, you've chosen to do it in the more traditional manner of playing games with language ("much-later statement") or putting the truth in service of a lie ("Obama didn't vote against Kyl-Lieberman".)

That you are proficient at it makes it worse -- you could use your considerable gifts for the "force of good", as the old saying goes, by advocating for HRC or any other candidate of your choice in a way that sets a standard of thoughfulness and excellence.

[Redstar]

Tom, I just linked to your endorsement over at Ezra Klein. He's compiling a list of Clinton endorsements.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=for_hillary&6

(My comment is in moderation over there, for some reason)

[A NON]

What about the dynastic argument is sexist? That's silly. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Dynastic. See how I did that without mentioning the gender of any of them? I'm happy to vote for Clinton or Obama. But most of the arguments here are silly. And some - Tek, for instance - go far beyond melodramatic. Personally, I favor Obama. Hillary triangulates - it's a fact. Obama uses inclusive talk, but doesn't give as much ground on principles, and I see more evidence that outside of the limelight he quietly scraps for what he believes in. One thing I like about both candidates is that I feel comfortable supporting them without considering race or gender. Consequently I have no patience to appeals to their race or gender.

[Horatio]

Came to this blog by way of Wolcott's at VF.

An oasis of sanity after sitting through that garbage on MSNBC tonight.

Reporting on the MA victory for Clinton, Olbermann proclaimed, "Clinton avoided losing MA."

I'm glad to see Clinton turning back the Oprah-ization of the Democratic primary and whoever said they would puke if another Kennedy came from an equestrian event to announce her "kids inspired me to vote for Obama," I'm hearing yeh.

[kberly7568]

As a student at a university in DC, I have noticited overwhelming support for Obama and his campaign among the students here. I think that both candidates are great and that Obama has done an amazing job of mobilizing the youth that are taking an interest in politics for the first time. Personally, I'm voting for Hillary because I believe that she has the policies and the record to back up her statements, and she has the best chance of winning in the general election. check out this video of her, it's pretty cool.

http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?candidate=1