Vitriol
Kevin Drum is perplexed:
I'm reminded of the old saying that the smaller the stakes, the more vicious the battle. Obama and Clinton are obviously different in some important ways, but overall there just aren't any huge gaps between them, either in ideology or governing theory. They're both great candidates (as was John Edwards), and I confess that I have a hard time understanding the level of vitriol that the race has produced among supporters on both sides. I sure hope that all the doom and gloom talk is just talk, because anybody who's seriously thinking about sitting out this election if their guy doesn't win is being an idiot.
Interestingly, I know at least two Hillary supporters who say--of all things--that they'll vote for John McCain if Obama wins the nomination. But this curiosity is, I think, just that.
For my part, I don't particularly enjoy the vitriol, but I certainly can understand at least some of it. On the one hand, Hillary Clinton supporters:
- Are justifiably upset by sexism in the media, and perhaps unjustifiably take it out on their candidate's current rival.
- Consist in part of a large population of Clinton-generation women who want to see a woman elected in their lifetimes. Obama represents a great threat to that long-term goal.
- Are probably fairly susceptible to Clinton campaign spin about Barack Obama, a lot of which has been fairly cynical.
Obama supporters, on the other hand:
- Believe their candidate represents a distinct break with the past 20 years' governance and that the possibility of a Clinton presidency represents perhaps four, probably eight more years of frustration.
- Do not remember the Clinton era as a particularly progressive one, and the Clinton campaign's race-baiting reinforces that perception.
- Are suspicious of dynasty.
- Consist in part of a large population of newly-engaged, younger voters who think it's about time for the baton to be passed. Clinton represents a great threat to that hope.
So, yes. It's been an emotional primary season. But I'm with Kevin--I think it would be nuts for anybody to sit out the election if their candidate isn't ultimately the nominee. But I also think the time between the convention and the general election will heal a lot of these wounds.
Comments
I have to admit, I'm one one those irrational voters who probably would sit out or, worse, consider pulling the lever, for John McCain over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election. No, I didn't put "irrational" in quotations marks above - I concede I'm being stupid. But I just cannot, in good conscious, pull the lever for Mrs. Clinton. Here are, if I may, my reasons:
1) She represents the worst impulses of the DLC mindset - centrism for centrism sake. There are certain issues which I understand that one must "move towards the center" in order to win general elections. I am a credentialed political scientist for crissake. I'm quite familiar with the median voter theorem. But there are tons of issues that do not require that type of capitulation (bankruptcy reform for example). She always eschews the liberal/progressive/moral high ground on these issues.
2) Her and her husband are incredibly secretive. I can understand this (given their track-record), but it plays into the worst impulses of the Bush administration. Remember, Cheney's energy commission used the secrecy of Hillary's healthcare commision for cover.
3) Speaking of which - she was a spectacular failure at health-care reform. Republicans know this. You don't think they can win this battle again?
4) Hillary Clinton has never displayed any indication that she would roll back executive power. In fact, she has suggested (ambiguously), that it COULD expand.
5) Believe it or not, a Democratic Congress is MUCH more likely to oppose a McCain intervention into Iran then a Clinton intervention. This scares the be-jesus out of me. I actually thinks its likely that Clinton will invade Iran, if only to prove her hawkish "protect America at all costs" bona fides.
6) I honestly do not believe there is a bone in her body that believes in anything except her own personal ambition. Where is the Clinton legislation? Where are the unpopular political stances? Can her supporters name ONE? Of course they can't - they don't exist.
7) I do, actually, have a major problem with dynasties - I am, cough, cough, a democratic (little d) citizen after all. We're not supposed to do dynasties.
8) She will never apologize for her Iraq war vote - I was a big-time hawkish proponent of the Iraq War and I apologize ALL THE EFFIN TIME! Her arrogance on this issue reeks of Bush-ism.
9) Her campaign against a fellow Democrat (a remarkable candidate BTW) reaches out to the WORST impulses in our electorate.
10) Her sense of entitlement and arrogance rankles me, as well as her phoniness - yeah, this is not an "objective" character evaluation but I would be lying if it wasn't a factor. Whether we like it or not, people vote for presidential candidates (more than ANY other elected office) on character. In my defense, I believe character does speak to aspects of JUDGMENT, which I think are crucial.
For all these reasons, I simply cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. I actually believe she would DESTROY the Democratic brand. It's a pathetic reality of politics that horrible Republican representatives (presidential/congressional) never seem to represent their PARTY while Democratic ones do. We are still reeling from Jimmy Carter administration and he was actually pretty decent. COnversely, very few independent voters in this country attribute the Bush failures to Republican (big R) governance. The Democrats are not afforded this luxury (this is largely a result of Republican branding superiority and media cowardice - but that's simply the reality of the situation, not something that can be overturned in the short term).
Here is the ONLY reason I WOULD vote for Clinton - judicial appointments. These are important and I believe Clinton would appoint the appropriate candidates for these positions.
End of rant. Brian - thoughts?
Post A Comment