To all of you Obamans out there!
I was inspired and reminded by a good friend of mine that is time for us to write to super-delegates--this eclectic, shady, and indecisive group of Democratic Party veterans who seem to hold the result of this nomination fight in their hands--and urge them to support Barack Obama. Besides writing about the inspiration that his candidacy and his personal background inject into the everyday American life and the image of the US abroad, we should all emphasize one important aspect of Hillary Clinton that all super-delegates who support her now, should consider: Hillary's consistent and blatant disloyalty to the Democratic Party and her disregard for the interests of the Party. Let me provide just a few most explicit examples:
1) In emphasizing Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs and her own supposed experience, Hillary Clinton consistently asserts that both she and Senator McCain are qualified to be commander-in-chief on day one. By this logic, if the election was held today, and the voters should choose between McCain and Obama, they should vote for McCain. This is a blatant and rude violation of party ethics since it disregards the possibility that Obama indeed might be the candidate when the Republican attack machine will have a field day with a clip of Clinton saying that voters should prefer McCain over Obama. As NYTimes op-ed columnist Bob Herbert said in his column today: "This is a low thing for a Democratic Presidential candidate to do to a rival in a party primary. Can you imagine Jon McCain saying that Rudy Gulliani or Mitt Romney or even the guitar-strumming Mike Huckabee might be less qualified than Hillary Clinton to be commander-in-chief. It couldn't happen."
2) What especially made my blood boil was Hillary's cynical recycling of the right-wing rumors that Obama might be Muslim. When she was asked by 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft if she believed Obama was a Muslim, she replied: Not, as far as I know. She knows extremely well that Obama is not a Muslim and that these are bigoted lies churned out by the right-wing attack machine and as such are an insult to millions of Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world. However, knowing very well that these kinds of attacks work with the average American voter, she cynically exploited the rumor and wanted to get as much mileage out of it as possible. Again, completely disregarding the possibility that he might be the Democratic nominee.
3) Despite the Democratic Party ban on candidates campaigning in Florida and Michigan in the run-up to the states' primaries--due to the states' violation of Party rules--she campaigned from afar by promising that she would fight tooth and nail to seat their delegates at the Party convention in August no matter what the Democratic Party rules say. And now, she is trying to get those delegates seated based on the results of the primary which was never recognized by the Party (to remind everyone: Obama was NOT on the Michigan ballot and she prides herself of having won that state!). Once again, in her obsession to win, Hillary Clinton put her own interests ahead of the Democratic Party.
These are the three examples that come to my mind, but I am sure you can easily find more. Since the super-delegates have to vote with the interests of the Party in mind, we need to remind them that Hillary has consistently tarnished the Party's image and diminished its chances of winning back the White House in November.
So to all of you Obamans out there, write to the super-delegates, or even call them. To help you, here is a link to a form that you can fill out and submit to Obama campaign and then it will be forwarded to super-delegates:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/superdelstory
Considering these kinds of tactics, it is really hard for me to imagine a joint Obama-Hillary (or the other way around) ticket.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You see why I am not voting for her if she wins the nomination? In your previous post you mentioned health care (I think Hillary's record on this is enough to sink her right of the bat) and the war as an improvement over McCain. I don't like McCain's support of the surge but between her and Hill, there isn't enough substantial difference on the war, and getting troops out of Iraq to warrant a vote for her. Not only did she support the war, when she is questioned about this support she reverts to double speak. I won't vote for McCain either, because he is much more conservative than people are led to believe, though ideologically so, if that makes sense.
While I agree with you that her tactics haven't been above board, calling her a traitor to the party is sensational. And I think that your post...as well as the response by pug...shows exactly the major rift that is in the party...and why neither candidate is going to rally the support of the other's base, unfortunately.
Ryan, it is not sensational, but purely rational. If you look at the examples I provided--and you can find many many more--it really shows that she is more concerned with winning than with the progressive cause, something that makes me mad about Bill as well. Also, let's be real: Obama has been leading a fairly above the belt campaign and he needs to be credited for that.
Finally, the rift is normal since it is a primary, but if she keeps this up she might start losing the voters.
Having said that though, I will still vote for her. Her plans are almost identical to Obama's and there is indeed the gender ceiling that she would break and it would be good for the image of the US abroad. Also what makes me mad as hell are these really conservative white old men who will vote against her just because she is a woman. And the Right reviles her just because she is a woman. I mean she may come off as steely, but she is a politician, and the only reason she inspires such passionate hatred from the Limbaugh-wanna bees is because of her gender. And that in itself will inspire me to vote for her.
Lets not push the gender card to far - its a bit reductionist to say "the only reason they hate is because of her gender." There are very, very, very good reasons to dislike the Clintons (and again, its important to use the plural here) that have little to do with right-left political alignment. Are there people like you desribed? Sure. But to reduce her opposition to mere sexism is a little bit of rhetorical gesture - its a method of stopping the discussion in its tracks because you have accused the other of an "ism." Also its an expression of how you think about the Right more than it is an idictement of their positions. In other words we want to believe they are bunch of racists, sexists, homophobes, so we mediate their dislike of Hillary through this lense. Harold Blooms old critique of criticism may apply here - "it says more about you than it does about the text."
Sorry, but as Luther said, my conscious has made it impossible for me to act in any other way. I won't vote for her.
I agree that the gender card is played a little off-handedly. To elect this woman with the hopes of sticking it to some fat fucker watching fox would be just as sexist as not electing her because she's 'hysterical'.
Any woman in power will certainly tussle the skirts of insecure conservatives (sexist pun intended) and just because she's female doesn't give her an automatic "in" with regard to our image internationally. Should these be the motivational factors behind electing anyone to public office- pissing off the opposition and assuming that a change in gender will improve a national image?
Maybe those motivators are good enough for some people- goodness knows that I've voted for the good enough candidate my whole life, but I'm weary of standing behind the Democratic Party just because they're democratic. Clinton's actions (and inactions) are not good enough for me to begin with, and she does not deserve my support simply because we fall under the same broad political definition. I think Fedja might feel otherwise- at least in the sense that we, and our representatives (i.e. Clinton), ought to stick behind our party- which is why he thinks Clinton is being disloyal to the democratic project of booting republicans out of office. He lists good examples, and, under the argument that party loyalty is foremost in our civil responsibility, it seems that she hasn't thought through all statements/actions. She's motivated by winning the candidacy by any means, not by running a principled campaign that can win over non-supporters, such as myself, should she win.
If Clinton is a traitor then so am I- if she gets the nomination the best I can do to support her is to show her my ass when she drives by in her motorcade this August. Sensationalist? You betcha!
I don't think it's unfortunate that support bases won't shift dramatically either way, suggesting so reveals an expectation to coalesce under some shitty umbrella of Democratic dissatisfaction. I think this expectation is evident in the way Clinton strategizes, but absent from Obama's campaign- but that might just be my celestial choir singing.
I almost want Hillary now to be the nominee so that can Ashley pull her stunt in front of her motorcade. That was superb.
Anyway, I did not mean to suggest that I would vote for her JUST because she is a woman even though I did say "that in itself" meaning her gender. If Margaret Thatcher was running for the White House, I would vomit and then run away from the poll booth as fast as I could. But I do believe that she has a good healthcare proposal, and that she would have a sound foreign policy. Also, I do think that the notion of a woman as president will impact the image of the US abroad in numerous ways. Just talking to people in Bosnia I have realized how cynical everyone has become about any real change happening in the US: 'oh there is no way a black man or a woman can be president in that country." That attitude pretty much sums up the way most people view the US: static, laden with rich white imperialistic interests. But having a Democrat woman at the head will change perceptions and politics if more often than not about perception. And Obama's victory would be revolutionary in terms of changing the US image, and this has been one of the top issues for me this election season considering I am stranded between Europe and US, my two homelands.
Anyway, I also did not mean to imply that we as individuals should blindly follow the party. But pointing to Hillary as being disloyal (I never used the word traitor) to the party would, in my mind, make a great argument to superdelegates who vote with party interests in their mind. So, my accusation was strategic more than anything else.
Call me a cynic, I think a Clinto presidency would do very little to aleviate that aforementioned image of America as "laden with rich, imperialistic interests." Obama yes, Clinton no. If Hillary could be somehow separated with the legacy of Bill, then that would be applicable, but if wishes were cows, we'd all be eating steak.
Should I move to German Village or The Short North in Colombus?
I think it is a good argument to outline Clinton's personal interests in contrast to the Party's when addressing superdelegates- it is a fair case and one that could possibly sway a loyal party member. She's one down on the SD count now that Spitzer has resigned- whoopsies!
I also understand that reductionism wasn't intentional on Fedja's part- I just wanted to illustrate that voting for a symbol of what you believe in is a dangerous vote, one that both Obama and Clinton supporters must be wary of. Given this, the comparison between the two candidates in terms of authenticity is stark- Clinton is disingenuous in many of her actions. She votes for bills that she doesn't want to pass, she presents different characters for different occasions (more than a public speaking tactic- evidence of personal unease), is duplicitous, and... I could list a lot of things but find that I get into the mood of ass-showing the more I think about it. Obama is straightforward. He is careful with his words. He makes mistakes and admits them. When I consider these traits in a symbolic nature, I find more comfort in the prospect of him being president than Clinton.
Traitor to the party = Joe Lieberman. And Lieberman she is not, despite her seemingly desperate tactics. But, then again, I think we start from different positions--I'm not currently backing a candidate, while you are.
Post a Comment