Barack vs. Hillary: Which one?
February 4, 2008 at 10:09 am by Ken Edelstein in SoapboxI’ve watched the debates, followed the race closely and read position papers. To me, the choice is obvious.
Both Democrats are good candidates. But one was wrong when it came to the most momentous decision of her public life. And Hillary Clinton continues to compound her poor judgment on Iraq by pretending her vote wasn’t what everyone knows it was: political cover.
It’s the dissembling that bothers me. Clinton reminds me too often of the gamesmanship that diminished her husband’s presidency. Take last week’s CNN debate. When asked about Bill Clinton’s role in her campaign, she guffawed loudly. She said something like, “Well, we all have spouses.â€
But behind the laugh was someone avoiding legitimate questions: What exactly is the former president’s role in her campaign, and what will it be in the White House? Do we really want a high minister who’s unaccountable and unimpeachable? Do we want the same family to control the Democratic Party for more than two decades?
And when it comes to the election, do Democrats really want to cede to Republicans the most salient message that voters are sending this year — that they yearn for change, for leaders who’ll do things differently? Do Democrats want to be tagged as the status quo party (when it in fact is the party that’s been out of power) in an election year that features neither peace nor prosperity? Do they really want to bank this election on the only couple that’s sure to unite and motivate a dispirited opposition?
The rap on Obama is that he’s unproven. True enough. But it shouldn’t disqualify him. When you stop and think about it, he’s handled almost every challenge thrown at him in a way that inspires confidence.
It’s he, not Hillary, whose campaign is outperforming expectations. It’s he, not the Clintons, who has consistently taken the high road. And it’s he who not only opposed the war from the start, but also avoided sinking into simplistic sloganeering when he’s called for a withdrawal.
At times, Obama has waffled more than I’d like. When he tells voters in Idaho he won’t push hard for gun control or when he compromises with power companies on nuclear-plant safety, I wonder how fast he’ll hold to his principles once he’s president. But, by and large, Obama is a remarkably straight shooter. While both he and Hillary are legit policy wonks, it’s Barack who articulates nuanced positions that don’t necessarily conform to orthodoxy.
Since the 1950s, liberals have pinned their hopes on a parade of similarly straight-talking, brainy reformers. Adlai Stevenson. Eugene McCarthy. Paul Tsongas. Bill Bradley. All in vain.
Obama’s in that mold, but with a built-in advantage: He has the charisma and background to add millions of black, young, and never-before voters to a base of latte-drinking progressives.
Two presidents come to mind who also were labeled as inexperienced dreamers but managed to broaden their base beyond the idealistic intellectuals of their eras. One, of course, was John F. Kennedy. The other was Lincoln. That’s pretty good company.
Your thoughts?
(Photo by Joeff Davis)
Send to a friend:
February 4th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Hillary’s a great politician. Barack’s a great leader. These times demand leadership.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Honestly after nearly eight years of W, my expectations of our leaders have dropped abysmally low, and initially, I was just looking for a candidate who was able to properly pronounce nucLEAR, not to mention the names of the countries he’s bombing. Unlike so many of the other candidates and the current administration, Obama isn’t out to scare us into voting for him. He isn’t banking on the stupidity, nostalgia or desperation of the American people to gain votes. Instead, he’s banking on our sense of reason. I appreciate that, and that is one of the main reasons I’ll be voting for him tomorrow.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
At the recent Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, a very savvy political strategist told me that his “heart was for Obama,” but his “head was for Hillary.” As this campaign has played out, I think the “head” should be for Obama, too. For the reasons Brother Ken cites — primarily issues like Clinton’s juggling the truth on her Iraq vote — Obama has become the clear choice at all levels, guts and brains.
One way of describing this election: The Republicans are declaring that they’re the only people who can save the nation from the mess they have created. That’s an intriguing position, sort of like an arsonist claiming he’s the best person to put out the fire he started.
But Clinton’s message has basically been: I’m not them. Yet, on the war and other issues, it’s a little hard to tell the difference. Claiming you’d have been more competent at waging war doesn’t mean that war was, under any circumstance, a right or moral choice.
My biggest reservation about Obama is that on economic issues, ranging from health care to fixing the housing crisis, he’s often edging to the right of Clinton. He should use the moral high ground of having rejected special interest money (especially from Big Medicine, Big Pharma and Big Insurance) to push for truly universal, single-payer health care.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
John: I agree that we need universal, single-payer health insurance, and I don’t like the way we saddle employers with such a large load of the health-care expenses. Obama’s and Clinton’s plans would continue to do that.
But we all know what happened when the Clintons tried to get universal single-payer in one big gulp. We can’t read Obama’s mind, but he’s said that he proposed the plan in part because it’s what’s politically feasible. I think it’s pretty reasonable position to keep your eye on the prize but to assume that it will take several steps to get there.
My biggest concern remains Obama’s lack of experience and vetting. I worry that there will be some last-minute swift-boating of him during the General Election. So far so good though. And after Tuesday you can be sure that the Clintons will throw everything they have at him, which qualifies as being truly tested.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Lincoln? Back up a little. I was agreeing with most of your post until then. We need to make sure we don’t set him up with expectations that he can’t meet. He is a person not a dream. He will fail occasionaly he will dissapoint us sometimes.
Having said that, I’m still torn. I really really want the economic team that President Clinton had. It appears that Hillary has re-assembled that team. Also, Barrack has Anthony Lake as one of his primary Foreign Policy Advisors. He is a disaster. He also has Susan Rice, who is an up and commer but she has never played in the big leagues. Hillary will probably have Holbroke as Sec State.
It scares me that Barack will try to be so different from President Clinton that he won’t tap the smartest people. Like it or not the Bill Clinton Administration is the only modern Democratic Administration which means the people with the most experience served with him. I’m not talking about foot solider experience. I mean the top guys. Rubin, Shalala, Holbroke, etc…
The election is tomorrow and I will vote - I just don’t know which way yet. My head says Hillary, but my heart says Obama.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Murray: I’m not setting Barack up to be the second coming of Lincoln. I’m just saying that the most experienced candidate doesn’t necessarily make for the best president. Evidence: Lincoln was less experienced than either Douglas or (what’s his name?) Breckenridge.
I agree that Holbrook, Shalala, Rubin et al are formidable talent. Of course, they support Clinton — for now — because they served in her husband’s administration. But I suspect Obama could tap into that talent if he asked them for it once he won the nomination.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Murray: I hear your head and heart argument loud and clear. I worry about Obama’s inexperience. But I also worry that Hillary is an amazingly polarizing figure. And there’s something about a line of Bush / Clinton / Bush / Clinton presidencies that makes me squeamish.
I’m essentially taking the “anyone who’s not a Republican” approach.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I’m with you, Ken. But my biggest reason is this: Obama is the first politician to come along since I can’t remember when who is asking us to do anything. To behave differently. To make ourselves better. To be citizens instead of just consumers. It seems to me that Clinton wants to do great things for us, but Obama wants to lead us to do great things for ourselves.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Ken, I have to admit that I am torn as I prepare to cast my first vote as a New York City resident tomorrow. I had planned to vote for Edwards because I have always been disgusted by Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War and her general Republican-lite demeanor. But Edwards is gone now. And, to tell you the truth, I’m not that upset. He sounded very progressive, but when he was in the Senate he was not all that progressive. He voted for the Iraq War, too. Anybody with a brain knew what was coming, even then. So I always felt there was a bit of the phony about Edwards. Besides, my hair looks as almost as good as his and I pay only $20 per haircut to a Persian woman on 3rd Avenue in Brooklyn.
But Obama troubles me greatly. This idea that we can move beyond partisanship is just crap. I’m sorry. That’s not up to the Democrats. The vicious partisanship has come from the Republican slime. And I am convinced that the Republicans will steal the election. They’ve stolen the last two. Why not go for three? Hillary has a lot more balls than Obama. She is the only one who’ll fight back against the GOP. Gore and Kerry were both gutless and backed down after the election thefts. I think Obama would do the same.
And, as a unionized teacher, I feel strongly that Hillary is the only candidate who really understands the damage that No Child Left Behind has done. Ultimately, my gut feeling is that I want to agree with Charles Brewer — and my son and all his young friends in law school — and vote for Obama and a new day. But then I remember what dishonest monsters we’re dealing with in the Republican party and I think we need the Clinton toughness. So, I’m STILL undecided! P.S. My sister in Lilburn is voting for Huckleberry on the GOP side.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I have trouble saying this, but I agree with Sugg. The head has to start following the heart, and Obama is the better candidate in the general election. There will be no ambiguity on the war, which 72% (what I last saw) of Americans still oppose. I also agree with what Charles said about asking folks to sacrifice. Not asking Americans to sacrifice has been one of the biggest failures of the Bush Administration, and that’s saying something. Finally, I think that Obama can do more to repair our reputation abroad, even though the name Clinton has tremendous standing there. And unlike Sugg, I do not have concerns about Obama being to the right of Clinton on economics. All the stimulus packages and tax cuts will not save our economy long-term if we do not get our fiscal house in order, something that President Clinton (with Republican pressure) achieved.
As for Doug’s concerns — legitimate. Look at what happened to Carter working with his own party. But I think that Obama has much better political skills, less arrogance and enough experience to get a lot done.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Why am I voting for Obama tomorrow?
1. I hate women.
Seriously. Sure, a woman gestated and birthed me. But what have you done for me lately, gals?
2. Obama is a Muslim.
I’ve gotten several e-mails over the past several months telling me Obama is secretly a Muslim, even though he claims to be a church-going Christian.
I think it’s great that he’s Muslim. With this War On TerrorTM thing, we could use Muslim in the White House — someone to decipher all that Allah nonsense.
He doesn’t need any fancy advisers telling him about the Middle East. The dude’s staring at Mecca five times a day, minimum. Stare at something long enough and you understand it. Believe me.
3. He’s tried coke.
We’re gonna need someone in the White House willing to put in the long hours necessary to correct Bush’s eight years of screw ups. I feel better knowing he knows how to pull an all-nighter if he needs to.
—
None of the above is actually true, except for the part about how I’m going to vote for Obama — for most of the reasons cited by the other commenters here.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:50 am
neither.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
As an African-American woman, there is little choice here. While I love the vision, tenacity, intelligence, spunk and guts that Hillary Clinton possesses, I support Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton will fight for the underdog and has this nation’s best interest at heart. However, she can never know what it feels like to be different. For the first time in this country’s history, we might actually have a president who understands how it feels to be the odd person out and oppressed.
Mr. Obama may not have the experience that folks think he should have in order to be president, but let’s be real: the guy in office now is an idiot who proved that his (so-called) experience wasn’t worth “a pile of crap sitting in the Texas sun.”
February 5th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
As a fan of Toto’s “Africa,” I bless the rains. Oh, and I am down with the Kenyan.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
The thing that worries me the most about Barack Obama is that he has Shirley Franklin’s endorsement.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Why I voted for Clinton?
I turned the radio on today and heard a passionate Republican voter confessing that she voted for Obama. She wasn’t sufficiently passionate about Obama to vote for him. But she enormously hated Clinton to change her party affiliation in order to block this awful candidate. When asked to elaborate, the voter was unable to explain her disgust of Clinton other than “she is the most dishonest person.†That’s all. No additional justification. Apparently, this voter is not alone. It seems that every time I open the radio, read a newspaper, skim a blog (I don’t watch TV) there is a similar cry: “she is unreliableâ€, “Hilary would do anything it take to become the presidentâ€, and “where is Bill in all this?â€
Where does this personal scum come from and why does it stick to Clinton, not Obama, or, for that matter, any of the other candidates Democrats and Republicans?
One reason might be that Clinton (Yes. Clinton, not Hilary–as Obama is not Barack, and please not Mrs. Clinton either, that’s embarrassing) is just that. Perhaps she is unreliable, has no straight agenda, will-do-anything-to-win type of person, old-style-Washington-politician/back-stabber–not an agent of change. Or maybe it is actually Mr. Clinton, a master mind puppeteer who is orchestrating this charade. I think not.
It is such an old sociological finding that nobody even bothers to bring it up anymore. But here it is: successful men are perceived as strong, smart, self-sufficient, successful women are unstable, cunning, back-stabbers. If they do succeed than they didn’t get there themselves—someone (i.e. Bill) must’ve helped them. If you don’t believe this finding try to think what was your reaction to the last high-ranking female boss, or a female CEO of a Fortune 100 company (not that there are many of those around)?
What I see in Clinton is this:
- She demonstrated remarkable courage in backing her husband in impossible times.
- She is the only “first lady†who pushed her own agenda—to me, one of the top two policies there are for this country.
- She has relentlessly pursued women’s and children’s rights from a very early age—agenda she has aggressively promoted since.
- She managed to stop and turn over a rolling snowball after Iowa.
- And the list goes on …
When I listen and read her messages she talks mostly about boring policy matter—things that all of us should care about while what I hear from Obama is not a straight, passionate pursuit of a policy, but a marketing spin: CHANGE.
If we are after change we should start by revising our primordial emotions regarding Clinton—or any other successful female-boss. We should carefully review policy platforms (even if they are not as exciting as Iraq). We should be able to separate spin, from vision. We should vote Clinton.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“Where does this personal scum come from and why does it stick to Clinton, not Obama, or, for that matter, any of the other candidates Democrats and Republicans? ”
First guess? The unparalleled history of deception and spin by the Clintons. Is there anyone who has lied to the American public longer or more prolificly than the Clintons?
When someone mentions “Clinton” it is normal to think of the President who is The Rock Star of the Democratic Party rather than the junior Senator from New York. Barack Obama is “Obama” because there is no reason to differentiate him from another famous politician named Obama, especially if that person were his spouse. Just as “W” is used to differentiate from the previous President Bush, the same is true for Romney, McCain, Huckabee, etc.
I agree about Obama’s spin. He inspires passion, but probably doesn’t talk about his policy positions because the would likely be rejected by the majority of voters.
“She is the only “first lady†who pushed her own agenda—to me, one of the top two policies there are for this country” Lady Bird would disagree.
“successful women are unstable, cunning, back-stabbers”. Exactly my perception of Margaret Thatcher, Oprah, Elizabeth Dole, Carly Fiorina, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi, Mother Theresa, …. Can I stop now?
“If they do succeed than they didn’t get there themselves” Do you think Hilary would have been the Senator from New York if she were not First Lady?
One thing that can only be said of Senator Clinton - she is the only candidate to cry on the campaign trail. Personally, I want someone tougher than that in the Oval Office.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I’m not sure Obama will hold up to the Republican attack machine. He’ll be swiftboated into oblivion, I fear. All the Repubs have to do is always, every time, pronounce his full name – Barack Hussein Obama. Can you imagine?
Hillary has been criticized without cease for 20 years. She’ll be a tougher candidate … even though she’s not my first choice. The fellow who spoke most directly to my own ideas of what’s wrong was John Edwards. I do believe that corporations have too much control over us all. I think they’re the root of much conservatism, through all those entrenched interests. Obama and Clinton both sometimes seem like corporate creations.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Speaking of swiftboating Obama, there’s a front page story in the Times today about his youthful drug use. Too bad the Times didn’t explore George W. Bush’s mental instability in the same way. These days, the corporatocracy includes the media: the New York Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution were among the major newspapers that turned into brainless cheerleaders for Bush and his catastrophic invasion of Iraq. Even today, despite all the evidence, the corporate media are afraid to point out that the president is mentally impaired and should be impeached. He still has almost a year left for nuking Iran and committing all the other mischief his handlers have planned at home and abroad.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Luckily, Doug, Bush has Cheney — that model of reason and judgment — to keep him in check.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Charles, I agree with you about Edwards and the message he carried. What worries me about elected leaders is how beholden they’ve become to corporate coffers. And sadly, independently wealthy presidential candidates are few and far between.
But now that Edwards is out, I’m in a bit of a quandary. According to a run-down of candidate’s stances on environment and energy issues, Clinton takes a more hardline approach than does Obama. But by just a bit. Both support “clean-coal” and Clinton actually says the clean-up aspects of nuclear power need to be addressed before it is pegged as the go-to energy source in the future. Clinton also said she’d push for a $1.5 billion increase in urban rail funding. She’s given me specifics.
But for some reason, those specifics aren’t enough. I see no passion behind what Clinton says. I never thought I’d say this, but I’ve been convinced by Obama’s message. If we want sweeping change in this country, we’re going to need someone who can communicate and who is comfortable in their skin. I see that in Obama. I don’t see it in Clinton.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Ken, Cheney is crazier than Bush so nobody’s going to be impeached, particularly with our timid media and even more timid Democrats. All I’m saying is that Bush and Cheney have almost a year left to do anything they want and I predict we will regret it.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Re: the drug story, Obama is finding out just how vicious the Clinton’s opposition research is and how effective it can be with their friends in the MSM.
We heard plenty about Bush’s history with alcohol and drugs, but he was running against Gore and Kerry. Gore and Kerry are not pals of the Clintons, so The Machine didn’t work for them. Now that we have another Clinton in the game, the tactics have returned. Everyone does oppostion research, but they are really good, maybe the best.
I wonder if those 900+ FBI files that the Clintons didn’t know were in the hands of a White House security agent they didn’t know Hilary hired had any info about Obama. He probably wasn’t on their radar yet.
Probably not.