Defeating John McCain and the Continuation of the Bush Nightmare

For Democrats in this country, the choice has been difficult. Now, it is almost excruciating. The freshness and vitality of Barack Obama versus the experience and doggedness of Hillary Clinton. In the wake of the endless nightmare of the Bush years, Democrats seem to want someone truly exceptional. They seem to want a candidate who will actually have a chance at cleaning up some of the mind-blowing mess that George Bush has created in eight years. Unlike the Republicans, who elected Bush twice and who organized a recall of California Governor Gray Davis and replaced him with body-builder/action star Arnold Schwarzenegger, who went on to lead California into an even bigger fiscal mess than the Davis years saw, Democrats want substance as much as electability. Gore seemed a likely choice, but Gore would have none of it.

Edwards was right on many important issues, but seemed green in the post-9/11 world. He isn't, actually, but appearances trumped his ideas and rhetoric. Now we have two people remaining on the eve of Super Tuesday and the most significant question is "Which one can beat McCain?" Hillary Clinton has done everything right. She stood by her husband and endured the ridicule of Republican bullies like Newt Gingrich during what must have been the worst time of her life. She rewrote her own epitaph by crawling out from under the rubble of her marital troubles and became a Senator in a state where the egos in the political arena are as oversized as New York's skyline. She studied hard, as she always has, and she won. Twice. She became a role model for all other women in politics. She is smart. She is tough. And most people agree that she will probably run a better White House than any other candidate that has taken the field.

But Hillary Clinton is wrong on the war in Iraq and that should matter a lot in this race. Critics of Hillary Clinton who are leaders in the Democratic Party that I have spoken to privately believe that she is too much like McCain to offer voters a meaningful choice. "Voters will choose a real Republican over a fake Republican every time," one politico said to me, slashing at Clinton for her tilt toward the right on the war.

"The Clintons don't know when to get off the stage," another offered, suggesting that eight years of Bush and the war on terror seem to have pushed the Bill Clinton years, where Hillary will remain inexorably framed in the minds of many, into a bygone political era.

Barack Obama represents hope to many and some in Clinton's camp have underestimated how much Americans are hungering for that hope in 2008. Obama is clearly not McCain. He is young. He is against the war and he is inexperienced. Republicans, to their shame, will trumpet McCain's experience over Obama's, running as fast as they can from the fact that Gore was the smarter, tougher and more experienced candidate in 2000. Republicans don't care about anything but winning. That's why they put forth candidates like Reagan, Arnold and Bush. By the time they reach the end of their first term, it's assumed they have all the experience they need. Like their nephew at the bank.

Which candidate will have the best chance against McCain? The experienced one or the exciting one? The one who is smart and tough and whose stances on some issues are oh-so-similar to those of the presumed GOP opponent? Or the less experienced, less tested one who has many Americans believing that someone more like them may make a return to the White House? During the Democratic debates, I wanted someone to ask one question. "Do you believe that any of the people sitting in this audience have as much hope of becoming president as you do?" I think that should matter, because the presidency of this country has become the exclusive preserve of legal elites and political or corporate barons. And our country is suffering as the result of it.

Vote on Tuesday. And let's begin the job of defeating John McCain, and his continuation of the Bush nightmare, right now.

Comments

[KarenZipdrive]

If someone I know tells me a bunch of bold faced lies and scares the hell out of me about something or someone, I am likely to take those claims seriously, especially if the person who told me offers to protect me from harm.
Bush lied his ass off to the Senate.
Presidents aren't expected to be chronic liars with regard to potential threats, so many, many, many Senators on both sides of the aisle took Bush at his word, including Hillary.
Some naive Democrats think Hillary should step forward and apologize for taking Bush at his word, but these same naive people seem to forget that Hillary still has to convince the other side that she's tough enough on defense to run the country.
As a realist and a pragmatist, I don't need gauzy dreams and "YES WE CAN" sloganeering.
I need to vote for someone with the guts to get in there and fight not just the Muslim lunatics who want to destroy us, but also the GOP fascists who want to bankrupt middle America and line the nests of themselves and their cronies.
The GOP is not going to sit in a friendship circle with Obama as he serenades them with Kumbaya and Blowing in the Wind. Get real.
I too was an idealistic dreamer in my youth, but I'm middle aged now and I need my political choices to be hard-nosed, realistic advocates for my points of view.

[fulano]

Right On Alec! We have had enough of the bs and greed and cronyism of the Republicans, they had the ball and dropped it into a big black hole. Why anyone in their right mind would give them another shot is beyond me.
I'll vote for Obama because I'm afraid Hillary is hooked into the power structure that has been running this country for so many years, but anything but another Republican Robber Baron enabler.

[Bermudiana]

I don't understand why everyone's always saying Obama's inexperienced and Clinton is. Obama spent 10 years working with and advocating for the underserved minority populations of Chicago. He's been a local and state politician for years, during which time he has successfully crossed party lines to pass positive, progressive reforms. He has gained enormous support, spoken for a wide range of constituents, and earned the admiration of a huge range of individuals and groups alike. He has travelled internationally (including Africa and the Middle East), been greeted with open arms, and has garnered respect and affection around the world.

When I voted for him today, it was for many reasons, but mainly because I believe he absolutely has the transferrable skills and decades of experience needed to be an incredible president: intelligence, openness, charisma that brings people together, respect for others, creativity, and optimism.

And who says experience in the Washington machine is a good thing anyway? Look at Mike Bloomberg, for example, who's a guy who was never in politics before becoming mayor of NYC and has become one of the greatest mayors in the city's history. Bush, by the way, grew up in an "experieced" political family and look where that landed us.

Of course Clinton is an intelligent and experienced politician, but she cannot bring the democratic party, the country, or the world together in the way that Obama can and in the way that we need. And for the record, what is all of Clinton's extra experience over Obama that everyone keeps talking about anyway? Laura Bush has been a first lady for almost as long as Clinton was. Would anyone say she has the "experience" to be president? Of course not; that's ridiculous. Let's stop giving Clinton credit where it's not due.

[PacificPalisader]

One of the best posts I read in a while Alec!

I would respectfully like to suggest that whoever gets the nomination to please consider the following: John Edwards for Supreme Court Justice.

We Democrats this year are fortunate to have so much talent out there. So let us not waste it. Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd, actually, all of the early contenders should have a place on the cabinet of the next Democratic administration.

[tumblewind]

I don't hold Hillary's Iraq vote against her! At the time she was making the best decision she could with the information she had! At the time, 90% of the country was behind this inane idea of invading Iraq. Because of the information most were being fed. Bush was indulging in McCarthy style rhetoric with his name calling and labels that questioned a Senator's loyalty if they didn't fall in line with Bush's con job. I blame the American people as much if not more than Senator's who voted for the war. Because we are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the mess. We bought the snow job hook line and sinker. I know I tried telling women I work with Bush was lying. But, everyone wanted to believe a lying President instead. So here were are in the middle of mess that's not going away. McCain is more of the same unending nightmare! Whomever the Democratic Candidate is will get my vote! Because we can't afford another 4 to 8 years of failed neocon policies. So all of you Hillary haters what do you want? Another 4 years of Republicanism or Change! Get over your objections to race and gender both! Grow up and face reality! Change isn't with a third party candidate!

[sa]

gore '08



let's settle the score.
.

[zjr909]

I know "hope" sounds great to people - but what do we mean when we say it? Are we expressing "hope" for the Iraqi people, who, after all, have been the primary victims of the Bush administration's actions? No, of course not, most Americans could care less about the Iraqi people. They're expressing that "hope" for themselves - and for the continuation unto eternity of the American Dream. What right do we have to keep having it so well when we've allowed so much misery into the world in our name? Yet when we say "hope" we somehow imagine we're still worthy of it. We're not. The United States has not taken in one single Iraqi refugee. We chased all the intellectuals, the scientists, the teachers, the professionals out of Iraq. Who's left to help them rebuild? The militias? Is that who'll rebuild Iraq? But, who cares? We "hope" against "hope" that we'll have enough money to send our little darlings to the very best college so that the American Dream might continue unabated. Kind of makes "hope" just a bit sleazy, doesn't it?

[notfooooldbyW]

The best liberal/progressive/anti-Iraq invasion aiding and abetting of GWBush's BIGGEST LIE is found in Mr. Baldwin's statement:

But Hillary Clinton is wrong on the war in Iraq and that should matter a lot in this race.

Believe me, the righties love it when HRC is attacked like this. It takes the focus off Bush's biggest lie. Most liberals don't even know what the biggest Bush lie is. They hide from it. It is not his hyping of WMD and and exxagerating Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda in the run up to war. It was. The lie that he said he would not invade Iraq if the The UN resumed inspections. NO invasion IF the UN resumed inspections. HRC is the only candidate who has called Bush a liar on Meet the Press. She said the White House confirmed that inspection were their intent before she cast her vote.
Bush has said since that Sadam didn't let the inspectors in. There's a reason for that follow up lie. He doesn't want the first BIG lie to HRC to ever be discussed. And thanks to the left preference to attack HRC it never is.

[tyla]

I have been waiting through out this entire campaign to hear just one of the candidates say the word that would secure my vote and Barack Obama said it in the last debate. Diplomacy.

I believe that not only does Barack Obama have a profound understanding of what Diplomacy actually means, I truly believe that he will incorporate it into any action that is necessary to secure our country's well being whether it involves domestic issues such as healthcare or security matters globally.

This is not just an election that we are taking part in but a revolution, not because we have the first african american and female candidates, but because so many people are uniting to demand change. Change for truth and honesty in our government and that is what Barack Obama represents. If Barack Obama is elected as our president every candidate following him is going to be held to an unpresidented standard and I believe that he will effect change in this country like we have not experienced in modern history.

[RoseMerry]

Obama is feeding a Great Hunger in the Nation today - one that Bush as created by staving us all for someone honest, someone that can inspire, someone we can trust.

I pray he does not disappoint like the rest have, except for Jimmy Carter. He was so much better than we deserved and doing more good as an ex-President than any other President since the coup of '63.

[Kungfublood]

Yes well it's not just McCain is it? I mean it's more like McCain and his Homosexual lover Joe Lieberman right?
Ron Paul for President.
I would change parties and vote for Obama if he picks Dennis Kucinich for his VP that would give me the hope AND experience I find lacking in the Democratic "front runners".

[jpshotwheels]

Great article and my sentiments exactly.

I have said this before and will say it again on this website and hope people will do the same. I will get up tomorrow and vote for Obama. However, if he doesn't win, I will stand behind Clinton. Either of these two will be better than what we have now, or any Republican.

I watched Democracy Now today and they did a piece on McCain, the man has a War mindset and we will get much more of the same and more. If the Hillary and Obama haters go to McCain because they don't get there way, please go to the Democracy now web page and watch the show, hopefully this will discourage you from voting for McCain.

Last but not least, I have a really bad inner feeling about all of this, we all better just pray that Bush will truly leave the White House come January. If he does, Bush will never have to worry about his legacy, because most people won't want to write about it, judge it, they would prefer to forget it and pretend it never happened.

Thanks Alex always for your post, very wise.

[moda31]

i'm so sick and tired of people giving certain candidates ownership of certain characteristics. enough with the tested vs. untested, talker vs. doer etc. the world isn't that clear cut, and neither are these candidates; attempting to dumb down the political process to work within the confines of the 24 hour recycled news format is offensive to everyone and is exactly the kind of thinking that gave this country the ridiculous excuse for politics & democracy that put G.W. in the white house.

[llozano]

McCain will be the first U.S. President to actually punch a reporter for asking him questions. McCain has about as much patience and tolerance as a wasp. He is a loose cannon in every which way. This may account for his appeal from those that like their politics from the barrel of a shotgun. He is as Baldwin states a continuation of the Bush cowboy legacy except in this case we got Bush on steroids. This is a scary scenario and one I hope will remain just a dream.

[chaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I have watched all the debates and I find very little difference between Hillary's policies and Borack's. They both claim they want to get us out of Iraq,start some kind of improved health care, (I wish they would both be clearer on what exactly they plan) and do next to nothing about illegal aliens. What am I missing? Ya he gives a great speech but he has very little experience and Hillary gives a good speech with far more professional experience and far more experience battling the negative press and the Republicans. My gut tells me to vote for Hillary because it's obvious that the media and the Republicans are scared shit of her.