A Candidate of Hope and Hard Work

"This election, which once elated me, is starting to depress me." That's what a friend of mine, an Obama supporter, wrote in connection with Samantha Power's resignation over calling Hillary a "monster". Whatever advantage the Clinton campaign may have gained out of this incident, it should be very careful not to destroy the excitement and elation that the Obama campaign has generated to date. A winning Democratic ticket in November has to be a ticket that harnesses both hope and hard work.

It is perfectly legitimate for voters to look hard at whether Barack Obama is ready to be commander-in-chief, and for the Clinton campaign to pounce on gaffes made by Obama's advisers. That's exactly what "experience" means -- it's making mistakes and learning from them. By that definition, it is inevitable that Obama's campaign will make these mistakes the first time out, and the Clinton folks can legitimately ask people to think about what inexperience will mean in the general election and in foreign policy as president.

But if the elation goes out of this campaign, our entire political process will lose, regardless which candidate eventually wins the nomination. Barack Obama has done something absolutely extraordinary in American politics, something that Hillary Clinton should be praising and honoring. He has convinced millions of Americans to regain their confidence in American democracy, in the possibility of actually governing ourselves. "Yes we can" echoes the can-do spirit that Americans used to assume was our birthright, overcoming the image of a flailing and declining superpower.

I see this phenomenon from the unique perspective of spending a year living in China and traveling to other parts of Asia. One of the things that strikes all Western visitors here is the degree to which Chinese, the Singaporeans, the Vietnamese and others exude confidence in their newfound ability to do anything the West can do and to develop their societies faster than any countries in history. When we got here, I was constantly contrasting this confidence with the malaise and sense of misdirection that has prevailed in the U.S. over the past five years. All that changed when Obama started gaining steam. We all - Americans and Asians alike -- started watching a vibrant race between two historic and remarkable candidates, a race bringing huge numbers of Americans out to vote and resonating with speeches that reminded Americans everywhere of why we are proud to be Americans.

That surging, powerful sense of American possibility flows from the combination of what Obama and Clinton bring to the table. Taken together, they paint a portrait of inspiration and perspiration, values and interests, the politics of hope and the politics of achievement. The parable of Samantha Power offers a perfect illustration. Power is a brilliant journalist and author, a powerful moral voice, a foreign policy adviser who thinks outside the box. Her presence has been part of the appeal and the unorthodoxy of the Obama campaign. But she is also a creative free spirit who is used to speaking her mind, which in professional politics can mean a loose canon. Winning elections requires the discipline of a professional team that has learned from experience. Kerry, after all, lost his substantial lead by not responding to and silencing the "swiftboaters", a mistake that the Clinton team will never make.

The Democrats' task in the coming months is to harness a combination of both old and new politics. David Brooks is wrong to say that Obama is lost if he strays from the politics of unity and hope; on the contrary, to win the nomination and demonstrate that he can win in November he has to be tough enough and savvy enough to close the deal with skeptical constituencies who have seen too many speeches end in broken promises. But Clinton must also demonstrate that she can offer more than a mastery of partisan in-fighting; that she represents not "the Clintons" but rather a politics of tough, passionate commitment to the issues that she is running on. The candidate who succeeds in mastering this combination deserves the nomination. If neither candidate can do it on their own, then they should share the ticket.

If Clinton and Obama instead insist on trying to force voters to choose between what is essentially a false dichotomy between two styles of politics, rather than choosing the candidate who can win in November, they will lose the election. They will also lose the opportunity to reinvent America on the world stage, to carry out not a military surge, but a moral surge - forswearing torture, taking responsibility for our environment, and vindicating the rights of all human beings to education, healthcare, and a chance of a better life. And they will lose the new generation of Americans who are most interconnected with their peers around the world and most able to define and create a new America.

The ball is in Hillary's court, as the most recent winner. She needs to make clear that although she is going to fight for her candidacy, she holds some values dearer even than winning, such as religious and racial tolerance and party loyalty. She too can be part of a new politics, simply by rejecting the worst excesses of Clinton- and Rove-style campaigning. She can be both the Hillary of the end of the Texas debate, when she said, sincerely, that it was an honor to be on the same stage with Obama, and the Hillary of the red phone ad, which asks voters a perfectly fair question. But she cannot elevate McCain over Obama, nor play on racial or religious prejudice to bring voters to her side.

Obama, for his part, should remind his supporters that there is nothing monstrous about fighting hard to win. What Democrats need most is a candidate who can beat McCain, and for all the passion and energy that Obama brings to race, that question has not been fully answered. Obama and his supporters must respect the need of voters to examine the downsides as well as the upsides of their candidates. Ironically, he has to convince many voters that his administration will not be a re-run of the first two years of Bill Clinton's administration, when he and his staff were all too often learning on the job. But it's equally fair for Obama to question Hillary's ability to bring the party and ultimately the country together.

It's a high-wire act for both candidates. But if they pull it off, they can keep the elation in the race and bring it to a successful conclusion for the Democrats, no matter how long it takes. If they fail, they will have failed the country as well as the party.

Comments

[jtshp]

I'm a Democrat and I will support ANYBODY who can beat McCain -- It's ok if they're not my dream candidate, really. It's ok if their agenda is not as far left as I'd like it, I'll manage. It's ok if they're not as pure as I'd like them to be, few of us are, and fewer politicians are. All they have to do right now is GET ELECTED.

And don't you just love how the Democrats talk about how magnificently the Obama Administration or the Clinton Administration is going to handle the woes of the nation -- Administration!! How about getting elected first. I'm sorry but this is a primary not the general election; and contrary to current democratic thinking, the winner of the primary does not go to the White House. There is the tiny problem of winning the general election. We have two sorry candidates and if by chance anybody outside the Democratic party should choose to vote for one of them, they'll probably gonna be thinking they are choosing the lesser of two evils. My precious candidate, the lesser of two evils -- horrors!

There is NOTHING more important for this country right now than having a Democratic President. And as far as I can see, it's too late; my party blew it. Eh, oh well what's a few more conservative Supreme Court Justices one way or the other. Next time, maybe in 2016 we'll be able to undo the reversal of roe v. wade and god knows what else.

[Micaanab]

As much as some people feel this sometimes negative campaign will hurt the democratic party, I will have to disagree. This is getting people worked up. I myself even vowed not to vote for Hillery if she wins the nominee in frustration. But when a nominee is decided, the candidate that comes in second will give their full support to the winner and will encourage their supporters to do the same. When Clinton and Obama share a stage, one supporting the other in the general election, people will give up their fight and will unite to defeat the republicans. Clinton and Obama actually helped each other become stronger and also made the voters become stronger. They both got people interested and involved in the process with a passion. Each state, aside from Michigan and Florida, has played a pivotal roll in this primary season. Each voter influenced the direction of this country not only by their vote but by their involvement. I'm sure they will not give that all up just because their first choice didn't make it to the end.

[scandinavian]

what wonderful words of wisdom and a perfect judgement. thank you for making my day. if it not were for the egos..

[fnygy]

All this talk of 'experience' is nothing but a distraction. The American experiment WELCOMES the risk of inexperience over the risk of dynasty - that's why we don't hand down the presidency! ANY new president will have to learn on the job - no matter what experience he/she brings to the table. It's not who has the most experience? Who do you trust?

[LarBear]

"Hope" is NOT some thing that comes from another... Hope is indwelling... Our "Hope" thoughts and emotions... Our "Coin" to spend, so to speak...
Obama is supposedly about Hope and Change... Why would I spend my "Hope Coin" so to speak, on a Rookie U S Senator who says he will "change" Washington DC and Politics as usual??? That would have to be Highly Improbabale for ANY President to do... That would have to be done by the same Corrupted Parties to be "cleaned up"... Obama is Presidential Politics as usual and is getting Endorsements from the very ones he is supposed to change, LOL...
We have a Corporate corrupted Political System with two Branches... Democrat and Republican (basically)... Kept in place by WE the (People) Government... WE, The Government, of, by and for the People ignorantly think our Office Holders are the Government... Thinking one person, one Presidential Office Holder, is going to change the Political System is absurd... What a waste of the "Hope Coin"... More like Fairy Dust, or Illusion... WE, The Government, of, by and for the People ignorantly think our Office Holders are the Government...
Is Hillary a Washington Insider??? Where else did she learn to behave like a Political Street Fighter... She knows the System... She has fought the System before...
The Political System is already consuming Obama as he Campaigns... Do I think the "Good OL Boys and Girls" are going to surrender their control (what they call Power) to a Rookie... Not only NO, but Hell NO!
If you want "SCARY" would NOT that be WE ( the Government ) doing the same thing over and over expecting a different results??? Maybe that is what is meant by "spending our "COINS" like a Drunken Sailor???"

[jtshp]

I'll trust experience

[Countess]

Anyone that expects Hillary Clinton to run a campaign of ideas completely misunderstands the Clintons and their inability to debate ideas without injecting poison into the bloodstream of the democratic party. The two parts of Mississippi which she won are the most conservative parts of the state and overwhelmingly republican. This is the Limbaugh vote she wants to carry into pennsylvania using people like Ferraro to stir up the racist vote.

[dpfaef]

"My mother drew a distinction between achievement and success. She said that 'achievement is the knowledge that you have studied and worked hard and done the best that is in you. Success is being praised by others, and that's nice, too, but not as important or satisfying. Always aim for achievement and forget about success.' Helen Hayes 1900-1993"

I just love this quote. Barak Obama is achieving while Ms. Clinton is successful.

[jtshp]

I think Mr. Obama needs to get elected before he can achieve anything. Right now he's just successful, same as Ms. Clinton.

[Najam]

Hopeful and hard worker are not so thin skinned about positive criticism, anyone who said anything that Mr. Hype didn't like that person is slammed everywhere. Those who don't dare disagreeing with race based campaign of Barack Hussain Obama would not understand how the disagreement is received by these people.

Look at the Mississippi results, 91% African Americans voted for Obama! Sounds like more voting in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Kenya or don't forget Idi Amin's voting in Uganda. What is so absurd in Geraldine Ferraro's statement?

Barack Hussain Obama and his team can have his opinion but can't have their "facts". Voting on the basis of race and tribes has been very recently tried in his dad's native Kenya resulted in violence and loss of thousands of life. The very core of democracy and common sense is being played with by Barack Hussain Obama to get elected.

Yes, press and media has given him a free ride, in fear of racism cries by his supporters, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and a long march or boycott. It is all about selling their products and he is one of the products of opportunity. He says anything knowing that he will get away with it. There would have been riots on the streets and fiery speeches from all "civil rights" activists if Barack Hussain Obama has won Florida and Michigan and somebody try to re-vote.

Whatever he says about immigrants is again to sound like he is taking their side to get their votes in remaining primaries.

John Edwards had more substance, common sense, solutions and focus on problems than this man's rhetoric and hype, who can not be pointed at in fear of violent reactions, name calling and foul language his followers use all across the media.

SO MUCH FOR CHANGE.

Thank you,

Najam, NJ

[lovethesinner]

"If neither candidate can do it on their own, then they should share the ticket."

What Hillary's supporters fail to recognise is that their candidate has already shot herself in the foot on this point. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out today, it's now impossible for Hillary to share the ticket with Obama. She can't triangulate her way out of saying that Obama is unfit to be "commander in chief" and then, magically, claim that as her running mate he's ready to be "a heart beat away" from the top spot.

In his movie "As Good As It Get's" Jack Nicholson's character explains his ability to portray women in his novels by writing the character as a man, and then removing "reason and accountability".

Hillary's supporters can claim it's "a woman's perogitive" to change her mind, but Karl Rove won't.

But, it would be even more foolish for Obama to pick Hillary. It's enough to have to put up with the racial stereotyping that is sure to come his way, but to add to it the ever changing rationalizations of the Clintons is too much.

If he doesn't win the nominaton outright, he should wait four years. Time is on his side. And, (I don't mean to be mean about this) so is the Clinton track record for self-induced catastrophe.

Obama-Webb (McKaskill, Nepolitano, Richardson, Edwards) '08

[andhakari]

This is an interesting post. Not because it is inciteful -- it's not. Not because it is realistic, god no. But it does remind me of the change of tenor in the election. It was never warm and fuzzy, but it wasn't exactly hostile, either. Before, Hillary wasn't even on my top three list, but I didn't object to her and I certainly would have supported her in a general election. Now, she's not even on the list anymore, and there's only 2 candidates!
It's not nice to call people names anytime, but if the shoe fits ... She is a monster, a monster with zero regard for the truth or fairness. All I can see is a lust for power, an arrogance born of a sense of entitlement. and a dangerous ruthlessness more in line with Cheney than what I envision as a Democratic persona.

[suekzoo]

If Hillary wins this thing, in light of the comments made by Geraldine Ferraro and basically given a pass by the Clinton campaign, I would highly advise Obama to refuse a VP nomination.

[VosVos]

Hillary is a Clinton and not a democrat. She seems to throw all comers under the bus...including her party. The "monster" comment should not be confused as a campaign message. It was handled most severely. It was not a campaign mistake. It was said during a book interview. On the otherhand, Clinton's unfortunate, and at time racist, negative message is the campaign's focused and sustained aim. I think you cut Hillary a little too much slack by comparing the two campaigns. It would be very nice if you could say "children, you have both been bad and I understand, now let's be good" and poof all was right again. First they are not on equal footing when it comes to sin. Second, Hillary has shown, with her Pennian ways, that if Obama drops his guard she will gut him.

[popworld7]

After reading a couple of paragraphs of this post I had to stop. Here's the problem. Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination. She cannot catch up to Obama. Many people said she needed to win Texas and Ohio. Well, she won Ohio and not Texas. Obama got more delegates than she did in the state. As you most of probably know many people have already looked at the numbers for the remaining states and this was before Obama won Wyoming and Mississippi, that even if Clinton won the remaining states by a good margin she still wouldn't catch up to him in delegates. So explain to me why she is still in the race and why she is talking about making him a Vice President to her when he is ahead in delegates? This is very, very strange behavior. Why not admit that you have lost? On a side note, I voted for Edwards by absentee ballot before he dropped out of the race, in case anyone was wondering what my loyalties might be. Besides putting a Democrat in the White House, that is.

[AnotherTry]

Because she hasn't lost. Neither can get to the needed number of delegates without the help of the supers. But I think you probably know all of this already and you just like to play stupid.

Hillary will get the nomination because she is the best hope we have in the fall. The best.

[popworld7]

Gee, thanks for the enlightening comment and the"playing stupid part" was just so smart. So here's something for you to think over, if Obama wins more of the popular vote and has more delegates but the "supers" give her the nod, what do you think that would do to the party? Also, as you probably already know, Hillary doesn't match up as well with McCain as Obama does. I won't even get into some of the awful things Clinton has said recently about Obama either. But the one about her and McCain being ready for the office and Obama gave a speech in 2002, is not doing anything to help the party, in my view.

[WASanford]

I can really identify with your friend. I’m a John Edwards supporter. My candidate dropped out of the race just before the California primary but I voted for him anyway. Later I decided to accept the last candidate standing and support him or her; I was really hoping that it would be Obama. But I couldn’t, in good conscience, go along with the lies, half truths, and outright bullying that was coming from his Obamabots. Now I find myself defending Hillary almost against my will. Superman forgot to bring his cape, his x-ray vision has dimmed, and he’s suffering from brain freeze. Yesterday he stood on the stage and said “I’m not ready to be the president?” I know that was a rhetorical question but it won’t be by the time the Republicans are through with it. Why oh why did I ever join this party that always succeeds in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? I am so totally disheartened that Ralph Nader is beginning to look good to me.

[jtshp]

I'm totally with you. And to my mind the problem is that Democrats seem to be accepting nothing less than than the perfect candidate. When in fact there is no such thing. We have two flawed candidates, and if you believe in the principles of their almost identical agendas, then pick the one that can win the general election. Live with the lesser of two evils and be true to the principles of the agenda. But not the democrats, no, no. If it's my precious candidate or I'm voting Republican. Why the hell are you Democrats to begin with.

I'm disheartened too. sigh....

[XYZ]

Obama, and Clinton need each other I think Mr Clinton understands this. However it will be an ego fight until the end. The poster of this article couldn't be more correct on this, if we goto the convention any decision will piss off half the base. Face it this election is close 52% to 48%. Obama needs Clintons to help him avoid the pitfalls of the GE, and the Clintons need Obama to bring hope, and change to the process. However I think the egos of both candidates will get in the way of this. Clinton will not go without a fight, and doesn't want to be second fiddle. Obama has worked so hard to get where he is at, and he doesn't want to concede the presidency to the Clintons. Anyways in the end if this goes brokered we all lose, Obama, Clinton, the democrats.

[AnotherTry]

Obama hasn't worked hard. He regurgitated a couple of nice speeches. He had the media wind to his back. He has Oprah's legions of blind-faithfuls. He has no idea how difficult the general election will be. I am a Hillary supporter but I can read the writing on the wall. The establishment doesn't want a chick. They want a man, white or black, doesn't matter.

I almost hope Obama gets the nom just so he can have his butt handed to him on a platter by McCain. Then we can all agree he has experience.

[tea in the harbor]

I am not a democrat, that party has as many snakes and sleazeballs as do the republicans! The majority of us don't give a damn whose water a candidate carries! The sad truth is that no-one but those anointed by one of these self-serving elitist clubs has any chance at all to be our President. Another fact is that seldom does anyone rise to a noticeable level without first selling their soul to the masters of these corrupt institutions. The Democrats screwed up! They put Obama on the national stage to inspire people and he did, but it was not their Kool-Aid that the people drank, it was his! Then, in stead of the expected sphincter smooch, they found a man who believed what he said! Turned out he, for reasons unfathomable to them, wasn't ready to cash in at the first opportunity! They don't know what to do. That's why the party seems split, there are those who believe, and there are those who believe they know how to use this! If the Democrats support him, they will surely win the election, but they fear they can't control him, what if he becomes President and decides not to play ball? What if his Presidency means a man will be President, and not a coalition of power brokers from either sect? It is unheard of! Could it be that the Democratic leadership will risk losing the election to protect their own power! YES THEY CAN!!!

[nellie]

Very smart post.

[TheAirport]

Yawn.