Two months ago I wrote a piece for Huffington Post in which I carefully and delicately expressed my growing desire to see Barack Obama win the Democratic party's nomination for president. The main reason I outlined in that piece was my admiration for Obama's call to action from the American public, and his insistence that meaningful change in American government would only come as a result of vigilant oversight of the government by American citizens. I want a leader who insists that I, and my fellow citizens, tell him what to do, I've thought upon listening to him. I want a leader who tells me point blank that the only way I'm going to get my money's worth from him, or from anyone else, is if I watch his every move and don't let him get away with anything. That's what has been missing during our recent national nightmare. It's not George Bush's fault that the vast majority of American citizens have been complacent while he's plundered our wealth and destroyed international goodwill toward us. I don't care anymore whether he rightfully won or lost an election by a few thousand votes. He said what he was going to do, and millions of people voted for him anyway. Twice.
I also commented on what I saw as Barack Obama's growing strength throughout the campaign to that point, as compared to Hillary Clinton's increased unraveling. I expressed admiration for what I saw as the sincerity of his positions. Since then, of course, we've seen more than one switch of positions. Clinton became energized as she successfully preyed upon the fears of no small number of people. Even in her recent disappointing outings, she has exposed rifts that could, conceivably, make it difficult for Barack Obama to succeed in winning the White House.
But what else has she accomplished with her message? Anything? Because if she was accomplishing anything other than exposing the potential weaknesses of another viable Democratic candidate, then I could possibly be on board with her argument about her continuing candidacy being a "positive" thing. But I've searched, and I don't see the upside. At least not to anyone but her.
The problem with Clinton's recent comments and campaign techniques is not just that they're divisive and destructive, as others have already pointed out. It's not just that they're Rovian, and reminiscent of earlier Republican smears against other Democratic candidates. It's that they're all of those things, as well as pointless. They serve no purpose other than to tear down a competitor. They demonstrate nothing about Clinton's superiority, or Obama's inability to be an effective leader in comparison, where he to be elected. They illuminate no useful qualities about her. They are useless, as well as destructive. That's the crime.
I have heard the argument that Clinton is demonstrating toughness, fortitude, and even a desirable ruthlessness, with these tactics, and that these are qualities we want in a chief executive and commander in chief. I'd agree they're qualities I'd want such a person to have, and to be able to employ judiciously. But even if we postulate, for the sake of argument, that she's shown an ability to use them judiciously (which I'm not willing to postulate for any other reason) the knocks she's offered about Obama and his supposed shortcomings, the sly and only slightly subtle race-baiting, don't demonstrate any impressive or useful combativeness to me. They demonstrate only one thing: skill in manipulating unsophisticated voters, and a ruthless willingness to do so. Nothing more. Does that translate into a ruthlessness that would be useful in outmaneuvering a Putin or Chavez, or their equivalent? The equivalent of a wily Saddam Hussein? Or, hell...maybe someone superior, who's yet to present him or herself. I don't think so. They're simplistic demonstrations of bravado, effective with broad segments of society, and I believe we seen quite enough of that for some time to come.
Hillary Clinton's continuing barrage of comments about Barack Obama's supposed unelectability, inexperience, and inferiority do nothing but serve her own ambition. They might prove she's a more ruthless candidate, but they indicate nothing positive about her ability to thrive were she chosen to serve. In fact, I'd propose the opposite. The strengths she's demonstrating, and her willingness to deploy them, are exactly the same strengths that have allowed the current administration to wage an illegal war under false pretenses, to imprison uncharged individuals without any due process or Habeas Corpus protection, to roll back civil rights and privacy protections, to put innumerable areas of our military and social services into the hands of corporate entities (that have been allowed to operate without adequate oversight and with near absolute impunity), and even to employ corporate entities to assist the government in illegally spying on its citizens. Those are the areas where the ability to ruthlessly manipulate an unsophisticated citizenry can really work wonders. Not in building back a healthy economy, not in revitalizing American interests by rebuilding trust overseas, and not in preserving the fierce intimidation of American military might by withholding its application unless absolutely necessary, and only when success is assured. Those accomplishments require a different skill set. They require honor, trustworthiness, and a willingness to take initially unpopular positions for the betterment of the nation (read "no gas tax holiday"). I'm not saying Obama gets perfect scores on every one of those counts. I'm not a blind fool (though many seem to feel anyone who supports him must be). It's just that, when I look at my scorecard, he's beating the hell out of her on the totality of those important counts. He's beating her hands down.
Would I like Hillary Clinton in my corner in a knife fight? Sure, why not? Because in a knife fight, nothing matters after the one battle is won. Only one party walks away. Would I want her on my side if I wanted was to win a campaign? Maybe. Only if it didn't matter what happened after the election. Because her tactics for victory insure defeat in governance. The toughness she's demonstrated is designed to dupe, not for lasting dominance. The very same things that have allowed her to nearly prevail, are the things that indicate to me she's failed the test. She's not the leader I want, or the one we need. My hope now is that her potent and skillful destructiveness doesn't hobble the chances of someone whose toughness might not be as well suited to the hand-to-hand combat of a long and often deceptive campaign, but whose abilities to inspire, to lead, to fight judiciously and effectively, to transcend, and to win, are superior to hers.
If you agree with my views and think we're like-minded enough for your enjoyment, or hate everything I've said but think I've said it cleverly, or simply want to do me a favor and an honor, my new book is in stores now: IT'S ONLY TEMPORARY: THE GOOD NEWS AND THE BAD NEWS OF BEING ALIVE. Info and entertainment is available, free of charge, at evanhandler.com.
Nothing is more dangerous than a cornered animal.
If you corner a wild animal, it will fight to the death -- why not, it has no other options. But if you allow an escape route, most wild animals will take it.
Senator Clinton has put a lot of time, resources, and "self" on the line in her bid for the nomination. But now, short of an Act of God, Barak Obama will win the nod. I suspect she knows this. It is probably a bitter pill and it takes time to assimilate and digest it. But she will slowly start reorienting and will be seeking an exit strategy.
If you are really that upset about her still being in the race, you should be looking to help identify acceptable exit strategies -- ways to drop out and save face ... perhaps even land in some other prominent capacity.
Dropping into an enraged All-or-Nothing mode and demonizing opponents is what the 2000-era Republicans do.
We're better.
You missed a spot on that dead horse, Mr Handler.
I know you passionately believe what you are saying. But what do you hope to achieve by posting your diatribe?
Is it right? Is it wrong? I suppose people will continue to debate.
Is it constructive?
At this point, I suggest the answer is "No." All you'll succeed in doing is further alienating people who are sympathetic towards Senator Clinton.
Her willingness to destroy Obama in order that she get back into the WH and perhaps destroy the Democratic Party in the fight (black voters would leave and not return) exposes her motive. One doesn't fight for a principle if in doing so, you do more harm than good. Then, well, it's not for a worthy/inspiring goal or principle. And her constant mantra that she's fighting for us, we poor working slobs, when she's willing to sacrifice us all for her own gain, shows how duped some of the masses can become if they want to be. It's just in Hillary's case, not enough of us are willing to be anymore after 8 years of Bush/Cheney.
Where the Dems are going to have a real problem is that there will be a much larger than anticipated Democratic vote going to McKinney, Nader or not voting, as neither Obama nor Clinton have made any effort to attract true progressives. Nader-baiting by two-bit Democratic Party sycophants just makes us laugh. So long as Obama refuses to commit to immediate, safe withdrawal, he wlll lose many anti-war votes. Since the day he became a Senator he, like "sniper fire", has voted to keep the war ongoing and has refused to commit to immediately, rapidly getting out all troops and contractors. As the Ameican people understand there is no possible outcome in Iraq worth the loss of one more American life or limb and that every life and limb lost and dollar spent helps our enemies, Obama's going to lose many more Democratic votes than the pundits or the Pavlov dog Dems predict. These sycophants say they're against the war but vote for candidates who won't end it and argue against immediate, safe withdrawal by making up garbge about how we can't leave rapidly, safely, even though it is clear that is the only way to leave.
I'll tell you one thing loud and clear from this Obama supporter. If Hillary is the nominee, I'll be marching right beside her. I'll march in front of, beside, or behind, or anywhere she needs me - in spite of some questionable choices she's made during the campaign. As any rational person who cares about getting this country back on track would. I'd hope Clinton supporters would do the same for the Democratic nominee, even if it's not her. I mean, aren't we interested in achieving similar goals, even if there's a difference of opinion as to who'd best do it, or who stands the best chance of putting an end to right wing control of our country? The purposeful destructiveness you suggest is coming troubles me.
I wish the media would talk about the real reason Sen. Clinton is continuing.
She wants to make sure her voting block will NOT vote for Sen. Obama in November.
Sen. Clinton will try to again run in 4 years [2012]. It seems crystal clear to me.
Sen. Clinton is NOT an ethical person...there is more at stake here than most know i.e. the money given to Bill for “speeches”...for consulting, his foundation, the Clinton Library and the other foreign entity IOUs.
Sen. Clinton is the most awful person I have seen in politics...pure evil....pure evil.
Sen. Obama should forget about converting or saving the ‘one tooth’ racist and...other Hillary supporters.
Sen. Clinton only cares about what’s good for Hillary...nothing else.
With Hillary's and Bill's outright racist assertion regarding Barack's inability to get "hard working" white worker votes, they have crossed that line. Everyone but hard core racists like Pat Buchanan, Moron Joe and his adoring little sister Mika Zbig know the Clintons are playing the racism card now. Given that Barack has won more pledged delegates under the System to which both parties agreed and nothing can change that, even the Clintons attempts to get rewarded for breaking the rules to which they agreed re MI and FL, superdelegates must endorse NOW to punish her racism.
After years of lies to and manipulation of the least informed among us, we do not need another Bushian leader. We do not need Hillary Clinton.
get the thugs, get the guns and get it done...
I'm buying your book today.
Please, Obama's middle name is not altruism or Messiah.
Okay?