The Democratic Crossroads: Stay With the Known or Accept a New Generation of Leadership

For the party of the status quo it is always easier. Who best represents "stay the course." The only complication this year is how to be the candidate of stay the course without mentioning the president from whom you are inheriting the course.

For the party of reform, it is always more complicated. If it really were about who best represents change it would be easier. But there is also the human factor of power. For better or worse not everyone gets into politics to carry out reform. Some seek power, what most people think politics is all about. For those who have had power and seek to keep it or recapture it, they can claim to be for change and reform but they cannot bring it about because there are too many old arrangements, too many deals, too many old networks. They all prevent transition to a new age.

The Democratic party is once again faced with a decision: whether to stay with the known, the familiar, and the "experienced" or whether to accept a new generation of leadership composed of those who have not had power or the experience of governing. If you believe, as I do, that the early 21st century is an age of huge transition -- of globalization, of information, of failed states, of climate change, of rising new powers, and so on -- then leadership hamstrung by old arrangements and commitments will not do.

The contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is further complicated by unusual factors. Her gender. His race. Many women will vote for her simply because she is a woman. Many minorities will support him simply because he is an unusual black-American. That is human nature and to a great degree understandable. But gender and race cannot and should not obscure the larger realities. America is stuck. Those of us who met in Oklahoma City (the "Ben-Gay forum") think we are stuck in large part because of bitter partisanship. But we are also stuck because our leaders cannot see over the horizon ("the vision thing"). They do not see that we are living in an age of huge revolutions. They refuse to understand that we cannot resolve complex security issues merely by changing America's character and making this Republic an empire of unilateral intervention and occupation.

I have personal experience of the Democratic party at a generational crossroads. In the mid-1980s the Democratic party could play it safe and stay with a candidate they knew and with whom they were comfortable and familiar. Or they could take a chance with a new generation of leadership with a new understanding of a new age and new policies and ideas. They chose the former and they lost.

Democrats and Americans are faced with a big decision. Will we play it safe? Or will we embrace the future? This is not a time to put gender or race above what is best for the country or to make superficial choices. We have huge debts and deficits. The climate is rapidly approaching a tipping point. We are stuck in the Middle East. Most of the people in the world do not like us or trust us. Our education system is declining. And the list goes on.

Only a new generation of leaders can solve these new challenges, because only a new generation of leaders is unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old deals and old friendships. This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power. We will either move forward or we will go back.

Comments

[FOXYLADY]

HILLARY IS DOING JUST FINE AND GOING FORWARD REGARDLESS OF SOME OF THE PRESS EXCORIATING HER. SEEMS MEN WHO "THINK" THEY ARE STRONG ARE "WRONG" AS THEY OBVIOUSLY CAN'T STAND STRONG WOMEN WITH BRAINS AND COMMON SENSE. WONDER WHAT THEIR WIVES ARE LIKE...??? I BET THEIR WIVES WILL VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!!! IF NOT FOR HER ISSUES THEN FOR GETTING EVEN WITH THEIR HUSBANDS.....

[wforward]

Who in the last fifty years has done a better job as president than Bill Clinton? And when was the country in better shape? Hillary was in the middle of all of it. Why are we so anxious to treat her like old newspaper? Wake up Democrats! She's a solid, experienced progressive who might actually be able to take the White House -- the thing the Republicans fear most.

[ilovejoebiden]

My issue is that he never gets specific, it's all talk and he hasn't accomplished much in the Senate. Have you seen that photo of Barack not saying the Pledge of Allegiance with his hands clasped in fron of him while he is standing with Hillary and B. Richardson? Scary. It's hard for me to believe anything he says, Yes, I'm a skeptic. It could be all smoke and mirrors to get elected.

[Pericles]

The only thing that could return the crazy neocons to power in November is if some "bipartisan" candidate emerges to split the sane vote with the Democrats. I hope you're smarter than that.

[serena1313]

If you want status quo, vote for Hillary.

How she campaigns offers an inside peek into how she will run the country. Politicians triangulate; Hillary is no different. But when she brought out the 911 fear-card the other day that raised a red flag. The similarities between her and Bush are worrisome. So if you want a milder, Bush-like president, vote for Hillary. She will go to any lengths to get your vote.

If you want positive change, vote for Obama.

Obama's reasoned logic and sense of justice inspires confidence. He thinks things through before acting. By mobilizing people of all stripes: young, old, black, white, conservatives, republicans, democrats, liberals, progressives to vote for the first time Obama changed the dynamics of the political process. Not only does Obama say he will, he "is" uniting Americans. Hands-down that is leadership.

Each experience expands one's realm of knowledge and understanding. But it is up to the individual to decipher its meaning and grow from it. Those whom simply ignore that aspect will continue to make the same decisions over and over expecting a different outcome. Nothing changes until we choose differently.

It goes without saying, choose wisely.

[Omaha]

Welllll, Senator Hart, practically speaking as an Independent, I've got a real dilemma with the 2008 national election that goes beyond your paradigm. None of the Republicans in the race will get my vote because of their inane policies yet I am in a quandary re: the Democratic candidates ...

As a woman and a Progressive, I'd like to give Hillary the nod, despite her centrist positions, especially when I hear opposition shouts in her audiences like "Iron my shirt." Hillary did fine in the NH primary considering how the press continues to excoriate her. And, if nothing else, she has earned the right to be a presidential candidate. But, I don't think she can win the general election.

On the other hand, a competent, experienced female - and Hillary is more than capable, has got to "go for the gold" sometime ... win or lose. This crucial election, however, would be a terrible one to lose.

Barack's inspirational but much too calculated rhetoric and his unwillingness to hold the current Administration responsible for their criminal actions in a forceful, public way are not enough for me at this juncture. The country is facing many complicated problems created by "Bush & CO." both here and abroad and, intelligent as Obama may be, I want someone with more experience than him to straighten it out.

After all the debates and now one caucus and one primary, I still wouldn't know Obama's specific position on anything if I hadn't gone fishing for the info myself. And, I blame the media for making him a rock star without first examining his credentials and credibility.

Hence, I've been leaning toward the Democrat John Edwards, mostly because he 1) has not taken PAC money, 2) has ethically and actually challenged corporatism and special interests, 3) acknowledged his initial support of the war in Iraq as a mistake, 4) has an otherwise sound voting record, and 5) more accurately defines the America I know. Unfortunately, Edwards does not seem to be capturing many people's imagination since Clinton's come-back and the annointing of Obama.

What to do?!

[AvasTiaJeanne]

I say: Embrace the Future.
Obama 2008

[jacknab]

1) I just want to say you were the last politican my mother was ever excited about. She had a gleem in her eye when she spoke of casting her vote for you. Then you messed it up and broke her heart, Gary Hart.
2) I am basing my vote on two things. The candidate who opposed going into Iraq in 2002 just as I did. And the canidate who taught Constitutional Law--meaning he has actually read the Constitution which will be a fresh breath of air for the first time in 7 1/2 yrs.
3)It is going to take more than just one candidate in the White House. It is also going to take a collation of like minded candidates for the Senate and House, and then a realignment of the courts which will take years before significant chan ge can take place in this country. The courts are going to be the most difficult to change since they are lifetime appointments.
And as a Post Script I would like to quote:
"Party ideaological principle was decisive factor in personel selection. Loyalty to the party was more important than ability."
This might appear to have been written about the current administration, but was in fact written by Dmitri Volkogonov about the Leninist Politburo in his biography of Lenin.

[Dunnage]

Hope not fear -- choke me. Sorry, but when I turn the volume off on an Obama speech he looks like one of the "new and now" generation evangelists: well dressed with eloquent mantras for money.

[frank67]

The old Money party is winning as usual!
The People party is again way, way behind!

[Fredric]

As I have mentioned before; we got the corrupt antichrist Bush & the evil Mr. Cheney because of the actions of the Clintons. History will certenly repeat itself if she is elected.

[Sheridan1]

Oh C'mon people. Obama has NEVER made this generational. I am a baby boomer and both my kids and I are volunteering for Obama.

People are repeating talking points put out by pundits and accrediting them to the candidate. It's ridiculous.

Hillary would be a fine president but that was until Obama decided to run this year. He is new to YOU but he is not a baby. He is 47 years old. Kennedy was 42 when he took office. Plus it is worth repeating that Obama has more years experience as an elected official than Hillary. And he is not counting any of Michelle's experience as his own.

Anyone who compares Obama to Bush in the "uniter" way, just needs to think back to college years. Who would hire a Yale C- student with alchohalism who has never had a successsful business atttempt and never done anything to support US. Obama has been successful as a community organizer, a state Senator, and a U.S. Senator. He does not sway with ups and downs - he remains constant. He is confident without being arrogant and strong without being a bully. He thinks internationally which is more important in our current world than ever!

As someone else said here, Hillary is telling you what she will do for your country. Obama is asking you to change the country by being part of a movement.
Obama/Edwards '08!

[ardeth]

Oh, come on! The only candidate who will truly provide a "new age" for Democrats is Dennis Kucinich. The rest of the candidates are corporate political retreads.

[bash]

For the last hour I have been sitting in an internet cafe where the tables are rather close and I have admittedly been eavesdropping on a conversation going on among 3 young African American men. I am an old white lady who enthusiastically supports Obama, and the talk was very enlightening. The young men in the conversation resent the fact that white people seem to be picking t candidates for black people, they were howling with laughter over the fact that Obama talks of himself as the "candidate of change" and yet is now being endorsed by all the old white politicians, find him a master of propaganda for saying that red and blue can come together and think that "white people who vote for Obama don't know shit man". After that they went on to say that Bill Clinton may of had a method acting class, but he had a message. I know now what people were talking about when they were wondering about whether or not Obama was "black enough" and find it very discouraging that people are so cynical about the possibility of somebody actually getting something done in Washington. I remain a 60's idealist.

[thebeerdoctor]

I keep hearing this saw about not voting for Clinton because she is a woman. What about Senator Boxer? Or Representative Lee, Kaptur, or Senator Patty Murray? You see there are accomplished women in Washington that have far more experience than Clinton, but no one ever suggests that they could be presidential candidates. Why? Because the highest rung on the elite ladder are those who think they are entitled. Thus we have the House of Clinton and the House of Bush.