Last night, we watched a fine debate. Senator Clinton badly needed to hurt Senator Obama. She did not, and so perhaps lost her final chance of the 2008 campaign. It is satisfying to see my own candidate move closer to victory. But this is a sad moment, too.
I've been supporting Senator Obama for awhile now, because I believe he is best-equipped to unite this country to advance progressive causes. Senator Clinton is just too encumbered by past battles and scandals, by her complicated financial life, and by 25 years of partisan strife. She just solves too many problems for the Republicans, while raising too many for herself and for her supporters.
I should reveal something I would normally confide only to Dr. Phil, or at least to his discount psychologist cousin. I'm done falling in love with politicians. The last one I loved unconditionally was Bill Clinton. A good president who might have been a great one, he broke my heart, not just because of his personal failings but through his vacillation on issues dear to me such as needle exchange to prevent HIV among injection drug users. I still admire many things about him and the best parts of both his presidency and his post-presidential years.
It's been seven years, but I know I'll never love this way again. (Wasn't Dionne Warwick terrific before she started shilling for the Psychic Friends Network?) Funny thing--as I love politicians less, I think I like them more as human beings.
Maybe that's why I haven't felt that intense, small-group solidarity that human beings seemed programmed to feel during a hard campaign. I notice when Senator Clinton fires a silly broadside on plagiarism and when she commits a genuine foul such as her shenanigans in Michigan and Florida. Still, I don't feel the personal antipathy I had expected to feel. She's doing what politicians tend to do when they are behind in the 4th quarter.
I get no joy from defeating her. My two daughters--both Obama supporters--admire her, and rightly so. Although Senator Clinton lacks her husband's visible gifts, she has obvious intelligence, dignity, and grit. Her desire to help people through public policy runs deep and is quite genuine. Her final debate comments expressed that beautifully. Although her cheezily rehearsed line about Xeroxing fell flat, her final comments about visiting with wounded veterans let her humanity shine through.
David Gergen told CNN that this was the best moment of her campaign. I agree. Millions of Americans need help. Some were hurt in Iraq. Others are unemployed steel workers. Some are uninsured cancer patients. She gets that it's not about her. It's not about Senator Obama, either. Both are working for things larger than themselves.
Senator Obama's intellect and fresh eloquence, his growing command as a presidential candidate make him the best Democratic standard bearer. By dint of his talent and drive, he started with little money or name recognition, no national organization, no magical last name beloved by Democratic voters. He is beating Senator Clinton by proving himself the more inspiring, more skillful, more disciplined and consistent, more effective candidate for the times in which we live. Things could turn around, of course. I don't believe that they will.
Stephen Graubard http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0a7b582-dfb9-11dc-8073-0000779fd2ac.html and others have noted that she can have a bright future, even if she does not ascend to our nation's highest office.
Since 1980, Ted Kennedy has known that he missed his window of opportunity to seize the presidency. He responded with decades of brilliant service that has made him one of the best senators in American history. Together with an impressive staff, Kennedy has accomplished big thing. With the help of an impressive staff, he has also done important little things, too, such as repairing the federal criminal code.
My favorite moment in any debate occurred when a reporter asked which candidate Martin Luther King, Jr. would endorse in the Democratic primaries. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton eloquently argued that their campaigns were advancing causes Dr. King held dear.
Then Senator Obama gave the most reflective and historically plausible answer, showing some hard lessons he learned community organizing in south Chicago. He noted that Dr. King probably wouldn't endorse any of them. King would instead hold the winner accountable. Perhaps because Obama is the most charismatic politician in recent memory, he understands that change comes from a broader movement, not from any one individual.
Dr. King's own life illustrates this lesson. Equally eloquent and brave African-American leaders came before him. King was blessed to arrive at a unique moment when he could use his gifts to leverage and amplify the contributions of countless others. The greatest American in my lifetime and arguably the first truly gifted television politician, King was distrusted by many civil rights activists because he seemed so reliant on charisma. Many preferred the more reticent Robert Moses (not the builder), who was closer to the community organizing ideal Barack Obama expresses well. Indeed King never found a way to pass on something larger than himself. Then again he might have, had he not been killed before reaching age 40.
In any event, elected politicians who create a lasting progressive coalition across racial lines, the Clintons and Obama among them, are his true heirs. They must fight together to achieve common goals.
In making this fight, Senator Clinton may soon face the difficult question: Should I continue? John Edwards and others faced similar choices. The hurt for her surely cuts deeper, because nearly everyone expected her to win.
I won't presume to answer this question for her. I believe she will exit on a high note, and that she will retreat from the scorched earth tactics hinted at by some of her supporters. If Obama emerges with a marked lead in pledged delegates, it would taint the nomination too much for her to seize it through chicanery. She's enough of a seasoned professional to know this. Even if she wanted to, it's not clear she has the muscle to win this way after a string of defeats.
Hillary Clinton has even greater capacity to serve America from the Senate floor. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, he will probably bring along more Senate and House seats than Senator Clinton is likely to do, but not enough to painlessly enact a progressive program. He will need much help and heavy lifting, including from Senator Clinton and her supporters.
She can play a central role in shepherding health reform through Congress. She can rally support for a reasonable and responsible course in Iraq. She can fight to enact many proposals she now endorses. She can draw on her husband's unique stature without dragging our nation into the soap opera he would inevitably occasion if she herself were president.
Senator Clinton may someday win the presidency. Even if she never does, she is wise enough to know that there are worse fates.