Obama vs Hillary: Read This And THEN Decide

After the fire - the fire still burns
The heart grows older but never ever learns
The memories smoulder and the soul always yearns
After the fire - the fire still burns...

-- Pete Townshend - 1985

1) I carry no torch for either Obama or Clinton. My torch is solely for the Democratic Party.

(So please do not waste your time flaming me as a supporter of one candidate over the other. Argue the points I raise by all means - but not your interpretation of who you think I wish to see win.)

2) All I ultimately care about is the election of a Democratic President in 2008. A presidency that has the best chance of re-election in 2012. And that has the best chance of delivering a Democratic successor in 2016. (These are not inconsiderable factors to take into consideration.)

3) I also want a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate (ie 60 senators) that will prevail for 8 years. And a House majority strong enough to withstand the inevitable pendulum swings of mid-term elections.

So I don't want much you see...

Only everything we NEED to ensure that we do not win the next battle (in November 2008) only to lose the bigger war that conservatives have been waging against America since the 1960s.

In other words -- we MUST think long-term. Not just New Hampshire. And not just November 2008.

4) So at this critical moment for Democrats - we need to be sure. Really really sure. We should no more coronate Barack Obama now than it seemed as if we were being stampeded to coronate Hillary Clinton for most of last year.

5) If it was wrong for us to be asked to rubber-stamp Hillary -- and it surely was -- it is equally important that we make sure that we are not giddily swept along by Iowa into doing the same for Barack Obama. And there are forces (many of them media people and below-radar Republicans) who are urging us to do exactly that. Not all of them with the good of the Democratic Party first in their hearts...

6) I must state upfront that as a child of the glorious 1960s -- I am at heart a creature of optimism. I always want to believe in what MIGHT happen. The improbable successes we secured in civil rights and our culture in the 1960s happened because we DID dare to believe.

7) On the other hand -- as an ADULT of the late 1960s and the 1970s -- I am also seasoned and tempered by prudence. I remember our failures and defeats as a generation. How optimism alone could be crushed. And how some of our victories -- viewed with hindsight -- needed more than just the hope and inspiration of JFK and MLK. They also needed the muscle and fights (often literally) of LBJ and SDS.

NOT because the hope and inspiration of JFK, MLK and others was lacking.

But because the forces that OPPOSED us were SO entrenched and SO resistant to the changes we sought.

8) And so they are today. Not just the vast legions of social conservatives who delivered the White House to the GOP in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. (That's SEVEN out of ten elections if you're keeping count.)

But also the entrenched interests of Big Business. Capitalism is a seductive flower. But it comes with some venal weeds that are tightly inter-woven in its roots.

9) The positive aspects of Barack Obama and his message are inspiring and uplifting to everyone in the Democratic Party. Especially to those of us who remember the 1960s. His appeal to the young is reminiscent of MLK, RFK and Gene McCarthy.

10) But if we dare to hope -- and surely we must still dare to hope -- we must also remember to reason. Temper our hopes with the realities we have faced. And THEN decide based on that. The young -- bless them -- have not yet had their hopes crushed by realities. They (like we at their age) are invincible. They see only the hope. It is up to us to share our experiences.

NOT to throw cold water on the hope. But to prevent us being carried away on ONLY hope.

11) If we are ruled solely by our hearts and souls -- without paying heed to our minds -- then the eventual pain to our hearts and souls will be that much the greater.

12) So with that in mind -- let's take a look.

13) Obama has a resonant message right now. "Change" That is an especially appealing concept in the abstract after 7 long years of regression. But it is not a platform alone. "Change" means different things to everyone. And talking of change and actually achieving it have ALWAYS been two very different things.

14) Do we think that major political and social change can come about in 2009-2013 with the willing acquiescence or cooperation of conservatives who regard many of those changes as MORALLY wrong?

Do we think that multi-national corporations with decades of entrenched interests and gargantuan profits at stake will simply surrender their positions because a president claims a mandate of 51% or above?

Or do we think that forces that regard their position as entitlement may regard a Democratic president as simply a passing fancy they have to endure for 4 years -- to be stalled until voted out of office? (With their financial muscle putting in the boot).

In other words - will hope and inspiration cause entrenched Big Business to accede to changes that affect their profits? Or is it likely that to achieve REAL change - there will have to be brutal horse-trading and maybe some knock-down fights?

I revile LBJ for what he did in Vietnam. But I cannot and do not deny the import of the vast social changes he brought about.

Had he lived -- would JFK's hope and inspiration have been sufficient to get the Civil Rights Act through? Would the best aspects of the Great Society have become law under Kennedy?

Or did LBJ's experience at real Washington politics (a deeply unfashionable credit these days) and his 36 years in the House and Senate (prior to becoming President) give him the know-how and skills with which to muscle through REAL change against entrenched interests?

15) It was thrilling that Obama attracted so many young and first-time voters in Iowa. The history since 1972 (when 18-year-olds first got the vote) is that the young voters always PROMISE to come out and "Rock The Vote" at the General Election. But they never do in sufficient numbers. Will it be any different this year? If so -- that is a huge plus for Obama. But if the pattern of the last 36 years is anything to go by -- they may not.

16) Democratic voters have been warned heavily in the last two General Elections that if they DIDN'T have a Democratic president to appoint Supreme Court justices -- that we might lose a woman's right to abortion. Even with those entreaties -- it has never appeared a serious enough imminent threat to have a real electoral impact. Democratic voters won't believe that until we DO lose it. (Perish the thought.)

Yet the opposite is the case with social conservatives. They KNOW that -- however disappointed they have become with Bush over Iraq, spending, Katrina etc etc -- just one more Republican president for 4 years could be enough to overcome Roe versus Wade.

So we count on the conservative vote being depressed in November at our peril.

There will be a MASSIVE concerted effort by the religious right (sic) to ensure a Republican victory - for just that one issue alone.

17) How sure are we about the PRIVATE racial prejudices of White Conservative America. Not the answers that those people give opinion pollers. ("No I hate all N$@%&! - and I would never vote for one!" is not the socially acceptable answer. Even rednecks know that).

No I'm talking about in the privacy of the voting booth. In a place where Angry White Men who have been sore since the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s still dwell. Is America the land we hope it to be? Or are there still tracts of White Americans who in the privacy of that booth can find an outlet for their resentments?

18) We must beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Chris Matthews -- whose venal hatred of the Clintons is beyond pathological -- and which he makes no effort to disguise -- is affecting warm and fuzzy about Obama at the moment. Is that genuine appreciation? Or is that because it is just another stick with which to beat Hillary? Should Democratic voters be impressed by that?

It is to be recalled that Matthews wet himself repeatedly over Bush's macho image in 2000 and 2004 (and while he was covering Bush's Mission Accomplished "Top Gun" charade he actually came in his pants). But he continually lambasted Vietnam veteran Gore and war hero Kerry as wimps next to what he characterized as the REAL MAN Bush. Just as he drools like a 13-year-old schoolgirl over Giuliani.

If Obama was our candidate -- and the deadly "Terror" threats come up again (as we all know they will) -- what then of the gushing from Matthews and his media cronies. Will Obama suddenly be a "nice guy" - but if only we were in calmer waters?

In other words -- would the fickle chattering classes turn Obama into another Adlai Stevenson? A fundamentally decent intellectual -- but not a comparison in times of strife (eg Cold War or War On Terror) for a proven soldier/leader.

If there was 9 months of relentless media characterizing of Obama as a "nice decent guy with Utopian ideals" - what then of his chances against an older real Tough Guy in a time of war...?

19) What happens if Obama is our candidate -- and despite all the worst that the GOP can throw at him and the ravenous hunger of the social conservatives to get a Republican in to overthrow Roe vs Wade -- he wins. Praise be. That would be glorious.

But what then if he finds how hard it is to deliver the "Change" he has promised. He encounters inevitable resistance in Congress and massive fight back from Big Business.

And of course there will be a deeply resentful Republican Party and conservative media immediately spending every ounce of its effort and vast vast sums of money to reverse the Democratic tide at the 2010 mid-terms and to defeat Obama in 2012.

Now -- think of the young people who may have played a big part in that Obama election victory. Swept along on the tides of hope for "Change"

But we all know that "Change" is never instant.

And in this regrettably Instant Gratification society - that leads to frustration. Especially among the young and impatient.

If the promised changes are not that dramatic -- will those new young voters flock to the election booth at the 2010 mid-terms to preserve the Democratic congress that will be needed to enact those changes? Will they flock to vote for Obama with the same intensity in 2012 if they feel that the "changes" haven't happened as expected?

Or is there a danger that the high tide of hope that would sweep him to victory in 2008 might ebb in the face of the harsh realities of effecting any significant changes in our brutal world.

20) None of these questions are reasons to vote for or against Obama. Or for or against Hillary.

But they are questions that we ignore at our peril.

Especially in this compressed primary season where voters can become more like sheep than thinkers.

And especially when there are siren voices who do NOT have the Democratic Party's interests at heart -- adding to the frenzy.

As Pete Townshend so eloquently wrote - "the soul always yearns". My soul certainly yearns. Which is why my soul finds Obama so attractive as a candidate.

And I am also mindful of Townshend's warning that "the heart grows older but never ever learns" Which is why my head cautions me to think about the full longterm consequences of an Obama candidacy. And to not rule out the merits of Hillary as a candidate.

What I want is for us to choose the candidate who can beat the Republicans in 2008. AND AGAIN IN 2010 and 2012. And set us up for victory in 2016.

Let us all think of that big picture as we urge our fellow Democrats to decide.

After the fire...

Comments

[cloudy]

The question here boils down to POLITICAL viability, which, given the similarity between the platforms of Obama and Clinton, is hardly a stretch.

The conventional wisdom (CW) and the views of most Democrats in polls is that Hillary is the harder-to-beat candidate in Nov. I understand the argument -- especially the strong appeal to many of the MUCH better (or less bad) governance during the Clinton era, particularly on issues such as fiscal responsibility, economic prosperity, and a cautious, indeed RELATIVELY "humble" foreign policy.

But remember how Kerry was marketed as the candidate to win in Nov 04 -- as the main thrust of the argument against (and trashing) Dean, a potentially galvanizing candidate WHO WOULD HAVE SQUARELY LED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THEN into the anti-war camp? Well, I see a similar disdain in many quarters -- a grasping for reasons to trash (as in the affaire McClurkin and its unjust milking) now. It is much harder to see the PERSONAL strengths and weaknesses of a candidate than to focus on 'horserace demographics' and 'gotcha' issues (the McClurkin issue appeals to the latter, AND MORE SUBTLY to the former).

But Obama is a class act. He is indeed self-controlled and self-possessed. In the several TV debates and some speeches that I have seen him, he is consistently good and sometimes truly eloquent. His responses are not just poll tested spins but reflect a first-rate mind at work being thoughtful. This will, I think, over time, have a positive effect on voters, explaining the much greater RELATIVE strength of Obama to HRC in Iowa, NH, and S Carolina, where the election has been the most intense.

I also think that the much-maligned notion of unity and harmony is the way to build a governing majority (with PLENTY of need for HIGHLY PARTISAN Democrats, such as myself).
I do NOT think that Obama's race would have a huge net effect on his election performance as Democratic nominee; but his overall persona -- VERY MUCH so.

[eshalom]

I thank you for raising some good questions, but I fear Democrats - with much help from irresponsible segments of the media - have already been swept away by emotion, having left their brains behind in Council Bluffs.

[taikan]

You say that you want a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but you also say that you have been "seasoned and tempered by prudence." The first statement belies the second. There aren't enough Republican seats in play for the Democrats to get a 60-seat majority in 2008, and in order for the Democrats to pick up enough additional seats in 2010 the Democrat elected as President in 2008 would have to remain extremely popular. Because there are so many things which could have a negative impact on the next president's popularity, the odds are not in favor of getting a 60-seat majority in 2010.
You also say that you want a Democratic candidate who not only can win in 2008 and again in 2012, but also can set the stage for a Democrat to win in 2016. However, your focus only on Obama and Clinton ignores the fact that Hispanics are the fastest growing group of voters, and therefore if they wish to keep the White House the Democrats will have to carry the Hispanic vote the future. Therefore, your failure to make any mention of Bill Richardson, the candidate who most strongly appeals to Hispanics, makes no sense.
Notwithstanding my criticisms of your post, I commend you for reminding readers of the impact this election likely will have on the makeup of the Supreme Court. The current majority on the Court is likely to continue curtailing not only the right to abortion, which was not illegal or even considered subject to regulation in any of the 13 original states, but many of the rights explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights.

===========MARTIN RESPONDS==========

Your points are well taken. To quote Mick & Keef - "You Can't Always Get What You Want". I know that the chances of getting 60 seats is remote in 2008 and 2010. And that is a factor that people are going to have to think about when they consider how much "change" can actually be accomplished by ANY President.

The reason I make no mention of Bill Richardson is solely because - for good or bad - there is zero possibility of him being the eventual candidate.

Ultimately - it's all about the SCOTUS stupid. And that's certainly what will motivate social conservatives in November.

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/note-to-liberal-hillaryb_b_65770.html

==========­==========­==========­=

[european]

A factor to consider is the effect of some potential Perot-like counter-ticket based on a supposed pseudo-centrist combo like (A.N. Other / Lieberman) designed to steal just enough such votes away from whoever comes out on top of the mainline Democrat candidates, and so let some GOP placeholder squeeze back in, until GEB is up and running in time for the next cycle.

Many years ago, Illinois unfortunately lost its strongest, sanest and wisest foreign policy voice in the Senate, (Sen. Charles Percy (R)) thanks to the fund-raising effort's fronted by a California-based AIPAC activist. So be on the lookout to rapidly identify the equivalent hidden money trails this time around.

[trustedcommenter]

That LBJ's skills and experience empowered him to realize the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act when JFK could not, demonstrates nothing regarding the choice between Obama and Clinton. LBJ was a progressive. The Clintons are crypto-Republican bigots (as evidenced by, e.g., his Sister Souljah ploy, their support for "don't ask don't tell," her opposition to gay marriage, Terry McAuliffe's sabotage of Carl McCall's gubernatorial campaign against George Pataki, and Mark Penn's "drug dealer" slander on Obama), enemies of civil rights (e.g., his subversion of habeas corpus in 1994 legislation), and plutocrats pursuing wealth only for themselves (e.g., Whitewater, pork bellies, welfare reform). In LBJ's position, Sen. Clinton would have had no motivation to push a progressive agenda.

[risingup]

Unfortunately, Lewis seems unwilling to actually draw the conclusions his set of questions naturally lead to: forget what the polls say today, Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket is probably not the best thing for winning the White House. I can understand if many Democrats don’t care about winning and want to support Obama based on principle. That’s fine. But if you care about winning, as I do, you realize that this election is not simply about nominating the person who can give the most inspiring speech, but someone who can lead and has proven that leadership consistently.

I’ve pondered these questions, and I continue to lean towards Hillary … with a strong desire for her to pick Barack Obama as her vice presidential running mate.

I don’t think a Hillary victory is likely (it hasn’t looked good for several weeks, since Obama first topped the polls in Iowa), but I need to support the candidate that I honestly feel would make the best president. The feeling Obama inspires in me is more complex than hope. I feel fear … for being asked to take a risk on an unproven candidate who is long on style and questionable on substance.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Most modern Presidents are Republicans but their guys only served out their terms because it is unreasonably hard for bad Presidents to be replaced in our system. Would so many people be so apathetic if we had an actual system of government which clearly gives the otherwise powerless majority the level of control that we are taught to believe that we have?

Compare the experiences of Bill Clinton to the present derelict in the Whitehouse (but I could structure this example against Ronald "Dementia Guy" Reagan just as easily). The country clearly hates Bush and all that he stands for but the system favors him and no attempt to reach a just resolution (read "Impeachment") of the problem he presents will even be considered. Faced with this inexcusable, but undeniable, reality a national mindset is generated that results in something like 24% of the people being given control over electing Presidents.

And then we have the Impeachment experience of Clinton, an undertaking which the whole country knows was not popularly supported. The final verdict was the only verdict that was possible from day one, but the attempt was as predictable as sunrise, with only the “grounds” left to be worked out. The same reality and the same result, namely that people cannot be faulted for believing that the opinion of the majority of us is mostly just not going to affect anything that happens at the level of the government.

Democrats really need to get behind both a candidate and support for The Second American Constitutional Convention in 2008. Because of the confluence of exciting Democratic candidates and bad Republican government, apathy looks like it will be sufficiently broken for a new paradigm to control, at least temporarily. Ideally this momentum would be used to give us a means to oust bad Presidents, along with giving us someone to place our hopes in.

Because it’s as predictable as sunrise that we will live to see a Republican in the Whitehouse who the nation desperately needs to evict, and we should never be made to feel helpless in this situation again.

[JClausen]

Martin,

You've clearly put some thought into this, though your questions are framed in a way that reveals much. I'll counterpoint a few of your points:

2) That's putting the cart before the horse a bit. So much of that depends on the mood of the American electorate at a given time. IMHO, though, Obama as a sitting president would have at least a 10 percentage point "gimme" on approval ratings over HRC - simply by the nature of his inclusive brand of politics.

3) I'll be a bit of a cynic in saying that the possibility of a Democratic lock on both congress and the Presidency for that extended period of time is a pipe dream. That's why it's even more important to have a President who is willing to acknowledge that "Democrats do not have a monopoly on wisdom."

By that same token, though, it's been shown in the most recent election that Obama's active campaign support for other Democrats is a powerful tool in your stated goal. A more powerful force, I might say, than HRC. The sheer force of active Obama support in close state races would also be proportional to his position.

6-10 - Would the temerity and tenacity to fight those fights have been as immediate or as ingrained on the collective conscious had there not been an RFK or MLK? Your cynicism shows through in all of these points and I respect where it's coming from as a child of the baby boom generation and a granchild of the Greatest generation. The current generation, and perhaps yours as well again, needs their own agents of generational change. I find that my generation (gen-x) and below have a very different paradigm of politics and social issues that do our parents.

Optmism does not necessarily equate to naivety.

[TuffPosh]

I read and enjoyed every word, especially the wise words from one of the greats, Peter Townshend. However, in order to fight the ReThugLicans, we need to stress true progressivism, and Hillary just isn't that. We not only all need to get behind Obama, but we need to encourage him to choose a true progressive like Dennis Kucinich as his running mate.

[steven]

I still like Biden and Dodd but will support which ever dem gets the nomination. Your points are very good- perhaps a Hillary/ Obama ticket with Hillary for just one term and two with Obama.

[LizM]

For what it's worth, I am quite sure that, given the choices left for who will be the Democratic nominee, there will be a Republican administration in 2009.

Whether we are talking about Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards or..ahem..­.Richard..­.cough...s­on (someone really needs to befriend that man and convince him to give it up already - it's not good for the Democratic party!), none of them are going to be able to withstand all that will be thrown at them by the Republican machine that we have all witnessed in action over the last many years.

I mean, let's get real - just consider what happened during the last couple of election cycles if you need more proof than my gut feeling. And, this time around, the Republicans will have all kinds of cards up their sleeves that will work on at least 50.1% of the electorate. All three of the Democratic "frontrunners" have the kinds of weaknesses that the Republicans are expert at turning into election "victories" - I use quotes but, heck...the last few close results were too close to get anyones dander all up about!

As for the Democratic "control" of the Senate and House, I wouldn't count on much improvement there either, for all of the same reasons.

Too bad that Democrats don't know what's good for them, because if they did, they would have gone for Joe Biden, in a heartbeat. Who knows, they will dramatically improve their chances if the Democratic nominee can pursuade Senator Biden to be their running mate and, even as VEEP, he would probably make the combination a winning one - but, geesh, after all the respect he gets from the lot of them (SARCASM!), from the leadership on down, I don't suspect he'd be too interested...it would depend on the nominee and whether the Senate remains in Democratic "control"...life is short, after all...

I'm rambling...you'll have to forgive me...I'm still recovering from the realization that the Democrats are pretty much doomed.

[divyasari]

YOU TALK TOO MUCH

==========MARTIN RESPONDS==­==========­===

My apologies to those with ADD.

==========­==========­======

[Desiderata]

I noticed watching C-Span that Clinton came on stage today in New Hampshire clapping. Has she done this before or has she decided to do what Obama does even as she recently (along with Obama) started talking like John Edwards?

[trevor01]

Your insights are perceptive and persuasive. Go Hillary!