Obama Gives Us Everything Hillary Could -- And Much More

For reasons mentioned by James Carville, who called him "the most qualified person ever to run for president," and Larry Sabato (Prof. at U of Virginia) who said "if he gets the nomination, the Republicans all say they are dead," I thought Bill Richardson would have been the best choice both for the nomination to win a broad victory and to serve as president. Alas, that is not to be. Thus, I come to the question of Barack vs. Hillary without bias based upon early choice, but with a recognition of the importance of emotional factors both in making choices and in leadership. [In reading further, I urge people to consider that this is NOT about what Hillary or Barack deserve, but what the American people need and deserve].

The Clintons would bring to the White House almost everything Democrats and progressives have found wanting with George Bush: a refocus on the middle class, some winding down of the Iraq War, a push for universal health care, appointing non-ideologues to the Supreme Court, a return to policy based upon facts rather than wished-for beliefs, a push against global warming, and reaching out to the world at large without arrogance and without messianic zeal (note what he first four letters of "messianic" spell!).

So would Barack Obama.

I would give Barack more "credit" on his commitment to remove the troops, and thus more likely to happen, and to happen soon, than the Clintons who still have not said anything negative about the decision to go to war except that it was poorly executed, and would not have supported it if she knew then how badly it would have been run. Moreover, Barack's prescience (like Jim Webb's) of the consequences of invading and occupying Iraq bespeaks a judgment that would make it more likely to avoid future foreign policy disasters; that said, I suspect an "Iraq syndrome" will stay the hands of the Clintons from embarking on misadventures.

Notwithstanding Hillary's claims to experience, I have heard nothing to suggest she has any executive experience, nor any experience in preventing or combating terrorism, her "day 1" argument.

Indeed, Barack has more experience in national politics than Bill Clinton had when he took office, and 8 vs. 12 years in state government compared to Bill Clinton himself. Thus, it is hard to see much daylight between Barack and Hillary on relevant experience.

Certainly, not enough to be dispositive. Bill Clinton just addressed a rally in which he pointed out that spending $30B now to save people from foreclosures is better than $300B a year from now when 1,000s have already lost their homes, and indicated that that was what presidential leadership was all about. Not controversial, except the implication was that Hillary saw this all coming a year ago and suggested pre-emptive action. She didn't. She offered her proposals after the subprime crisis had been talked about for weeks.

There is nothing the Clintons bring to the election or the presidency that Barack Obama does not.

The converse, however, is not true.

One could not put the strength of Barack's emotional appeal, and its importance, any better than Caroline Kennedy did. We could add that his persona itself provides people hope that they, too, can live out their dreams.

Moreover, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, Barack's background provides a connection to the third world, where most of our problems reside, that no other person has ever had. What most Americans do not realize is that the third world views Americans as exploitative, but view minority Americans as part of the exploited. Thus, there is a natural empathy between minority Americans and third world people and leaders. Whether irrational or not, it is real. That minority status doubtless helped Bill Richardson establish rapport with hostage-holders. With Obama as president, that emotional connection could provide the United States not just a return to respect among our friends, but an opening to the rest of the world that we desperately need.

Barack also brings the real chance of major healing and reconciliation in this country's politics, whereas the Clintons bring a certainty of sharpened divisions. Irrational, or psychotic as it may be, nothing the Clintons or their surrogates say can say or do will change that fact. Their die has been cast.

If, as it appears, McCain is the Republican nominee, an Obama nomination would mean the stark contrast between the past and the future. Hillary as the nominee would solidify the right-wing, who otherwise cannot abide McCain, behind him. With McCain's appeal to independents, Hillary might find it difficult to compete in the midwest and west. With McCain's prominent role in comprehensive immigration reform, he would not be automatically dismissed by the hispanic community.

Then, we must consider how Congress will operate with Hillary as President compared to Barack as President. The key is the Senate. If the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority (i.e., 60 votes, an unlikely achievement ESPECIALLY if Hillary headed the ticket), Republicans will have the power of obstruction. They have wielded that power without shame, and largely without an echo-chamber of criticism that the Democrats endured, for example, when they blocked radical rightwing judicial nominees.

With Hillary as President, and for the same reasons as mentioned above, Senate Republicans will find it difficult to enable a Clinton presidency by compromise without their base going ballistic. The same is not true for Obama. Hence, more of the common agenda among all the Democratic candidates will likely become reality.

Then, there is Bill Clinton himself. What would be better for the country, having him reprise his role as "elder statesman" as he would do in an Obama presidency, or having him continue his erratic, and sometimes destructive, performance during the campaign into another stint in the White House? Just as I wrote in "How Handlers Have Hurt Hillary" (January 7, 2008), putting the same general in charge of two different wars is not a good idea -- much time and effort is expended trying to prove that mistakes of the first war (in this case, first term) were not really mistakes at all.

Finally, while the Clintons might look for bipartisanship (getting Republican votes for some compromise measures), Barack seeks transcendence. That is, Barack's vision is not to craft compromises between liberals and conservatives, but rather to forge new majorities that abolish the divisions of the past that are old, tired and false.

To gauge how false they are, consider how the rightwing masks its true intentions regarding social programs such as Social Security and Medicare -- they claim all they are doing is "improving" or "strengthening" those programs, they cannot say honestly that they want them to "die on the vine" (Newt Gingrich) because they know they are popular. The only modestly positive legacy George Bush will have is the introduction of Medicare Part D, paying for prescription drugs.

Barack Obama offers the country everything that Hillary Clinton does -- and much more.

Comments

[BeyondKen]

Suppose Hillary Clinton had won her first race for office by hiring two lawyers to use legal maneuvering to get all her opponents thrown off the ballot?

What would the Obama camp say?

Arrogant? Not playing by the rules? Old-style Clintonian politics?

But Sen. Clinton didn’t do that. Sen. Obama did:

According to David Jackson in the Chicago Tribune:

“A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.”

[MPeter]

This is a great article. It is so true how putting the same General incharge of two different wars. We saw what Bill did when he took over hillary's campaign. It was all of a sudden about his years, his ideas and his legacy and the claim that Obama had dismissed them. Great article. Obama gives everything and more. He inspires.

[poeticjustice4all]

It's true, Barack brings a lot to the table that Hillary Clinton doesn't:

inexperience, a skimpy resume, a lack of ties to any major service or political organization, racial division, a split with the GLBT community, the name Hussein, Treehouse Foods, an untested campaign team, and a near absence of specifics on programs and proposals.

[remc]

Fine, fine post. States what I've been thinking very clearly. I'm starting to see Hillary supporters as being very fearful, although what they fear seems to vary a bit. I can see that the last eight years might make you want to hunker down with something that makes you feel safe, but I think this country is headed for an abyss if we don't pull back in a big way and shoot for the stars. The alternative - with either Clinton or McCain - is sinking deeper into the swamp.

Go Obama!

[nunzia]

Bull! Hillary has the guts to cast a vote, stand by it, and take the heat.
Obama votes "present" and gets his feelings hurt when he's called out for it.

[knittingbuddah]

Both candidates are decent options. But as much as they promise change, they need a Democratic Congress to effect substantive change.

The notion of the return to the romance of the inspiration of JFK with Obama makes me uneasy. The idea of Camelot, the fairy tale of JFK's Presidency did catch our imaginations. However, as we all later learned, the fairy tale was false, the prince had girlfriends on the side and got us embroiled in Vietnam. The glamorous wife smoked Salems. I like romance, but I don't want to have it at the expense of the truth. The winning candidate must be utterly transparent and ready to get down to plain hard work. No fairy tales this time, please. No cover ups. We have hard work ahead. This time around we need the perspiration as well as some inspiration.

It still bothers me that Obama smokes or smoked. It is not the fact that he smoked, but that he smoked and continued to smoke when he had children. To me that says volumes.

Without a great deal of change to the process and process of Washington both candidates will have to live with some of the past. Reform, be it evolutionary or revolutionary, rises from the past.

I am looking for a candidate who can recognize reality and tell the truth.

[SeanGardner]

Mr. Abrams?! WOW!!!

Nice endorsement. It's almost like your piece is the combined observations of great HUFFPO posters like Boadicea, LeefromVA, genmalia, RusStyles, Zhonni, DrVandy, Kansas Evans, TurnThePageGa and many others, who take Obama's passion and oratory into account, but whose support of him rest mostly on Obama's 12 years as a sensible politician, the 800 bills he sponsored in the Illinois State Senate (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html), the fine work he's done in the U.S. Senate - including his first law in the US Senate, which allows everyone to go online and see how and where tax dollars are spent (Look at it here: http://www.usaspending.gov).

They are impressed that he was a community organizer who left his cushy, well-paid corporate job in NYC to go and organize working poor and working class Chicago residents for $13,000 a year. They are impressed that he was a longtime lecturer of constitutional law at The University of Chicago.

They are impressed that he has a record of working on behalf of struggling families, low wage workers, the middle class, latinos, blacks, arab-americans, asian-americans, gays and lesbians, etc.

But most of all Mr. Abrams, they are impressed that Obama has the BLUE STATE credentials and RED STATE credibility to, as you so eloquently wrote, not simply "craft compromises between liberals and conservatives, but rather to forge new majorities that abolish the divisions of the past that are old, tired and false." Indeed, you're right: "Barack seeks transcendence". Not pretending that race, gender, and ethnicity don't exist, because they do. And they matter. Barack's point is, we must develop a way to transcend the interest group driven "identity politics" and create a lasting, postive change for our country, and our world.

Its not about color specific differences that make us unique (because they're real). But its about the color-neutral commonalities that bring us together. Obama is the perfect messenger to construct this political foundation, on which we can build skyscrapers of meaningful bipartisan agreement.

[lexicoscott]

any maybe the "mother-hood" concept? I'm not a woman, but anyone that can squeeze a watermelon through the V-Jay jay, can withstand alot. And she can show she will survive. That's all I'm saying.

[CenterLeftLawyer]

Very, very well said.

[ljsfolly]

there has been little or not much said about the fact that Barack has spent much time on the phone and meeting with those he felt could help out in Kenya. He has quietly put what he can into stopping the violence there. I remember JFK as a kid he was the first and only president that I felt cared for me, a kid. We had the physical ed challenges to make us stronger and healthier and he made me feel hope in my heart for the future. Even now older and wiser about the "adult" things happening while I was innocent with JFK and Marilyn and Robert and etc I still care very little about that because you cannot negate hope. I still feel the loss of the one who I felt would make things better. I was for Edwards because he also speaks to my soul about the poor and those who cannot stand for themselves. But as I have listened Barack has made me feel the rebirth of hope and future better than what bush has brought us. I believe Hillary is more of bush in a dress. I already feel shame and anger at what Bush has done to us as a country. In some ways it is like has been explained to me by a rape victim, "He took all that was good out of me then he stomped on my heart". I feel that with every soldiers death. Hillary is as much into the war and will extend it out for as long as the country would let her while Barack wants what he knew he wated years ago. No more war exception to be fighting al queda. He never voted for the war but had to vote to fund the soldiers to keep them safe. That is an honorable man.

[AnninCA]

Nonsence.

I am a supporter of Hillary.

Let me share.

I understand the depths of the Bush administration's harm against people. He slashed every program. His legacy is horrible.

I trust Hillary will focus on basics.


We must restore people programs.

I trust her to do that.

I don't trust Obama.

[sonofloud]

except experience and a past record upon which to judge

[facemn]

A great article! I agree that a vote for Hillary is a vote for the past and not the future. Hillary is vying for the White House for her and her husbands own ambitions. They just don't feel genuine to me at all. But when I listen and read about Obama, there is something very real about him. He makes me believe that we can do better as a country.

http://www.barackobamacentral.com

[uglicoyote]

This may just be the most cogent argument I've seen, both for supporting Barrack over Hillary and and for supporting either of them over any of the Republics.

[Rowena]

Extremely well-argued, and not at all inflammatory. I'm having a tough time convincing some of my Hillary-supporting friends (all older white women) to do more than repeat the "he has no substance" argument about Obama; yet when I ask them if they've actually investigated his record and his platform and policies, they admit they haven't. Here's a challenge to all of you bloggers who post nasty comments about "Obamabots" and "Saint Obama": I agree with you that Obama supporters should be more civil to you, but you have to hold up your end too. Instead of just repeating "no experience" and "he has no substance" over and over in your posts, tell us WHY you think he has no experience and no substance. In other words, check out what he has done and look at his platform, and THEN hit on us.