If It's Not My Guy, I'm Not Voting
Some liberal commentators and voters are so insulted that Hillary Clinton gathered support in Texas and Ohio that they have said that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, they will simply stay home and let John McCain win.
They say that Hillary has so disappointed them with negative campaigning against Barack Obama that they are simply fed up and will opt out of the process. They say her acts are "tearing apart" the Democratic party, not that the Clinton-Obama contest has energized and brought new life to the debate over what it means to support Democratic values.
This is the gift of liberals. They snit like no one else. And now that it's not a sure thing that Barack Obama will be the candidate, they are in the corner pouting, as they did over the Swiftboat ads. If the "Super Delegates" throw their support to Hillary, they'll... they'lll ... they'll ... just hold their breath until they faint.
If disappointed Democrats take their gloves and balls and go home and John McCain wins, it goes without saying that the man who has promised to keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary will do so for four years at least. The Supreme Court will extend its respect for human life to frozen embryos and pregnant 13-year-olds will stay pregnant -- because it will teach them a lesson. More states will adopt the death penalty and shorten in the interval between conviction and execution because that pesk exonerating evidence almost always takes years to emerge. McCain won't appoint activists to the Supreme Court if any of the nine judges who will be over the age of 70 by 2009 retires. He has a solid record of voting for the likes of Robert Bork. That 3 a.m. call to the White House will be followed by a call from the White House at 3:15 to gather the lawyers before an act of war unsupoprted by a Congressional vote.
According to a radio host much favored in my house, the Democratic party is a house divided against itself -- and it's all because Hillary Clinton can't play fair. "I don't want my party to win this way," she said after the Texas and Ohio primaries. "And she just can't be the nominee. She can't. The numbers don't add up. If she is, the ends don't justify the means and we have to fight back."
Whoa, doggies. Who's the opponent here?
If wounded Dems make good on their threats, who really loses?
Is that obvious?
In the unlikely event that Hillary Clinton really is the candidate and Barack Obama does not urge every Democrat and sane Republican to vote for her, who will really be guilty of deep-sixing the party? Would Hillary Clinton do the same thing and subvert her pary by urging her broken-hearted supporters to turn away from the greater good?
You know she wouldn't.
She's a lady.
Writing is like breaking rocks in the hot sun, for the angels.”
About Jacquelyn
Jacquelyn Mitchard was born in Chicago, the daughter of plumber and a mother who brought her putty from her part-time job at the hardware store. Of Canadian, Czech, and American Indian descent (a member of the Lac du Flambeau Cree Chippewa tribe) she is...
Connections
Causes Jacquelyn Mitchard Supports
National MS Society, Women Against MS, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, One Writer's Place
Something deeper
Many (including so many young people) are Obama supporters largely because they see a possibility for a different kind of politics in this country. I certainly agree with you that it is crucial to elect a Democrat in November, but I also completely understand the despair that it might be only the old politics (attacks, cover-ups, Super Delegate wheeling and dealing, an ad campaign rather than a true expression of thought) that can win in this country. I do know what you mean about "snit," but this despair is not "snit." The reaction I hear is less "if it's not my guy, I'm not voting" than it is "if this is the only politics this country offers, what's the point?" Yes, age teaches us that there is still a point -- if only because the United States still has such power to cause harm in the world and it is our obligation to do what we can to lessen that threat -- but my heart is completely with those who feel we have to insist on a politics better than this.
Better Than This
Judith, I agree that the hope you speak of is what's driving so many Obama supporters, and even some Clinton supporters as well. I'd suggest that this is a good thing, even if it turns out that the kind of paradigm you suggest doesn't actually work in the real world of electoral politics. Obama's candidacy has gotten people interested and involved who have never been before. Even if he loses (which I doubt, considering the delegate arithmetic), many of these people will stay involved in the aftermath, and will work hard to change the corrupt nature of politics in a gradual way. What I'm saying is that, while many will drop out upon being disappointed by what they perceive as a victory of politcs-as-usual, lots will stay and try to work from within. This happened to a young Republican turned idealistic Democrat named Hillary Rodham in the late '60s, remember, and also to a callow youth turned community organizer in the '80s named Barack Obama.Huntington Sharp, Red Room
Making the Possible Real
I, too, admire "working from within." The essential difference I see is that Obama is appealing to what's best in us, while Clinton is playing -- through innuendo and negativity -- to our fears. Did you see the segment on 60 Minutes last Sunday in which she responds to being told that some voters think Obama is Muslim with language like "well, he says he's Christian and there's no reason not to believe him," "there's no basis I know of not to believe him." She speaks neither to the view of religion as a personal choice, to the truth that Muslims are as patriotic as any other group, nor to the fact that Obama's chosen religion is Christianity. Instead she plants seeds of doubt. The most encouraging aspect about the process so far is that there are so many who are sick of doubt and fear and instead are hungry for a fierce hope we work toward together. I hope -- within the system or without -- those who have been so moved will insist on a vision and practice of polis more positive and inclusive than the one we now have.http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml (then scroll to the "All Eyes on Ohio" video).
Superdelegates
It seems at this point, that Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats nominee without intervention of the Superdelegates is basically an impossibility. If Barack Obama is the leader in pledged delegates, and the Supers decide to openly subvert the will of the people, my despair will not be because I am a sore loser.
People are voting in this election who have never voted before, people are interested in politics who have never been interested before. If HIllary Clinton wins, despite losing the pledged delegate count, it says to these people, in no uncertain terms, that they were right all along. Their voices never mattered, no one was ever listening. They may as well have just stayed home.
A generation of voters without any hope or faith in the democratic process would be almost, if not quite as, damaging to this country as a McCain Presidency.
Ben Feldman, Red Room.
Never mattered
Ben, I agree that if Clinton manipulates the superdelegates, or the Michigan and Florida delegations, to get the nomination, it would be bad in all the ways you say. However, I think there are a lot of Obama partisans, even voting veterans in swing states, who wouldn't vote for her even if she wins "fairly" (which, as you say, seems impossible), and I think that's just as damaging. For them to think that their participation "never mattered" is sad and shortsighted. I think that kind of mulishness comes from the emotional strategy Obama has used to be as successful as he has. In the long run, playing to the heart rather than the head carries the higher potential of blowing up in your face. That has happened to the Democratic congressional leaders in the wake of the 2006 election, and could very well happen to Obama when he inevitably fails to fulfill his acolytes' bottomless need for Change. This is what happened to Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Huntington Sharp, Red Room
Huntington,
Thank you for the historical reminders.
I'm lucky I am a Hillary supporter. If she wins, my head wins; If Obama, my heart. I think there a quite a few of us Hillary supporters who feel this way.
But If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, I would be worried about the Carter-esque backlash should he he not make real a fraction of those enormous dreams.
Heart and Head
Guess I see this "heart and head" dinstinction as a false one. My head is more impressed with Obama's clarity of focus than with Clinton's say-what-she-thinks-she-needs-to approach. My heart feels for her as a person. My heart is moved by Obama's vision of the world we have right before us if only we claim it. My head is impressed by Clinton's will and determination. Although I'd certainly vote for her should it come to that (as I would for just about any Democrat at this point), neither my heart or my head would be happy about it.
Hi, Judith
In the Chinese culture, the organ of thought and feeling is the stomach. I guess my stomach wants the best of both Cinton and Obama. I am voting with my stomach that needs to be daily filled, thereby ending the heart/head battle taking place within me.
Head and Heart
I too think the head/heart dichotomy is false. What's bothered me about Obama's campaign is that, even though he is clearly a man with a formidable intellect, he plays to people's emotions rather than their brains. It reminds me of Ronald Reagain in 1980. It feels just as manipulative to me as Clinton's "say-what-she-thinks-she-needs-to approach," and even more facile. But then, I never expect candidates to do anything but what they feel they need to do to win. That's what the game's all about, and always has been.
Anyway, I like Clinton's balance between heart and head, and as a feminist myself, I'm inspired by the symbolism inherent in her campaign. (Which isn't to say I don't have serious issues with parts of her record; that's the dark side of being the "experienced" one.) But, like you, I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November, but I will do it happily.
Huntington Sharp, Red Room
Lady??
Forgive me, but where I come from, a lady doesn't mock the dreams and aspirirations of the people whose votes she is seeking. Yes, if she manipulates the process and becomes the nominee, I'll vote for her. But she lost my respect when she stood up in Providence and mocked those of us who aren't in the mood for her old style politics of fear. (It's 3 a.m., the phone is ringing; I should feel better because she used to sleep next to the man who had to answer the phone for eight years?) I don't think so.
More on Lady
I'm with you, Rosemary. Besides, my favorite words on the subject of "lady" are the ones attributed to Mother Jones: "God made women, but it took the Rockefeller gang of thieves to make the ladies.” Are you on Red Room now? Welcome. Your Unafraid of the Dark is such an important and wonderful book. And certainly one that speaks to the "hope" I hear Obama talking about.
Hillary's 'win' in Texas
As reported by the Associate Press, Obama actually ended up winning the most delegates in Texas, by a count of 99-94. Combined with the fact that 119,000 Texan Republicans voted for Hillary in response to conservative talk show hosts' requests that they do so, I think we can see that it was a false victory. The same can be said about a number of victories in various states in which her campaign relied upon falsities and manipulations to garner votes. Not very lady-like in my opinion. If Hillary should become the nominee, there is no basis for assuming that Obama would be less likely to unify the party than Hillary would, certainly not by examining each candidate's behavior throughout the campaign.