Thought it might be helpful to add a quick bio. As mentioned, I created this blog to start a conversation that aims to include everyone. I've been active in Obama's campaign, but I feel that I'm in a unique position because I began as a strong Clinton supporter (I cut my teeth in New York state politics, so it's no surprise that I feel what I feel for Hillary), have an enormous sense of pride for her as a woman, and can relate to the let-down that so many are feeling.
So, about you: How did you start getting interested this election? What was it that really clinched it for you, when you decided on your candidate? Do tell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I come to this campaign as a progressive democrat, in the tradition of those who fought to end child labor, the 40 hour workweek, injured worker compensation, unemployment insurance, social security, collective bargaining for labor, universal suffrage and rational regulation of commerce in general – stuff the Democrats haven’t really fought for a couple of generations. With Bill Clinton having delivered NAFTA, and Senator Clintons less than noble stand against the Iraq adventure, I was at least ambivalent toward her candidacy.
However, when I observed Barak Obama being vetted by the finance crowd in Chicago, New York and London, before his grass roots support existed, I was convinced he was being selected as a Hillary-killer. The victories of Pelosi over John Murtha and Howard Dean of Harold Ickes only confirmed this fear at the time. That was the basis of my commitment to the Clinton campaign, months before the first primary: that if all these loosers were against her, then they must fear the possibility of her independence as President.
Now that the Obama campaign has taken out Hillary, I suppose that they’re done with him. If the very real grass roots constituency of Obama supporters can now actually organize themselves to victory, that’d be great, but I don’t think they understand what a problem they have, with the enemy already inside their gates, in the form of David Axelrod. His great job of leading them to victory in the primaries, has already turned to series of mistakes in their treatment toward Clinton supporters which leads down a path to defeat in November. Sit down and shut up doesn’t strike me as the foundation to party unity.
Wow, it never crossed my mind that Obama was perceived as a Hillary-killer, as you put it. That's an interesting perspective. I personally always saw it as a choice between two fantastic candidates, and felt so lucky to have the choice I did. For the record, I think the person who originally convinced Barack Obama to run was Senator Tom Daschle. I got the sense that he ran because he felt like he could offer something unique, not because he wanted to hurt the Clintons.
I agree that the campaign needs to really work to mend ties with the Hillary supporters who are alienated right now. I also agree that some of the campaign spokespeople did more damage than help to the campaign. I hate the culture of the zingy one liners that we are living in.
YVYC wrote: "I got the sense that he ran because he felt like he could offer something unique, not because he wanted to hurt the Clintons." Hmmm...how did you explain it to yourself, then, when the basis of his whole campaign became how Clinton was the past and he was the future; how Clinton was status quo and he was change; how Clinton was dishonest, but he was trustworthy? What about when he and his campaign were calling Clinton and her supportrs racists, small-minded relgious zealots with guns, uneducated, etc? Never once did it occur to you that he was trying to hurt Clinton?
And, now, when he calls the differences between himself and Clinton 'infinitesimal,' how can you not feel lied to?
It's not that we feel alienated, Melissa. It's that we saw through it and we are annoyed with the Obama supporters and the DNC for making such a terrible choice for our country and our party and on such tenuous props as "change" and "good speeches." And, now, many of us are voting are voting our conscience instead of our party because McCain seems to have more integrity: afterall, he didn't rip his party apart, calling leaders within his own party racists and liars, just to get the nomination. He ran on the issues...Hillary ran on the issues...Obama ran on media spin and few good speeches.
I definitely respect your right to use your vote to voice your protest, and I see where you're coming from, but I guess I feel differently than you in that I don't feel like I was lied to. Especially early on in the campaign, I did feel like Obama and Hillary's policy proposals were, broadly, pretty similar.
I think you're right that Obama tried to establish himself as the candidate of change, and that it was unfair to Hillary to imply that she somehow couldn't offer that. On the other hand, if Clinton had won, I think a lot of Obama people would be feeling that it was unfair of Clinton to imply that he would be a weak commander in chief, and unready to be president. But I do think that the Obama campaign in particular should show due respect right now.
When I said I thought Obama was set up as a Hillary-Killer, I didn't refer to his motives. His motives are his own, and I imagine that they are as noble as anyone. I don’t agree with those Clinton supporters who think he’s evil.
Many people love him, and he’s a reasonable man, but people use people in politics, and folks with an awful lot of property interests to protect tend to want to vet our candidates before they are allowed to become viable. Barak got his shot a the gold because he was a nearly perfect instrument for splitting the party. Now that the primary is over, that faction of his supporters is done with him, this strength becomes a weakness, but he came out with substantial troop of true believers.
It was often said that the Clinton’s came with a lot of baggage. True enough. They also came with substantial institutional infrastructure. I think there was a concern that if the Clintons got back in, they might actually take this progressive democracy stuff seriously, that they might actually have the institutional strength to “go presidential” on them in a time of crisis; to put people before property and similar unspeakable things.
Its not that I don’t think Obama would want to do the same thing. But even if he does win the presidency, he won’t have the institutional support to assert his will on essential questions of corporate interests vs public welfare. This could change if his campaign actually builds a real and substantial national constituency, then everything is possible. But considering the way things went in Austin, I think Axelrod manages Obama’s supporters as pawns.
Post a Comment