Barack Obama for President
May 21st, 2008 by nick
I voted for Hillary Clinton in my caucus in February, represented her as a delegate to the El Paso county convention in March, and represented her again as a delegate to the Colorado State convention last weekend. But now I think it’s time for her to drop out of the race and let Barack Obama accept the Democratic nomination. Until recently, I was convinced that Hillary Clinton would be a better president and would have a better chance against John McCain in the general election. However, at this point, I believe that by staying in the race she is harming the Democrats’ chances in November.
First and foremost, her recent negative campaigning and pandering is damaging to Barack Obama and Democrats everywhere. As Anna Quindlen wrote in a recent Newsweek column:
“In recent weeks Senator Clinton has gone down a dark road from a Democratic perspective. Whether embracing a bogus gas-tax break, vowing to “totally obliterate” Iran if it goes after Israel or noting that hardworking white folks like her better than her black opponent, she seemed to be running a tutorial in Karl Rove 101, the Republican primer of diversion, aggression and division. Behind all this was clearly a means/ends argument: she would do what she needed to do to win, and then later do the right thing. The problem is that usually by the end, you’ve become the means.”
Second, she is stooping to desperate and disingenuous measures such as trying to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated at the national convention, despite originally agreeing not to campaign in those states because they held their primaries too early.
Finally, rightly or wrongly, many Americans (not just Democrats) have accepted Obama as the likely nominee. He has momentum, excitement, and a dedicated cadre of supporters that Clinton just can’t match. I get the feeling that some Obama supporters would refuse to vote for Clinton (and have been told that directly by at least one person). I don’t get the same feeling from Clinton supporters.
As Anna Quindlen wrote,
“She [Clinton] needs to think outside the hermetically sealed bubble of her campaign and begin to develop a strategy now for the ways in which she wants to use that [prominence]: to unify the party, to galvanize her base of voters, to make certain the Democrats prevail in November and perhaps to play a powerful leadership role in government in the years to come.”
If you don’t have the balls to support the candidate you are a delegate for…get out — you don’t deserve to vote. You are truly disgusting and are just more of what is wrong with this system.
I am a woman and a mother of a girl. I will not vote for Brack Obama in November if he does not address my concerns about gender unequity of power in this country. Yes, one of the ways to address these concerns is to put one of the most competent, experienced, toughtful leaders our country possesses, Hillary Clinton, on the ticket.
I will not change my mind, I will not vote for McCain but I will not vote for Barack.
Even if Hillary herself asks me, I will not change my mind because it is not about Hillary Clinton, it is about my daughter’s future.
Nick:
Thanks for coming around. There are a million of reasons why people have or are going to come around to supporting Obama for President. Some are party faithfuls, some are connected to what Obama represents politically or personally, some are repulsed by the alternative or the Republican agenda and its regressive reactionary worldview.
But the reality is that Obama has earned the Democratic Nomination by winning the delegate contests. Hillary Clinton’s campaign’s last gasp is to conjure up the false hood idea that the popular vote has her in the lead, but like the dotcom bubble’s math her math too is also an illusion where one has to completely and categorically discount the caucus state votes and include the unsanctioned beauty contest results in MI & FL. But worse is that she still cannot make a credible claim because when one includes all the votes, including caucus and MI & FL Obama still leads by a quarter of a million votes. And yet this is a straw-man argument since we do not elect or nominate Presidents by popular votes we use a delegate process. I hold no animosity or contempt towards the Clinton campaign or its supporters regardless of their tactics and efforts—in reality this simply made the Democratic ticket stronger and more prepared for the fall campaign. The question is whether the Clinton supporters and volunteers hold animosity and scorn the other way.
Now going forward, Nick you mentioned the belief that Clinton would be a better President, naturally a subjective thought. Have you considered this thought process or paradigm. The Clinton’s were a political family who held a worldview locked in the 20th Century and defined by the domestic political climate of the by the Cold War (WW III) and the post Nixon Era domestically. The world has changed and continually to change rapidly. Internationally Europe has morphed into a homogeneous cooperative economic group. China is fast becoming a global economic and military superpower. We possibly are facing a 20 year Middle East War if we continue to go down this path of self destructive empire policies and lastly we are heading to a economic depression with gas eclipsing $10.00 a gallon. Clinton continually looked backwards in trying to approach these problems tactically as if they are a continuation of the 20th Century global model. Obama on the other hand represents the 21st Century worldview where new forms of cooperation and organization must be formed and developed to solve the problems left behind and ahead by the 20th Century.
Politically breaking the Republican reactionary stranglehold on the American electorate and system is part of that. Moving forward with a new political and social conscience is the only way forward for our society and the world. If you read a enlightening book called Evolution’s Arrrow you can see the period we are in is part of the social and political evolutionary path in forming a new level of societal cooperation.
Obama is part of that pathway, and I think like Roosevelt, Lincoln and Washington before him will lead this society to a new beginning. It will not be easy, it will be a rough ride personally for many of us. But change never is.
The problem with Hillary Clinton is not leadership, intelligence or whether or not the USA is ready for a woman president. My sense is that without the baggage Hillary Clinton would win easily. I watched the debates, and saw Hillary and Barrack speak @ google, and it’s clear that she is the superior politician. During each debate she making a strange expression, it doesn’t last long, but makes me uncomfortable. More importantly, she’s using the same-ol, same-ol campaign style (We expected something new from her), her strong ties/obligations to US and international powerborkers (poitical/biz/banking), the strange statements wrt her support base, Bills involvement boarders on interference and finally there is the issue of trust, the sniper-fire and especially wrt Arkansas, her home state. Taken together there’s just 2 much stuff, and no way to explain it away.
For those concerned that it will be many years before another woman will be ready to run for US President, watch Michelle Obama closely. Michelle Obama stands beside, not behind her man. Like Hillary Clinton she is at least as smart as her husband. Dispite a few serious gaphaws, twelve years from now she may very well become the first minority woman US President. Although defered and somewhat inexperienced for the moment, Michelle Obama comes without the clinton baggage.
Something odd about Obama is that he won three of the primaries in the Washington DC area, supposedly without help form Washington insiders, while insiders may or may not vote they must excecise considerable influence in DC, Maryland and Virgina? In addition, both Barack and Michelle are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Obama needs to state openly and clearly that despite the CFR’s power and influence, especially wrt foreign relations, that any CFR role or responsiblity will in no way hinder/conflict with or interfer with his ability to lead the people of the USA, as should Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Something all the front runners, democrat or republican have yet to explainy, or be honest about, with the notable exception of Ron Paul. Even Dennis Kucinich is a member of CFR. It may be the case, that in today’s USA it is not possible to become president, or even a senator or congressman without becoming a CFR member, idk?
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich should serioulsy consider a presidential bid as running mates.
@joe
I would not, and did not, renege on my commitment to vote for the candidate for whom I was elected a delegate. But my duties as a delegate have been fulfilled and I no longer have a moral obligation to support Clinton. Unlike a certain president, I am capable of reassessing past decisions in light of new information and changing my mind. Rather than “staying the course,” I have shifted my support to the other excellent candidate in this race: Barack Obama. To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
This is a democracy … ALL the votes should count. The voters, and the country shouldn’t be disenfranchised just because a handful of party hacks moved the dates. Again, as I read the blogs, the Obama supporters express their sarcastic condescending comments about Mrs. Clinton, never acknowledging that she has over 17 million Americans who have chosen her over Obama so far. Before the Obama supporters continue to use such vile language towards Hillary, and her supporters, they should remember that they can’t get their lord and master elected without us! The arrogant, lock-step Obama supporters are like a cult that shares one brain.
Seriously, I am so tired of Bill and Hillary making this whole Michigan and Florida remark. ALL of the candidates knew from day one that MI and FL votes would not be counted because they broke the rules. Neither candidate argued with that decision back when it mattered. All of the democratic candidates agreed they would not campaign in FL and MI. Now, she’s crying about getting the votes counted. Why should the DNC Rules Committee throw her a bone? She knew and agreed that the votes wouldn’t count for crap, but she thought she was so unstoppable back then, before Iowa. If she were still winning, I bet we wouldn’t be hearing a peep out of her about “counting every vote”. She is a the epitome of a Sore Loser, and I hope the Rules Committee sticks to their guns about FL and MI. There will not be some huge crack in the Democratic party if they don’t count those votes - those voters knew when they went out to the polls that their state party officials screwed up and their votes would be irrelevant.