I just had a fairly amicable long-distance phone chat with my aunt in Pennsylvania that left my head spinning! She’s a big fan of Hillary and I’m an Edwards supporter, now switched to Obama.
Background: My aunt is a longtime Democratic party insider in her 70s. She was participated in several presidential campaigns and attended several National Conventions.
She made several insistant points that I must share. I found myself dumbfounded by her point of view - am I naive?
Hop down with me:
We rarely met when I was growing up—never lived in the same area. We kids were in awe of this aunt and uncle. They traveled widely and were hip and wordly, compared to our apolitical suburban family.
I have no concern that my aunt will read this diary, because she doesn’t use the Internet. Still, she considers herself very informed because she reads the New York Times from front to back, and is tight with Democratic party bosses in her state.
Since I became politically active in 2003 due to the Dean campaign, Judy seems to respect my opinons, although she detested Dean and we often disagree. She knows that I was on the state committee for the Edwards ccampaign, and approved of that.
Here are the things I heard when speaking with Judy for about an hour:
NUMBER ONE:
It’s okay to support a pre-emptive, unilateral miltary invasion and occupation to further ones political ambitions.
Judy was surprised that a woman of my age (50s) would NOT be for Hillary.
Well, I have a number of good reasons for not supporting Hillary. But I wanted to avoid being confrontational, so I named only the biggest one.
I am an antiwar activist since the huge March 03 demonstration. That’s the reason I first became politically active. I’ve participated in countless demonstrations, I’m a member of a local Peace & Justice group, I’ve lobbied my senators, made antiwar graphics, attended seminars, cheered Rep. Jim McDermott, met with Iraq Veterans Against the War, etc.
I told Judy that because of Hillary’s war support, she was unacceptable as a candidate to me. I said her original AUMF vote, although bad judgement, was not the deal-breaker, because many in congress voted for that, including Edwards. But years after the invasion, long after the falsified intelligence and military disaster was clear, Hillary contined to support and enable a Republican war of choice and pre-emptive war policy.
Judy said matter-of-factly: "But she had to do that. Don’t you see, her biggest hurdle to becoming president was the perception that a woman couldn’t be Commander-in-Chief. This made her credible as a candidate."
I thought of the destruction of a nation, the volume of sheer human misery, the war profiteering, the mountain of coffins, the widows and orphans, the amputated limbs and brain damage, PTSD, the suicide rate.
All I could say was: "I find that an unacceptable reason to support a war."
I have often said that I consider this to be Hillary’s motivation for years of war support, but her supporters always denied it. They say she really believed the bad intelligence, or she knew we needed to take down Saddam and spread Democracy, whatever. But I never heard a supporter make the cool assertion that it made good sense politically, and that justifies it.
NUMBER TWO:
Voters don’t Matter
Judy’s elitist sense of entitlement on behalf of Hilary was clear. Hillary has planned and worked for years to get to where she is, struggling mightily against people who hate strong, smart women, and now hordes of superficial Obama "Rock Star" voters might ruin it for her.
I said that Obama was not my first choice, but I admired his 50-state strategy, the way he made every voter and every state feel included and important. People DO respond to that.
I described the tripled turnout at the Washington Democratic caucuses, how people were eager to participate, even asking me for party membership forms and donation envelopes. My district, about a quarter of Seattle, more than doubled our membership that day, and raked in nearly 30 thousand dollars, mostly due to Obama supporters (70% of the total).
I said that I hear Hillary and her staffers disrespecting and dismissing whole states, whole demographics, whole chunks of the electorate. That pisses people off.
"I hate caucuses!" said Judy—as if to demonstrate my point. "They aren’t real elections."
I mentioned that Obama had won a whole varietyof states, both caucus and primary states by large margins: Maine, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Washington, which could not be ascribed to a large ethnic population.
"But not the big ones, " Judy said.
What could I say to that? Is it true Hillary had a Big-State strategy? New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Florida are the only states that matter? That voters in small states, red states and ethnic states (Hawaii, for instance) are simply insignificant?
NUMBER THREE:
Obama is "the black guy" and unelectable.
Judy refers to identity politics often: voters and candidates divided by race, gender, ethnicity, age, income, etc. This election is the Younger Black Guy versus the Smart, Strong Older Woman, period.
A Black guy, she said (echoing Gov. Rendell), simply isn’t electable, because so many white voters won’t vote for a Black guy, even if he’s not Black Black.
I said: "I’m surprised to hear you say that, with your civil rights background." She said, "I wish I didn’t have to say that, but it’s true."
Apparently she thinks these same bigoted people WILL vote for a smart, strong older woman, even though previously she had referred to the widespread prejudice against smart, strong woman candidates.
I said we need the votes of the millions calling themselves Independent voters in the General, and Obama polls better with these voters than Hillary. She said no, it’s just the opposite.
She said John McCain will DESTROY Obama in the general, whereas Hillary will DEMOLISH John MCCain, since she’s already proved she’s as tough and experienced.
Ummm-hmm.
NUMBER FOUR:
Superdelegates can and should overturn the popular vote.
Judy said that Superdelgates were created to override the popular vote, in case the voters stupidly chose an unelectable candidate. She once was one, so she knows.
I said, "You believe the Superdelegates can vote against the popular vote in their own districts?" She said they not only COULD, but had an obligation to do so, should the candidate with the most pledged delegates be deemed unelectable.
Is there anyone reading this who doesn’t think this scenario would tear the party apart, that it would end up with riots (that I might well join in)outside of the Democratic National Convention, like 1968?
I didn’t mention my reaction, because by now I’d realized my aunt’s an elitist through and through, that she travels in a bubble inside the DLC, that she simply doesn’t see things like most of us do.
I was feeling like an anthropologist studying a foreign culture. I don’t often run into representatives of that culture, in my circles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another topic we touched on:
"Michelle Obama is disgusting!"
Why? "She said she might not vote for Hillary, if she were the nominee." I said no, I believe she said she might not WORK for Hillary. "No. She said she would not VOTE for her."
I changed the subject, because I didn’t have time to look up the quote on the Internet, but I think I’m right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Judy reminded me that my own Senators Murray and Cantwell had endorsed Hillary. I said of course, they're all women Senators, but my woman Governor endorsed Obama.
At that she sniffed, because a smart, strong woman of that age not endorsing Hillary is inexplicable to her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And who cares what Ted Kennedy thinks, he killed a girl! He tried to kill Carter in 1980!"
I assured her I was not a fan of Kennedy, to calm her down.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I finally said: "Well, we’re both very opinionated," and she laughed. Actually, I had not shared with her many other opinions (anti-dynasty, for instance) that would’ve had us butting heads like mountain sheep in rutting season, cause I want to stay on good terms.
We spoke of other matters, family matters, and she ended the conversation saying, "Too bad you don’t live nearby, we could get together and chat about politics often."
She enjoyed the conversation!! Go figure...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My summary is this:
I’ve often thought the Clintons had no use for the grassroots activists: "Give us your votes, then get lost - we’ll take care of everything." This is in such philosophical opposition to Obama’s inclusive approach that, like my aunt, they honestly can’t see why people would be drawn to Obama, except he's a "rock star".
If Hillary Clinton shares my aunt’s elitism and tone-deafness to the mood of this year’s voters, no wonder she’s unprepared, frustrated, blaming lots of her own problems on sexism, and running a Big-State campaign that continues to piss people off.
I’m trying to be fair. I’m sure this will stir some controversy; let’s hear it please. How would you interpret this?
UPDATED: The Rec list, wow!! Thanks everyone!
UPDATE 2: In the comments, "Radiowalla" asks
I'm wondering how you think she might judge you? You've thrown out some pretty tough conclusions about her and I wonder what might have been going on in your aunt's mind as she hung up the phone from you. I wonder what kind of diary she might have written about your conversation.
Radiowalla is right....I did come to a conclusion based on this: Judy and I do obviously travel in political circles with quite different points of view. In her own group, she is not an "elitist" the way I use the word - or she might consider that a realistic and smart thing to be.
How would Judy judge me? Most likely as well-meaning, but hopelessly naive about how party politics works. Still, she respects me for HAVING an opinion! What she doesn't respect is mushiness.
We don't FORCE our opinions on each other, and I appreciate that. It seems to be more of a stimulating sparring match for her...