Charles Hugh Smith, who writes the popular blog Of Two Minds, today wrote a post Why I Hope Hillary Is Not The Democratic Candidate for President. In it, he postulates that Hillary has learned all the wrong lessons from her husband's and George Bush's presidencies. Charles lays out his thesis at the beginning:
Hillary combines Bill Clinton's poll-driven emptiness with Bush's attack politics.
...
[Bill Clinton] pioneered the "poll-driven presidency," in which a desire for approval is the leader's single propelling goal.
...
As for George Bush, he has excelled at empowering hatchet men like Cheney and Karl Rove to do his "attack-politics" dirty work. His administration's contempt for the media (free press) is legendary, as is their obsessive control of "message."
The single most driving issue for me is the Democratic nominee winning the general election in November. Fairly or unfairly, Hillary's biggest liability is the fact that her nomination would be the one factor that would unite the Republicans for the November election.
I talked to a Republican today that felt certain that her candidacy would triple their numbers in the general election. Now, this may be just bloviating, but something in my gut says that it's not just wishful thinking on their part. Look how much the Republicans brought up Hillary's name in the debates. They are relishing a fight with her. She is one of their best fundraising tools.
To be fair, it isn't Hillary's fault. The Republicans have systematically sought to poison the well against Hillary. It may be because she is a strong-willed and accomplished woman. It may be because she has been one of the most effective advocates for progressive issues in recent times. It may be because they are just mean-spirited and they are doing it for spite. But it is deep and it motivates them.
You might say: "Well, what about Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh? They have said they will campaign for Hillary before they will vote for McCain."
Don't you believe it. They will come home, regardless of what they are saying now. That is a hollow threat.
But back to the referenced article....
My reasons for not backing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, while not the same as Mr. Smith's, nevertheless brings into play some of the reservations I have over a new Clinton presidency. I feel that she is too "boxed in" to have much effectiveness as a President. It isn't her positions on the issues. I guess it's more of a je ne sais quoi reservation.
Perhaps it is that instead of the Republicans having to be on the defensive for their divisive policies, with Hillary as the nominee, it would be our side always having to play defense. That would leave us to attack, but the wrong kind of attack. The Republicans would easily be able to pull us down into the pig sty with them. We don't need that.
On the other side, I see Barack as a man with real conviction -- someone who will be a real advocate for the dispossessed who have not had a voice in Washington in a very long time -- and will be more effective making the country feel good about doing the right thing. He knows how to move people with his speech. He is able to put the sugar on the bitter pill. He makes us feel good about being Americans once again. That America is not a place to drive wedges, but an idea that unites disparate peoples. Someone who can make our motto E Pluribus Unum seem real again.
Does this make sense?
The Republicans are putting up their most electable candidate for the general election. We need to do the same.
In this election cycle, our best candidate now is Barack Obama.
With Barack Obama, we can beat the Republicans in general election.
Yes we can.