I received e-mail from a dear friend (John), another Obama supporter like me, where he forwards an e-mail from another friend (Bryan) whose political thinking he has respected for a long time. In that forwarded e-mail, Bryan explains his switch from supporting Obama to Clinton. John does not agree with Bryan, but felt compelled to share his rationale with his e-mail list, out of a sense of fairness and open-mindedness.
With the same interest, I want to share the letter with this audience, to foster discussion of the points he brings up. Personally, I do see some of Bryan's points as valid, but I remain convinced that a Clinton nomination would lead to defeat in November, not just for the top of the ticket, but also for many down-ticket races across the country, and will cause a serious rift within the Democratic party for a long time. I can see African-Americans and young voters disgusted; progressives repulsed.
I note that Bryan's endorsement of Hillary is at best begrudging. It is a sad commentary on where this brutal primary season has taken many of us. I hope that most of us, regardless of which candidate we back, does not have that pessimistic attitude by the time the real campaign begins. We cannot afford to be nonchalant in the prospect of a McCain win.
The rest is below.
I can refute almost all his points, but his comment about Hillary's ability to "re-invent herself" and come out fighting has merit. I wish Obama would take on some of those qualities. They may not come naturally to him, but he needs to show some spine - after all, hasn't one of our biggest complaints about the current Democrats in power been about that? I'm all for his conciliatory style - it's a good course - but there has to be a stick behind that carrot. I do hope Bryan knows he can switch back and be forgiven.
Dear Friends,
I can tell I have surprised many of you by my recent announcement (to most of you -- for some this is the first news) that I can no longer support Barack Obama -- because I am convinced, despite my admiration for him, that his chances of winning in November against McCain are damaged beyond repair. Since Hillary Clinton is the only alternative at this point, this does mean that I am very reluctantly switching to back her (not that it matters much to her, Obama, or anybody -- I've spent what money I can on contributions already -- all to Dodd, Kucinich, and Obama, and I even have an Obama bumper sticker on my car!).
Let me suggest sweet moderation in responses on this issue, as sincere partisans of both Obama and McCain are copied on this email! This race has been the most divisive and difficult political campaign of my life, as I find dear friends and family members on opposite sides. Even in my own household, I voted for Obama in the February California primary, while [partner] voted for Clinton. He has said he now regrets his vote for Clinton while I now regret my vote for Obama. Yet neither of us is that thrilled by the opposing candidate! This is a meltdown, folks!
I have been and remain especially disappointed that people I know to be otherwise reasonable and committed Democrats (or at least progressives in a generic sense) are now threatening to vote for McCain in November if the Democrat they oppose wins the nomination -- some Clinton supporters have threatened this if Obama wins, and now I am hearing Obama supporters threaten this if Clinton wins. Peace and desist, I beg all of you! I am proud to say that through all my agonizing and teeth-gnashing on this race, I have always been very clear in my mind that ANY acceptable Democrat (and in my view, Clinton and Obama have always been at least that) MUST be supported in November against McCain, who despite his fraudulent "moderate" or "independent" image, is a dangerous, rightwing warmonger -- a more pleasant personality than Bush in some ways, but ultimately just as bad in substance.
I plead guilty, guilty, guilty, to being a very indecisive flip-flopper during this entire race. That is because it has been a disappointingly crappy field of candidates in many ways. Clinton, the early front runner, began the race as a deeply compromised and polarizing candidate -- with a false image as an extreme liberal (actually, she's far too moderate for my taste), a partly justified image as someone prone to fibbing and spinning more than the usual amount for a politician, and (whether fairly or unfairly) extraordinarily high negatives in the polls. Today, she is even more polarizing, with higher negatives, and may have permanently pissed off African American Democrats, the party's most loyal constituency. The only improvement for Hillary is that her "liberal" image may now have been eclipsed somewhat by a new image as a tough-as-nails fighter for the average American of modest means -- someone who is just incredibly persistent, disciplined, and hardworking.
I have always admired Obama's cool intellect and brilliant political skills. Yet he now faces a problem very similar to the one Hillary started out with -- he is perceived increasingly as an elitist lefty liberal, even though he is actually too moderate for my taste. Gag! If I am going to have to support a candidate in the general election battling the image of being a left-liberal, it would be nice if the candidate at least WAS actually a left-liberal!
Let's face reality, folks -- Obama's problems are way into the red zone by now. It was always going to be an uphill leap-of-faith to convince the vast middle ground of American voters to support a candidate as exotic as Obama -- his race, his odd-sounding name, his exotic and partly foreign background and upbringing, his inexperience, the fact that he seems to have come out of nowhere, his Muslim connection (yes of course, I know he is not a Muslim, but his father's family in Kenya was, and is -- he has a brother who is a fundamentalist advocate of Sharia law).
I thought Obama could overcome all that with his remarkable charisma -- and again, his brilliant and cool intellect -- and his appeal to America's hopes over its fears. It seemed like he appealed to something in many Americans, even many stodgy white conservative Midwesterners (though truth be told, his huge margins in most of those heartland white/red states were mostly in caucuses dominated by committed party liberals).
But he now faces a perfect storm of several controversies -- none of them invented by the Clintons, and some entirely of Obama's own making. Clinton did not invent Rev. Wright; she did not create Prof. Bill Ayers (the radical former Weatherman in whose living room Obama launched his political career); she did not force Obama to indulge once too often, out loud, in professorial analysis of, e.g., all those "bitter clinging" heartland voters. Even the idiotic flag lapel thing has been partly Obama's fault. Instead of just dismissing the idea from the beginning that he should have to comply with any "patriotic" dress code, he first got himself into trouble by launching into more gratuitous anthropological analysis that those who do wear flag lapel pins are engaging in a faux brand of patriotism (possibly true of many people, but unprovable and with huge and obvious potential to needlessly insult millions of Americans). In the recent debate when it came up again, he completely botched his response. He lied about what he had said earlier (denied he had ever said he deliberately stopped wearing the pin, when that's exactly what he said), and failed to make the obvious response, that McCain doesn't even wear a flag pin!
Trust me, folks, I'm a professor myself, I know the syndrome! Obama, a longtime adjunct professor of constitutional law, is too fond of hearing himself analyze the strange and quaint habits of Voterus Americanus. It's the downside of one of his undoubted strengths -- the deeply analytical intelligence. He has obviously failed to learn one of the basic lessons of politics -- when to shut the f*** up! And a presidential campaign with the nation's future at stake is no place for on-the-job training!
It's enough to make me yearn again for a sophisticated, seasoned pol like Sen. Chris Dodd -- the white guy with the white hair. He would not be mired in this crap.
The Rev. Wright thing, however unfairly, has legs. Wright now seems to be on an open-ended speaking tour. He is not going to shut up and disappear. And hey, why should he, it's a free country and he has been unfairly maligned by a lot of rightwing idiots. But as long as Obama remains in the race, and even more so once he becomes the nominee (if he does) the campaign will increasingly be distracted by Wright and his assorted pronouncements. The guy strikes me as an endless fountain of controversy -- the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans.
The Bill Ayers thing also has legs. I myself have a lot of trouble with Obama being so chummy with someone who is so obviously unrepentant about waging a violent campaign of bombings. The ideological rigidity and self-righteousness of such people unnerves me -- reminds me of those glintingly sincere anti-abortion nuts who convince themselves it's OK to bomb clinics and murder doctors to save the millions of "unborn" from the "holocaust" of abortion.
I don't see how Obama can ever explain Ayers convincingly and reassuringly to the average voter, even given unlimited amounts of time to try to do so. And we, as Democrats and Americans, SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD to have this campaign turn into Obama's endless effort to explain the nuances of Wright, Ayers, etc.
It's fine to dismiss all that as Fox News trivia. But be realistic, folks. Given the deep strains of racism in this country, many heartland White voters will be privately looking for any excuse to resolve their unease by voting against Obama -- these are tailor-made excuses. And they are real. Other candidates don't have such problems. Hillary and Bill did not invent them. Obama owns these problems. Politics is a tough and unforgiving business. Whining is pointless. As Hillary rightly said (quoting Truman), "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
And I say to Obama, if you can't explain all this stuff to the average voter (and I don't think you can) get out of the race. And if you don't go, the party and its members, like me, have every right to make a hardheaded, coldblooded calculation that you are not worth the risk to the party and the country. We cannot afford to risk a McCain victory on a gamble about whether Obama is actually silver-tongued and politically gifted enough to survive this toxic brew.
I think it says something that at FOUR crucial junctures in this campaign so far, Obama has been on the verge of locking up the nomination -- and he has faltered every time -- in New Hampshire back in early January, on Super Tuesday in early February, on Ohio-Texas Tuesday in early March, and now in Pennsylvania on April 22. If he had gotten 3 percent more in New Hampshire, if he had won, say, California on Super Tuesday, if he had won either Texas or Ohio in March, and even having muffed all those chances, even if he had won Pennsylvania recently -- he would have knocked Hillary out. He has underperformed in the crunch. Hillary, by contrast, has shown the remarkable stamina and ability to bounce back from repeated defeats and keep coming on strong.
I think Obama was always destined to perform less well than expected in November. Back when he seemed like the messiah, I thought, "yeah, OK, he could win, and he probably has a better chance than Hillary, but it'll be damn close!" Hillary, I think, may yet exceed her (admittedly low) expectations in November.
This race has been frustrating. I have never felt that inspired by the policy proposals of either Clinton or Obama -- they are both too mushy moderate and too wedded to the military-industrial empire this country has become. Hillary has an OK health care plan, but no clue how to sell it to average voters or to defend it against Republican cheap shots ("she'll force you to pay for health insurance you can;t afford" -- "mandate, mandate, mandate"). Obama's health plan is not awful, but he has resorted to lobbing precisely that sort of Republican cheap-shot talking points against Hillary's plan. And he calls himself a Democrat?
And why is Hillary praising McCain's irrelevant "experience"? The lesson McCain has drawn from all his "experience" is that we should have fought EVEN HARDER in Vietnam, a war he thinks we were RIGHT to get involved in and that could have been WON! No wonder he thinks we just need to keep trying harder in Iraq! (a war Hillary voted for).
Depressing.
Russ Feingold was the candidate I wanted to run. When he declined, I flitted between also-rans like Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich.
I flirted with Edwards, and always had mixed feelings about him -- though I now DEARLY WISH that Edwards had beaten both Clinton and Obama (a salute to my friends who supported him)! He clearly would have had a FAR better chance in November than either of them. The worst the Republicans ever had on Edwards was to bash him as a trial lawyer and to make fun of him as a girly-man who preens his hair too much -- silly diversions that would have faded away in the heat of a serious campaign focusing on a tanking economy, given Edwards' superbly substantive policy proposals, powerful charisma (rivaling Obama's), and ability (superior to either Clinton or Obama) to frame a compelling economic message -- Edwards combined Hillary's grit and detail on economics with Obama's ability to craft it into an inspiring message. But he was a White male in a year when everyone (including me) became enamored of "making history" by nominating either an African American or a woman.
If Edwards were the nominee, he could pick a Veep running mate strong on defense and foreign affairs (to cover his weaknesses there), and believe me, he'd already be 20 points ahead of McCain. McCain would eat his dust.
Oh well, we can dream on. Some may dream of a Gore draft. Won't happen, not least because Gore clearly has no interest in presidential politics any more (at least in this cycle).
So, why am I abandoning Obama even though I concede Hillary is almost equally deep in the hole as an underdog against McCain? Well, partly because, as noted above, Hillary has demonstrated a capacity to come back and reinvent herself -- to persevere and fight another day. Obama now seems to me like a candidate on autopilot headed straight for the ground. The NYT today quoted unnamed Obama staffers saying Obama he is now "bored" by the race against Hillary and can't wait to face McCain. Groan. You don't have the luxury of being "bored," Barack! If Hillary wins all or almost all of the remaining primaries, takes the lead in the popular vote (she already has if you count Michigan and Florida -- yes yes, I know all the arguments not to count them, but those are crucial swing states and their voters are real), and pulls clearly ahead in the polls (she recently erased a 10-point Obama lead in the Gallup tracking poll in just days), she may well be the nominee. All it takes is enough of the superdels to abandon Obama for the same reasons I have. They are watching the same evidence. The fact that Obama might still have a paper-thin lead in earned delegates won't count for much.
I realize that if Hillary wrestles the nomination from Obama, African Americans may feel a deep and understandable resentment. After all the years that African Americans have suffered in this country, it is long overdue for an African American to be on the national ticket, either the top spot or as Veep -- especially given that community's superlative loyalty to the Democratic Party. Some may call it tokenism to say that Hillary should nominate a Black running mate (someone other than Obama, I think, who would remain damaged goods and nothing but a distraction, leaving aside the poisonously unhealthy chemistry between them now). I say whenever it happens, it's overdue. Was it tokenism to nominate a Jew in 2000 (Lieberman), or a woman in 1984 (Ferraro)? Of course, to some extent. Appealing to various groups of the populace is part of politics. Why is it tokenism when a capable non-White-male politician is nominated, but somehow just business as usual when a long string of mediocre White males got on various tickets? (think Agnew in 1968, the ill-fated Eagleton in 1972, Quayle in 1988). There are deeply respected African American Democratic statesmen on Congress with none of Obama's baggage. Several of them are plausible Veep choices.
I don't know if Hillary can win. But I am convinced Obama can't, and I do know Hillary will fight to the bitter end to win it for the Democrats. I think that however polarizing and unpopular her tough-as-nails, bare-knuckled campaign has made her in some quarters, it is also earning her grudging respect. Her image is no longer as being a liberal social experimenter -- it is as a remarkably tough ... (well, the word rhymes with "witch") -- a fighter who will do whatever is needed to defend America and rebuild the economy. Not the kind of campaign that inspires me, but better than McCain's America -- an America of endless breaks for the rich while the vast majority get screwed -- and in which America will continue its reckless global military adventurism.
Sincerely,
Bryan