My column last week—“How Rahm’s demise would signal the defeat of Clinton-era centrism”—ignited a bit of a firestorm. In the piece, I linked Rahm Emanuel back to Bill Clinton’s White House and argued that his ouster as Chicago’s mayor would signal the surrender of Clinton-era centrism to a resurgent progressive movement no longer willing to be sold out by Democratic politicians.
Clinton supporters were convinced that it was a Hillary “hit piece,” as one DK commenter put it, plain and simple. Another person tweeted at me: “Admit it Eleveld, you've just endorsed Sanders.”
After months of being called a “Hillary shill” on numerous occasions, perhaps after writing a Democratic polling piece or outlining a Clinton policy position, I was a bit shocked to learn that I had orchestrated a Clinton takedown.
It’s hyperbole, of course, as we head into primary crunch time where tensions run high, campaigns go nasty, and supporters sometimes turn rabid (especially given the latest data breach mess). I have written both unflattering and laudatory pieces about Hillary Clinton, depending on the topic and where she stood on a particular issue. I was not so happy, for instance, when Clinton once again took a pass on rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline during a town hall in July (though she has since changed course), while I was pretty thrilled with the immigration policies she outlined early in her campaign pledging to take President Obama’s executive actions even further if elected.
Favoritism charges are nothing new and they tend to go with the territory. I remember them well from my days covering Barack Obama for The Advocate. After landing some interviews with Obama on the ‘08 campaign trail, I was often dismissed as preferring him over Hillary. But by the same token, once I grew critical of his initial handling of LGBT issues in the White House, I was deemed an Obama hater—I would find fault no matter what he did.
It’s unfortunate. I think so many valid points get lost in the subterfuge of political races and people’s affinity for or rejection of a particular candidate. What’s more important to me, both as a journalist and an activist, is doing my best to be intellectually honest.
See, I don’t want to be a “Hillary person” or a “Bernie person.” I want to be an independent-minded progressive—an equal opportunity defender and promoter of progressive ideals. Sometimes that means criticizing someone you admire, and other times that means praising someone you’re not all that fond of.
My piece on Rahm, while not perfect by any means, was never intended as a Hillary hit job—though I can see how some people took it that way. Rather, it was a piece celebrating the bold new power of progressive movements that no longer let Democratic politicians take them for granted. Hillary Clinton was mentioned once, toward the end, in hopes that Rahm’s current predicament in Chicago could sound a warning signal to all Democrats, including Hillary, to heed the desires and concerns of their base. In essence, it was a call for Democrats to be better Democrats.
The primary season is the exact right place to influence candidates and make them work. I would like to see every Democrat work hard to earn our trust on a host of issues, including immigration, racial justice, income inequality, climate change, gun safety, and LGBT equality. And I don’t want to bargain away whatever small amount of influence I might have at the very moment when it can be best leveraged.
I respect people who have chosen a candidate and have decided to defend them to the end. Certainly, that is their right. However, I wish they would respect the idea that others of us prefer to remain both agnostic on the question of candidacies and unabashedly committed to pushing progressive ideals.