Why I support Hillary Clinton
for President of the United States
Hillary is the only living representative of the 60’s movement in national politics. She represents the 60’s era, and all the cultural change that came with it. It was a cultural change that ranged from Woodstock to the music of Bob Dylan, from the civil rights era to the rise of the first anti-war movement, from the Berkeley free speech movement to the rise of feminism. She represents all these things in the minds of the Republicans who hate her so much.
Hillary has taken the place of Jane Fonda, who was the poster child for reactionary hatred from 1972 to 1992. Since "Hanoi Jane" had largely disappeared from public view by 1992, she was no longer a satisfactory rally point for direct mail fund raising. Hillary was seized upon as a replacement for Jane Fonda. Hillary became the visible embodiment of everything that reactionaries reject about the transcendent political movement of the 1960's.
Negative symbolism has been a primary feature in Hillary’s campaign. Liberals constantly suggest that she is too divisive to be elected president. But, Hillary is a divisive figure through no fault of her own. She is the innocent victim the social angst associated with a "sea change" in American politics which originated in the 1960's and which is still in progress. But the meaning of this transcendent change remains up for grabs. In the hands of Obama, the transcendence of the 1960s washes out as mere incoherent artistic expressionism.
Americans, and more specifically, Democrats, must decide whether to allow rational progressive energy to be dissipated by intoxication, forgetfulness, chaos, and the ecstatic dissolution of identity in the collective which would inaugurate a new era of expressionism in American politics. Barack's political philosophy and utterances are entirely incoherent and founded in expressionism.
At a time when America is in a state of armed conflict with a group of people who hold a profoundly anti-feminist position, it is likely that Hillary’s ascension to the Presidency would have enormous significance in the struggle for women’s rights the world over. At time of profound conflict with regimes whose level of reaction is an order of magnitude higher than that of the right wing of the Republican Party, wouldn’t it be vitally important that we not reject Hillary under circumstances that make it seem like the usual story: Young, virile, masculine type pushes aside more experienced and qualified female? How else can such a rejection be interpreted abroad? In fact, isn’t it the truth? In fact, isn't the subtext of the Obama campaign profoundly misogynistic?
Some will argue that a great symbolic statement is made by electing a black man president of the United States. Some will argue that the ascent of a descendant of slaves to the highest office in the land represents the final reconciliation between American ideals and those whose ancestors were exploited to make America what it is today. Some will argue that the value of this symbolism far exceeds the disadvantage of surrender to the Republican counter revolution after over 40 years of surviving the siege. Yet, if symbols are important, the symbols must be genuine.
There can be no question that race has assumed great symbolic importance in this nomination process. In the words of Jessie Jackson, "I think we must distinguish between race-baiting, which is unacceptable, and the need to address race as a moral dilemma, which has haunted the nation since its very beginning."
Interview Reported on Politico
In a "Politico interview, Jackson was asked if he thought it was fair for Obama to use the argument that a vote for him as an African-American can make people feel better about themselves and about the nation and send a good signal to the rest of the world. Jackson responded, "Racial justice is the key for the salvation of the nation, and that is fair game to discuss; it is a fair message," Jackson said. "Blacks reaching out is not new; white receptivity is new. Barack is reaching out."
Interview Reported on Politico
According to a recent interview on MSNBC, a convincing case can be made for the proposition that false charges of racism were raised by the Obama camp in order to outrage liberals against Hillary. While some may claim that Hillary and her proxies are idiots, it would be uncharacteristic for skilled politicians to raise an issue that could only be of advantage to the opponent.
Remarks by New Republic contributing editor Sean Wilentz
Leaving aside the question of how racism was injected into the campaign, let's return to Jackson's point in the Politico interview. We must ask in what respect does Barack Obama truly symbolize the reconciliation between American ideals and those whose ancestors were so cruelly exploited by the perversion of those ideals? Does Barack Obama have any ancestors who meet that criteria?
In fact, Barack, aside from the whites who raised and nurtured him, only has ancestors who come from the far side of the African continent, far away from the ancestors of slaves sold into commerce by Islamic traders in the years prior to 1800. (Islam never sold co-religionists into slavery.) Oprah’s ancestors are from the western edge of Africa, and were rounded up by Islamic traders and sold to Europeans. Barack’s ancestors are Muslims from the eastern edge of Africa. For Oprah to adopt Islamic East Africans as her spiritual ancestors makes as much sense as an Irishman adopting Russians as spiritual ancestors. The only connection is skin color.
Some will argue that a President with an Islamic name will help reconcile America to the Middle East and to the Islamic terrorists who seem to hate all that we stand for. For this to be possible, it must be true that Islamic terrorists only care about ethnic identity, and not about full compliance with Sharia law. Yet, there is nothing to indicate that this is the case. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that Islamic terrorists will be satisfied with nothing less than complete submission to Sharia law, including the oppression of women and the establishment of a theocratic state. Otherwise, a President with an Islamic name may actually aggravate their hatred. For example, do they have any sympathy for Salman Rushdie on account of his ethnicity? (He is under a death sentence for writing the novel "Satanic Verses" in 1989.) Did Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s ethnicity lead to reconciliation during his tenure in Iraq?
If Obama is not a genuine symbol of America coming to terms with slavery, if he is not an acceptable symbol of reconciliation to the Islamic terrorists, then the symbolic argument for his Presidency utterly fails.
Some will argue that there is an emotional advantage to an Obama presidency that goes beyond the existence of genuine symbolism. The argument is that he makes the country feel good. Yet, feelings are transitory things. A manic depressive, for example, has wonderful feelings of euphoria. But, feelings of euphoria are followed by feelings of despair. The condition can be solved with medication, which tends to prove that the feelings were illusions, having no basis in reality.
Worse, suppose the feelings are triggered by subconscious resentments, fears, or sentimentality. Some may argue that the feelings are the natural result of frustrations of the oppressed, from the guilt of the oppressors, or even recognition of the cultural appeal of a formerly invisible community. But, who are the oppressed today? Is it not the case that the oppressed today are the Hispanic community? Who today are the invisible? Is it not the Hispanic community? Why then does the Hispanic community not respond to Obama with the same emotional enthusiasm as white boys and girls? Why then does the Hispanic community not respond with the same emotional enthusiasm of Oprah and other iconic stars of culturally triumphant black community?
Rather than crediting the emotional appeal to some sort of deep, righteous upwelling of contrition and reconciliation, isn’t it far more likely that the emotion derives from the superficial celebration of a triumphant black culture built in large part upon the popularity of Hip-Hop (with all its misogynistic aspects) and upon the desire for young people to identify with a fashionable chic? Yet, fashions fade; and chic becomes obsolete. Meanwhile, the reality of the Hispanic struggle to assimilate is completely ignored.
Would young people respond with emotion if Cesar Chavez could somehow be brought back to life to campaign for the Presidency? Would they respond emotionally if Dolores Huerta, the only living survivor of the leadership of the United Farm Workers (originators of the "si, se puede" slogan), were running in place of Hillary Clinton? If Los Angeles mayor Anthony Villaraigosa were running for President (or Bill Richardson) would the masses of young people be transported with ecstasy and enthusiasm? We think not. It is a sad situation when substance is completely trumped by meaningless emotion.
Some would argue that Hillary’s status as a mere wife of a successful President deprives her of significance. Such people would argue that a wife is doomed to status as a mere bedroom slave, no matter what success the pair achieves in life. Such people deny that Hillary’s intimate involvement in the national electoral triumphs of 1992 and 1996 give her invaluable insights into the requirements of a successful presidential campaign. Such people would equate Hillary’s personal triumphs in New York statewide elections of 2000 and 2006 with Obama’s victory against Alan Keyes in the 2004 Illinois senate race.
In reality, it is far more realistic to understand that Hillary was a major factor in the prosperity of the 1990s. Not just because she "stood by her man" in the face of salacious gossip, rumor mongering, voyeurism, and "peeping tom-ism" ; but more importantly, because she helped keep a chronically disorganized and easily distracted husband on task. Hillary had an office in the White House. She was the first to bring the issue of national health care to the front burner of politics. Obama stands on the shoulders of the Clinton, both Hillary and Bill. Yet, by denying the relevance of "past conflict", Obama would cut the party off from the claim that it can best build on the incredible economic successes of the 1990s.
The idea that a wife, like Hillary, is demeaned by her membership in a successful partnership is difficult to accept. Because, at its core, this notion comes from a profoundly misogynistic and sexist point of view. We see this point of view forming a major component to the 16 year campaign of character assassination that has been waged against Hillary. By rejecting Hillary on emotional grounds, knowing that she is otherwise the most competent candidate for Presidency, we reward that 16 year campaign of character assassination and misogyny and confirm for all time that a big lie, repeated often enough and with enough viciousness, can bring down any leader, no matter how glorious their potential.
This is a pattern in American politics. In the 1960’s, campaigns of vilification inspired political terrorists to assassinate JFK, King, and RFK. In the 1970’s, a similar campaign against Jimmy Carter resulted in his defeat by Ronald Reagan and the ascent of the religious right to 28 years of national power, and all the disastrous consequences that followed: (1) bitter partisanship, (2) retrogression of social justice and welfare, (3) diversion of political energy into absurd obsessions over reproductive choice and sexual identity, and (4) the politics of resentment.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were a team who almost succeeded in ending the reign of the religious right, but was prevented from doing so by the rise of a Sexual McCarthyism even more virulent than its anti-communist predecessor, which originally arose out of the anti-communist hysteria of the late 1940’s and which was used to shut down the Presidency of Harry S. Truman. Like a ratchet, like a bulldog gripping a prey, Hillary is making progress in shutting down this most viral pestilence in American politics. But, Obama will be used by the Republicans to escape that grip. He is called "Obambi" by many in Republican circles. If Obambi can be used to distract and divert the innocent young, the forces of reaction may yet escape to fight another day, may yet escape to pollute America’s future, may yet prevent an effective response to the threats that face our society: pollution, global warming, imperialism, outsourcing, impoverishment of the middle class, and universal health care.
Anyone who has seen Hillary lead a seminar of experts on, for example, nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, knows that she is brilliant, that she has command of the facts necessary to formulate effective policy. I have a tape of her leading a seminar at UNLV in Las Vegas on or about January 16th. Many other tapes of this event exist, because many media cameras covered the event. Yet, it is impossible to find this video on YouTube. I will try to make my own tape available, but, I was not attached to the sound system, so the sound quality will be poor. In my opinion, if everyone could view a video of Hillary at this seminar, any doubts about her command of facts and her analytic abilities would vanish immediately.
In any event, there is no excuse for the level of vicious and hysterical attacks on Hillary that are far too common in the postings on DailyKos. People on this blog want Obama treated with tremendous deference and respect, yet they engage in the most disrespectful and insulting hyperbole imaginable against Hillary.
Whatever else may be said about the Clintons, the gap between the rich and poor diminished on their watch, and the country prospered in peace as the military industrial complex took a smaller share of the nation's output -- no small accomplishment for any President. Considering that the Clinton record was one of which Democrats can be justly proud, what excuse is there for the level of vitriol being thrown at the Clintons in these blog posts? Most of the anti-Clinton commentary in these blogs seems immature, stupid, and counterproductive. What would be wrong with showing the maturity to disagree in a constructive way?