It is taken as an article of faith on Daily Kos that readers of the Kos should support either Obama or Clinton if they win the nomination. As a long-time reader and first time diarist, this sites central theme has been that any Democrat would be preferable to John McCain. What has been missing from this site is a discussion of what threshold would a candidate have to cross in order to conclude that the differences between candidates is not enough to justify active support by the mass of Kossacks.
As a 35 year veteran in the labor movement and a Director of one of the largest and most active locals in the Midwest (one that bucked our AFT International and actively supported Obama), I view this issue as critically importanct in the coming weeks. As a person who has aggressively combatted the Naderites and the apathetic who see no difference in the Parties (including my kids), this issue needs to be answered.
Prior to this primary season, I identified several key issues that would help answer this question. They center not only on what postions the candidates take on these issues, but what they have actually done on these
issues when it wasn't election season. Here's where I stand:
The key issues:
- The war in Iraq and the use of military force in the world
- Jobs at home and the importance of trade treaties
- Health care reform
On all these issues that are key to me, Hillary fails, and on two of them, miserably.
A brief review:
- We know Hillary's vote on the war. It clearly showed she is not a person of principle when it comes to the use of military force. At best, she is a person who will go with what is popular at the time. There is nothing in her resume that would lead anyone to any other conclusion.
Furthermore, her fear-mongering ads would lead any objective person to conclude that manipulating popular opinion is a tool she would use regularly and in this case, as a tool to use force or keep combat troops in Iraq.
- Jobs and economic justice- She is clearly pro-NAFTA based on her actions. Furthermore, as someone who has been involved with and been arrested at more union drive demonstrations that I can count, I am horrified at Hillary's role for six years on the Board of Directors of Walmart. Her role there was to endorse and applaud the anti-employee and anti-woman policies of one of the most raeactionary corporations in the last half century. If her name was McCain, she would be rightly villified by all you alleged progessives out there.
- Health care- I would give her some credit for seeing this as a critical issue 15 years ago. Unfortunately, her plan then (and now)do nothing to address the ungodly cost of health insurance. It was concocted in secrecy and with only her close health care company friends as co-conspirators.
Now, Obama is no Eugene Debs, but his stances on the war and NAFTA, at a time when his positions weren't popular, were clear and unequivocal. He is worth taking a risk on and fighting for.
On health care, his plan is no better than Hillary, but at least he admits, that in his heart, he supports a single payer plan.
My conclusion based on the above, is that there is not a substantial difference between McCain and Hillary on issues of importance to me. If she is the nominee, I will vote for her, because on issues of less importance, she is marginally better than McCain (e.g. Perkins funding and Pell grants). I will not, however, campaign for her. To do so, would perpetuate the myth that her differences with the Republicans are substantial, real and based on her record. On issues of importance to me, that clearly isn't the case. Am I wrong?