Going Forward

I am willing to sacrifice a little more of the important anonymity that comes from writing under a pseudonym to reveal the remarkable fact that I am a middle aged white man.  I am also Jewish, which qualifies me as a member of a picked on minority group and a lifetime Red Sox fan, which used to be another vehicle for being picked upon and a minority, but is not any longer.

What I am not is a woman, but I talk to many such people, including quite a few who are close to my age.  Many of them, but hardly all, have expressed a very strong feeling that they ought not to vote against Senator Clinton for reasons they sometimes have difficulty explaining or rationalizing, at least to me. This tug, with all of its implications for a glass ceiling which so many of them have bumped against, is real, and understandable and nothing to be questioned, especially for those of us who have decided that our preferred candidate in Barack Obama.

I might note that both my daughter, a thoughtful college senior, and my mother, whose actual age bears no resemblance to the way she acts, talks, thinks and lives, and who has had considerable experience in the glass ceiling department, both prefer Senator Obama as do many other women.  I have a second cousin, about a decade older than me, whose views almost mirror those which I have read here under the name Granny Doc.  (My cousin is a Granny and the daughter of a Doc, but not one herself).

So, mindful of Frank Rich’s admonitions about monoliths, this diary is not intended to sweep the views of all women under one rug.  I can say to those who are uncomfortable about voting against the first woman to seriously contend for the presidency that maybe it would be best if the first woman president was not the wife of a man who was previously elected to the same office.  It remains questionable, for instance, whether Lurleen Wallace’s brief governorship, really a cover for her husband to try to remain in control of the Alabama government beyond the two terms his states permitted any governor to serve, was truly a breakthrough for women.  Nonetheless, this observation is usually met with the kind of look that a truly stupid person gets when say, he is unable to figure out how to open a door, or start a car.

I continue to prefer Senator Obama, and the excitement about and dedication to solving our national problems that he brings to this race and the enthusiasm of so many young people that gives me hope for the future, that her nomination.  I posted my reasons for my vote in the New York primary and I stand by them, and, indeed, they have been re-enforced over the last few days.

I wrote then, however, and still believe, that Senator Clinton is both extremely well qualified to be president and has the chance, if she is elected, to be a great president.  Just as Senator Obama’s election would mean so much about what this country can be and is, at its core, so would Senator Clinton’s in a different way, but something else which would make me proud.  I do not agree, and in fact, am bothered, by the claims that she is a war monger, or a somehow less than honorable representative of the best this country can offer.  Ever since the Vietnam War turned a Wellesley Young Republican into a young woman campaigning for the election of Eugene McCarthy in 1968, she has stood with and for causes important to the well being a progress of our country and its citizens.  Those who call her names, or believe that her nomination represents something wrong with our party or country, ought to measure her contributions to their own before going much further down that road.

There are many things about her and her campaign which bother me.  I have never been that comfortable with her husband, either though I voted for him twice and believe that next to his successor, his presidency qualifies him for Mount Rushmore.  I hope very much that Senator Obama is our party’s nominee.

But if he is not, I will be proud to vote for Senator Clinton in November, not just because of its meaning to so many people, but because of who she is and what she has done and what I believe she can do to lead this country out of this very dark period.

•  Nice diary.

  I spent an hour talking to an older woman that had volunteered for Hillary's IA campaign the other night.  It was a very good experience for me and it made me feel a lot better about the prospect of a Hillary nomination and voting for her if that happens.  However, while I agree that she's not a "warmonger", I do think that accountability for her support of the AUMF and opposition to Levin 02 is important.  It's not the only issue and if Obama were much worse on other issues then that could take precedent.  But Obama is strong on other issues, stronger (imo) on climate change and clearly much much stronger on government reform.  Their climate plans are similar but I think there was a telling moment in the NH debate when Obama spoke honestly about the costs of carbon credit auctioning and the need for conservation when Hillary followed up by talking about lowering costs of energy.  It just struck me because I thought Obama was being frank about what it's going to take, while Hillary was more pandering.  I guess that's a subjective thing though.  I also think that Obama's bolder approach to diplomacy is better.  The woman I spoke with was a nursing professor and a proponent of mandates.  I go back and forth on mandates, but am generally convinced by the argument that if you get an affordable public system created first you can have an easier time passing mandates if necessary.

  by play jurist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:31:01 PM PDT

  •  Health Care and Iraq

    Actually, Krugman (and, for that matter, Senator Edwards)has me convinced that she has the better take on the health care issue, though I do not agree that a President Obama might see it differently than the candidate Obama does.

    On Iraq, I have stated my view of this.  I am sorry to repeat myself, but I don't feel like writing all of this again:  

    No matter how much a piece of garbage has been deposited in the White House, when the President says we are facing a dire threat, I listen. Since the last president who possessed an intellect beyond comic book level also felt that this Hussein character posed a threat to us, it seemed even more important to listen carefully before jumping to the usual post-Vietnam conclusion that whatever it is, it’s best not to engage anyone militarily.

    So I listened. What I heard scared me. I knew that the people running Iraq had no relation to the people who attacked us in 1993 and on 9/11, but it is a volatile part of the world filled with irrational people who seem to be less cowed by the use of force than one would like. I listened to the Secretary of State, who had been chairman of the joint chiefs of staff the last time a president to my liking had occupied the White House, and saw that CIA director, also appointed by that president I liked, and thought that this might be something.

    Unlike those who are obviously much smarter than I am, then, I do not think that the question of what to do in Iraq was as clear an issue. The guy snookered us last time we went to war with him, and massacred people who he basically told General Schwartzkopf he would not. We probably ought not ot have trusted him, but we did not have many choices then, since our government was not in the control of people who fantasize about the world of 1946, and the collective security that we depend on today would not permit a unilateral take over of a soverign country.

    Frankly, some of those who argued against this new war made the argument for war more appealing since I heard in some of them the antagonism against war under almost any circumstance, something I do not condemn and sort of admire, but do not feel it to be a reasonable military stance at this point in our history.

    My family and friends recall that by the time of "shock and awe" and, in fact, when the now famous resolution was voted upon, I had decided that the authorization for the use of force should not be approved at least at that point, but, frankly I did not come to this conclusion until almost the very end of the debate. By then, it seemed to me that the resolution should not be passed since none of our traditional allies, except the UK, were supportive and when the President and his allies made comments which suggested they were not taking the UN inspections as seriously as was warranted, especially given how significant we found it when Hussein had kicked them out several years earlier.

    But, I was not married to anybody who was President of the United States, nor did I attend briefings from the military. Given all of that, and the assurances (empty as they turned out to be) that the authority would only be used if necessary, and the obvious mood of a country whipped into a frenzy by claims of mushroom clouds and the like, I cannot bring myself to condemn a person for not seeing it the same way I did, even though we have since found out that much of what was said to Congress and the public, and the UN was false.

    by Barth on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:39:48 PM PDT

    •  I get where you're coming from. . .

      I had a different perspective at the time than you had.  Obama's 02 speech pretty much lays out the case against blank check authorization that I believed at the time.  I didn't trust Bush at the time at all.  I think that if the Dems had got %100 behind the Levin 02 amendment they could have slowed things down and given the inspections a chance.  Hillary still says that opposing that was the right thing to do because it would have given the UN authority over a US president.  I think that's just rw spin.  It would have kept that authority for Congress, where the constitution put it, to make the final decision based off the inspectors reports and all the available evidence, which everyone in Congress ought to have read for themselves.

      by play jurist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:46:50 PM PDT

      •  I agree with you on the Levin dodge

        It is the weakest part of her candidacy, despite my view that there were reasons why a person could vote for the authorization and not be condemned for the vote, though it was not the one I would have cast, nor, Sen Obama (though neither of us were actually asked).

        As much respect as I have for that view, and, for instance, for Senator Kerry's vote, I do believe that Senator Clinton's was based less on the the reasons put forward for the resolution, than on pure political calculation, her family's trademark.

        But, again, she also gets treated differently than anonymous souls such as me, or, in 2002, Senator Obama, or even Senator Kerry.  Remember how much was made of whether she was talking during the President's speech to Congress after 9/11?  Nobody asked whether Senator Kerry, Senator Obama or I listened to the speech respectfully or not, or whether they talked a bit during it, or even laughed on a scary night.  All eyes were on her, and ready to pounce, as indeed they did, at the slightest slight toward our heroic president.

        And while Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry can admit to a mistake, it is, in this stupid political culture we have, impossible for her to do the same thing.  So, I have to view all of this through this sexist and foolish prism that is constructed, with the hope, frankly, that the next administration will help foster an era of reason.  I am not holding out much hope for that, but you know, hope is the order of the day.

        by Barth on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:09:40 PM PDT

•  For me

  voting for HRC, if I absolutely have to will be quite difficult.

  It depends in part on how she becomes the nominee. If she wins the overall majority of primary votes it will be a lot easier. I can yield to my party's choice, even if I disagree. But if HRC wins because she manages to get the MI and FL delegations seated based on the bogus primaries in January, or some other kind of trick,I do not see how or why I should remain loyal to the Democratic party in 2012.

  Based on the Republican dissention and the likely Democratic dissention, there will likely be some form of political realignment in 2012. If HRC is our nominee by hook or crook rather than by legitimate choice, I'm in the market for a new party.

  by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:32:53 PM PDT

•  Tip Jar

  again, I forgot, but, for what it's worth...

  by Barth on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:36:03 PM PDT