originally offered as a comment on the daily diary about things Hillary posted by Lysis, and only slightly edited to post on its own.
While I will occasionally recommend both that and other diaries pro-Hillary and even on occasion a few pro-Bernie diaries, in general I have chosen to stay out of the comment threads. Today I wanted to offer a few thoughts, on a day when we will finally be back in our school after 11 days being closed for two weather events, and that on a two-hour delay (and having posted it as a comment, decided to offer it on its own).
Bill Clinton used to always run late because he would take the time to work the rope line afterward. But that meant he build connections with individuals with whom he spoke.
That Hillary builds it into her schedule, that she meets with small groups before, that she takes the time for more intimate settings, has an impact that many people may not realize. Those people she encounters, especially in the small group settings, will tell their family and friends, and exert an influence that someone who merely attended a rally/speech will not. It builds a commitment, a sense of being heard, that matters a huge deal. I add to what I posted as a comment that in a setting like Iowa someone who has had that kind of personal contact can have a huge influence, especially in some of the smaller caucuses.
In reading the words about issues other than the financial issues and influences of money, I am also reminded of something I saw at Yearly Kos in 2007 in Chicago, with almost all of the Democratic candidates on state. John Edwards did a showy thing of calling on all the candidates to agree not to take donations from lobbyists. The others, including Obama, agreed with him but Hillary Clinton spoke up immediately and said that some lobbyists were for people like teachers and nurses. I remember that when Edwards made those remarks, I turned to the person next to me, a key person in her campaign, and inquired whether that meant Edwards would give back the $100 I had given him, since I regularly lobbied on Capitol Hill (and as I did not say, also occasionally in Richmond or in local encounters with state legislators) on matters affecting education. I was not a REGISTERED lobbyist, because I was not paid for my efforts. And refusing those donations was almost meaningless, since a lobbyist on his/her own can give no more money than can a billionaire.
What I neglected to say in the original comment was this: those words by Hillary demonstrated her ability to look ahead to see possible negative implications beyond the surface appeal of an immediate statement. The words a President says resonate loudly. I like the idea of someone who can react with the appropriate thoughtfulness when presented with something that might have immediate strong appeal.
I think it somewhat similar about Superpacs, not so much for the Democratic primary as for the general election, where regardless of who becomes the Republican nominee, there will almost certainly be hundreds of millions of dollars spent attacking the Democratic nominee. While I admire the enthusiasm that has led to many small donors, and compliment the Sanders campaign on $20 million raised in January, even double that rate could be insufficient to counter the barrage of ads that will be unleashed once the Democratic nominee is determined. Yes I would like the law changed, I would like Supreme Court opinions like Citizens United overturned. But to get either result requires winning the election first. And I think one can extend this further by considering the need for any Democrat to have sufficient (not necessarily equal) funds to compete, so long as the system stays the way it currently is.
I think there is a reason that most unions that have chosen have endorsed Hillary Clinton, just as there is a reason that most elected officials who have endorsed have done likewise — these are groups/people who understand what is necessary to move the needle on their issues, and see Clinton as far better able to achieve it than Sanders, who is a fine man. This also reminds me that without the political efforts of unions Democrats would be at a severe disadvantage. Many of the goals Progressives seek require the active participation of unions to get there.
Adding a paragraph — many people have noted that Ted Cruz is so disliked by his Senate Colleagues that none of them have endorsed him. Sanders is not disliked, but he similarly lacks the public support of his Senate colleagues and more than a few members of the Progressive Caucus. Notable Progressives like Bill De Blasio have endorsed Clinton, as have both the Democratic Governor and Senator from Vermont. I think people may agree with a good deal of what Bernie has to say, but do not believe he is the best person to lead the country in that direction.
In 2004 the Des Moines Register endorsed John Edwards over Howard Dean, saying in part that Edwards was a better messenger to deliver the Dean message than was Howard himself. For all the years of attacks upon Hillary and Bill Clinton, for all the baggage we can agree she carries for having been in the public eye for well over three decades at this point, I see her as the better messenger for a more progressive America, not merely on issues of financial reform, but on issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, and more.
I will watch tonight, even as it might mean I get little sleep for my teaching on Tuesday. I wish the Sanders campaign well, but I truly hope that Clinton wins.