Unlike some diarists here, I recall fondly the Bill Clinton presidency. Domestically speaking, my life and the lives of countless others improved as a direct result of his policies. I agree with those who remark that Bill Clinton was what the Democrats needed in 1992, even if he aroused dislike among progressive purists.
And Hillary Clinton is correct when she posits that she is prepared to do the job from Day 1, in her technical knowledge of what the job entails and her attention to detail. She COULD be a fine president, and if she is our nominee, I will support her.
However . . .
As the campaign rolls on, I am seeing the affirmation of what has been the most convincing knock on her all along. Namely, that she remains a polarizing figure. Certainly there are still plausible pathways to the nomination for her, and strategies by which she could still become president.
But going back over the last few months, I have rarely, if ever, seen Hillary, even when she was leading, top any poll with significantly more than 50 percent approval. In most head-to-head polls, against both Democratic contenders, and in projections of the general election against various Republicans, she's always in 48-to-49-percent territory.
Chris Matthews, in discussing the Wisconsin returns tonight, made an excellent point that gave me confidence that supporting Obama is the way to go. Matthews said that since 1965, we have not had a mandate in Washington where a president or party has held that necessary 60-to-65-percent mandate to actually get things done. He was referring to really big landmark legislation, like Medicare/Medicaid, which is why I think he chose 1965 as his marker. We are overdue for some major reform from Washington in healthcare, energy, education and so on. We will need a president who can muster that kind of a mandate to move those policies. A 50-percent-plus-one president, or worse, a mere plurality president, won't be able to do it.
Hillary, for all her good qualities, will never be more than a 50-percent-plus-one president. Her heart is in the right place, as is her mind. But that may not be enough.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, I can definitely see being a president who, like Bill Clinton, can build the 60-to-65 percent public and Congressional support to make things happen. He is -- indeed always has been -- a coalition-builder. That's how Bill Clinton governed as well, and that is why he had so many domestic successes, the Northern Ireland peace, and getting oh-so-close to peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Hillary, in short, is no Bill.
But the ability to build 60-to-65-percent support, whether in popular support, or a specific piece of legislation, is the kind of thing that gets Congressmen on both sides of the aisle to line up behind policy for fear of losing their seats for failing to abide by popular will.
In our honest moments, we have to admit there has been a dearth of leadership from both parties in Washington, though the Bush administration has set a new standard for lackluster. Obama shows he can lead because people just seem to want to follow him. And what is the definition of a leader but someone whom others are willing to follow?
To be sure, Obama is wrong on some things that Hillary gets right. We can differ on what policy paths he may lead us down, and there will be plenty of time in the legislative process to influence him; like, convincing him of the need for universal health coverage, for example.
We Democrats have been blessed this year with an outstanding slate of candidates, and choosing one has been akin to choosing your favorite kind of candy. The differences are only in matters of degree. I'm willing to look past some policy differences to get a Democratic president who can build a following that will lead us to better things. To that end, Obama has the advantage over Hillary.