Last night, my wife and I got into a discussion of who to vote for in this primary. She loves Hillary, much of that due to a sense of loyalty to her, both as a woman and because of the hard work Senator Clinton did for upstate New York. My wife is inspired by Obama, but is unwilling to pull the lever to vote for him.
My strategy in attempting to persuade her was to point out that Clinton does not represent her policy positions, notably Clinton's vote to authorize war in Iraq, and my belief that she conceives of the inherent power of the presidency much like President Bush. I also reminded her of her previous statements of concern about the tacts Clinton has used over the past few weeks. In any event, my attempts to persuade her had seemingly no effect. She accused me of buying into Obama's belief that judgment matters hook, line, and sinker. She then suggested that Clinton's vote on Iraq was not a mistake, but justified because Clinton needed to look strong on national defense to the public because women candidate running for office face a skeptical public about women holding the position of commander in chief.
I am sympathetic to the views my wife has, even as I throw my hands up in frustration because my attempt at persuasion failed. Traditionally women have gotten a raw deal in how the media covers female candidates for office - one story about Elizabeth Dole's campaign for President in 2000 even criticized her choice of clothes she brought on the campaign trail - and the perception, once more strongly held, that women are less qualified to be an executive because they are less "tough" than men. In addition, Senator Clinton is the first woman to have a serious chance to become President. Since our society continues to hold sexist (and racist) views, the election of a woman (or an African-American) to the Presidency would have the potential to reshape society.
However, my concerns about Senator Clinton is that she is disingenuously portraying her Iraq vote. I take it at her word (after some thought), that she believes her vote to authorize force was not a mistake - and that she was not naive in granting President Bush the authority to go to war. I believe, that she wanted to go to war, that she knew exactly what the resolution would lead to, for two reasons. First, as the junior Senator from New York, it was her constituency that was attacked. Second, looking forward to the day that she would run for President, she could appear strong on issues of national defense. Also in this vein, it was no secret that she sought a seat on the Senate Armed Forces committee to burnish her national security credentials. This decision to appear resolute in national security matters also led to her votes on the PATRIOT Act, and the resolution against the Iranian national guard.
When discussing this matter with my wife, she pointed out that it is wrong of me to take one vote and use it as a club to show that (any candidate) has bad judgment. No candidate is perfect, and Senator Obama has several unfortunate votes, many of which I am disappointed with. However, in the same breath, my wife mentioned that the more telling vote of Senator Clinton's was her vote in support of passage of the PATRIOT Act. After giving it more thought, I think that it is her vote on the PATRIOT ACT which is more symbolic of why she will not be able to lead our country in a new, transformative direction. (To be fair, both Clinton and Obama voted for the renewal of the PATRIOT ACT, but the cumulative history of Clinton's Senate record makes her initial vote on the PATRIOT ACT more problematic).
In this vein, Clinton's initial vote on the PATRIOT ACT is more telling of how she approaches issues relating to national security issues, constitutional rights, and progressive principles more generally. Unlike her Iraq vote, Clinton never claimed to read the legislation, and continued to broadly support the legislation (most of which came from earlier proposals during President Clinton's administration).
In 2005, Clinton wrote this about passage of the renewal:
We understood then, as we do now, that these tools are important in our fight against terrorism. And because there is no greater responsibility that we bear as members of this body than ensuring the safety of our citizens, I voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and supported its reauthorization when the Senate considered its bill earlier this year.
She went on to add that she recognized that in Congress' haste, certain protections of civil liberties were trampled upon, and supported legislation that would add additional protections for civil liberties.
However, I believe that her statement in support of the PATRIOT ACT is more in line with how she views the responsibility of the President and the balance between security and liberty. Again, the key part of that passage was "there is no greater responsibility that we bear as members of this body than ensuring the safety of our citizens." This point was echoed in an earlier debate when she stated that it was the responsibility of the President to protect the security of the nation, when in fact, the duty of the President is not to protect the people, but to protect the Constitution.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
In many ways, it is unfortunate that Senator Clinton is running in this election, instead of 2004. For seven years, she felt, either because it was the right position to take, or because it the position she needed to take as a woman running for the position as commander-in-chief, to take a strong position on national security issues. Now, seven years after she assumed office, her foreign policy positions are problematic to a large swath of Democratic voters. Instead of Clinton being the presumptive leader of the Democratic Party, and blazing a trail for women nationwide, she faces another strong candidate in Barack Obama who is a transformative, trailblazing leader in his own right.
It has always been my belief that we, as Democratic voters, should fairly scrutinize both candidates, not with a sense of loyalty, or on the basis of one vote, but at the complete package each candidate would bring to the office. I proudly support Obama, because I believe that he will fundamentally bring change to the type of destructive politics that has existed during the last 30 years. I believe that he is more concerned with the fundamental civil rights of Americans. If he does not win the nomination, I will, without a doubt cast a ballot for the junior senator from New York. But, since we do have two quality candidates at this stage, why should we give her a free pass on the overall picture of her foreign policy and national security stances??
BTW, I have a few days to persuade my wife.