A Little Hillary Never Hurt
A quick interruption of the EW lovefest [An aside: Apparently EW didn't realize that his TNR bookmark was actually directing him to N&B these past few weeks, but his confusion has been rewarded with heaps of praise from the commenters. I'm enjoying the EW posts myself, but I can assure you, anonymous commenters, that if you ever met the myth that is EW, you would never again seek him out for advice on anything].
I voted for Obama this morning. This does not make me special, as, with the exception of one person, EVERYONE I know voted for Obama (or at least all young people I know). As this Slate article points out, young Hillary supporters (and particularly young male supporters) are about as common as Armen-embroidered tote bags. More locally, a friend who is in school in SF told me she wasn't feeling great about her Obama vote because of all the pushy Obama supporters on campus.
It seems that as the candidates have ratcheted down the animosity, many of their supporters have ratcheted it back up in preparation for Super Tuesday. I don't understand why--never before have we had so much reason to be "pro" our preferred candidate without being "anti" their opponent.
Personally, I voted for Obama because, among other reasons, I think we need to move on from the Bush-Clinton dynasty, and I do think it is true that Hillary will be more likely than Obama to inspire partisan rancor. I also like Obama's chances agaisnt McCain better. So I will be a bit disappointed if Obama isn't the nominee. But--if on November 7 I am voting for Hillary, instead of Obama, I will be proud to do so. It will be a historic vote, and it will be one for a more-than-qualified candidate.
I voted for Obama this morning. This does not make me special, as, with the exception of one person, EVERYONE I know voted for Obama (or at least all young people I know). As this Slate article points out, young Hillary supporters (and particularly young male supporters) are about as common as Armen-embroidered tote bags. More locally, a friend who is in school in SF told me she wasn't feeling great about her Obama vote because of all the pushy Obama supporters on campus.
It seems that as the candidates have ratcheted down the animosity, many of their supporters have ratcheted it back up in preparation for Super Tuesday. I don't understand why--never before have we had so much reason to be "pro" our preferred candidate without being "anti" their opponent.
Personally, I voted for Obama because, among other reasons, I think we need to move on from the Bush-Clinton dynasty, and I do think it is true that Hillary will be more likely than Obama to inspire partisan rancor. I also like Obama's chances agaisnt McCain better. So I will be a bit disappointed if Obama isn't the nominee. But--if on November 7 I am voting for Hillary, instead of Obama, I will be proud to do so. It will be a historic vote, and it will be one for a more-than-qualified candidate.
Labels: Elections
posted by Max Power at 11:49 AM
38 Comments:
MP, your list of reasons why you voted for Obama are exactly why I voted for Clinton. I like the guy and think he'd be a great president. But I think Hillary would too. And not one Obama supporter that I've asked over the past weeks has given me a substantive reason to pick him over Hillary other than "electability." That doesn't work on me because, had he been in the race, my vote would've gone straight to Kucinich. Whereas Hillary supporters (the few I've talked to) point out her years of experience, both domestic and foreign-policy. That and in her debates she comes somewhat close to answering questions asked, whereas Obama just blathers on about hope and a new direction (not that those are bad things).
Can anyone out there give me a reason Obama is better than Hillary, other than he can beat McCain?
I completely agree. I voted for Barack b/c I think he can beat McCain. But I like Hillary.
As a Hillary supporter, EW's warning that my vote will result in a McCain administration worries me, but I still think she'd be a better president, so I just voted for her. Sorry, EW ;)
Hey, this young male voted for Clinton! Where can he get an Armen-embroidered tote bag??? Can I have one in time for the last half of spring OCIP?
I agree with the "partisan rancor" note, and I agree with DS on the lack of "substantive reasons" but I'm not sure I understand why so many people take for granted the electability of Obama. Why is he more electable than Clinton? Why is he supposed to be so much more likely to beat McCain? I'm not sure I see it . . . .
I'll qualify what I just said by adding that I read (not watch) the news, and so don't watch see the candidates on TV very often. That means a lot of Obama's famous charm and presence don't make it onto this voter's radar.
I agree with Max. While I voted for Obama (and had basically made my decision to do so back in 2004 when he spoke at the DNC, of course never expecting he would actually run), I will be more than happy to throw my support behind Clinton should she come out of this victorious.
And disco stu, the only thing I think that differentiates Clinton from Obama is their differing stances on accepting money from lobbyists. Clinton accepts them and Obama doesn't. The terrible thing, I think is that this will likely prevent a Clinton-Obama '08 joint campaign.
Anyway, either way, I'm hoping for a clear winner out of today. I think the worst case situation for us Dems right now would be if the Republican race starts materializing towards a McCain victory but Obama and Clinton are still splitting votes down to the wire. That could give McCain a good head start to transition to his presidential campaign, meanwhile leaving the Democrats at each other s' throats.
I'll be voting for Obama today. But I've been on the fence up until a couple weeks ago. I agree with what a lot of other people wrote that there aren't a lot of huge policy differences between them. I think I even like Clinton's statements on Iraq more, (not sure either of them really have a policy, but she seems to have a more realistic assessment of the situation I think). What it came down to for me was that I think Clinton is just so divisive to so many people. It goes beyond JUST how she'd do in November. I think Obama will be more effective at pushing his platform through Congress. (I know its Dem now, but it was in Bill's first term too.) For example, Bush has been useless since the last election because the dems think they have a mandate to frustrate anything he tries to do. The same would be said for Clinton from day one, I don't think the same could be said for an Obama presidency. Clinton would be fair game for the political dogs of war, Obama at least has a chance of creating some sort of cooperation between the parties.
Probably a weak argument, but a tie breaker anyway. Plus supporting Obama is way more hip and edgy.
If you want to see a progressive agenda actually happen in 2009 and 2010, the most important, singular question you should ask yourself is this: who will find 60 votes in the U.S. Senate for their bill? Who will lure over moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats to support health care...or a minimum wage hike...or raising the EITC...or a carbon tax. That's the nut of it. All power flows through the Senate filibuster. Nothing happens in this country without 60 votes in the Senate.
A lot of people think Hillary will be too divisive among moderate Senators to ever beat a filibuster -- that no Republican Senator in his his or her right mind would vote for "Hillary-care" unless they wanted a primary challenge in their next election.
On the other hand, Hillary KNOWS the Senate way better than Obama, knows pressure-points, knows how to wheel and deal. Maybe she'll be able to practice the Dark Arts necessary to peel off the votes and get to the magic 60 for her big plans.
For Obama, a lot of people think that his bipartisan, inclusive style will not only build a national 60-40 coalition for major reforms, but that this will then translate into the 60 votes he needs.
On the other hand, naivete and dreams never beat a determined Senate filibuster by an angry minority party. Maybe Obama lacks the know-how to really muscle things through the Senate.
That's the main reason I've been so torn in this race. I think there's very, very good arguments on both sides about who will be able to find 60 votes for major legislation. But that's the real question we should all be asking.
2:29 - your "more effective president argument" rings true to me, and is the same one my wife used to justify her Obama vote earlier today.
It's as good a tie-breaker as any I suppose.
Ah, 2:29, just saw your post and yeah, we're saying the same thing in different ways. I'm with you.
Other than "Armen," consider embroidering your tote bags with:
GOBAMA!
Barack the Vote!
Barack the Boat!
Hussein in the Membrane (ok maybe not that one).
Armen--I meant you did the embroidering, not that it was embroider with "Armen."
In the event that Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans will love quotes like this:
"[W]ith the exception of one person, EVERYONE I know voted for Obama."
- Law student, Berkeley, CA
That's the part of the electability argument I don't quite understand. It seems to me like it is a toss-up between the political cost of being a Clinton and the political cost of being ranked as the most liberal senator in 2007. That is why I am on the fence.
I know Max, but it was sufficiently ambiguous that I took the version that stroked my ego.
3:21--technically I'm an attorney attorney in San Francisco. Does that help a little bit? Probably not so much.
I see your point. But what I was trying to say was not that everyone I know is liberal and so they all voted for Obama, but rather that Obama has inspired a cult-like mentality in many of his supporters. So it was really just a reminder that that other candidate--the one who is winning right now--ain't too bad herself.
I know, I took your comment out of context for use towards another issue. (Perhaps I should be a politician?) It wasn't meant as a critique of your post. I could just as easily have said the same thing about myself (although I would have had to remove the "except one").
Hillary won't beat McCain because conservatives absolutely hate her, and so do many moderates (including many Dems). You can thank the media spin on everything she's said for the past 16 years for this.
I'm not saying it's fair, but it's true.
I voted for Obama because I trust him to make the right decision -- not the decision that has been poll-tested to perfection.
I don't think I'll ever understand this "head start" business. The only place I've ever heard an argument that it's better to have your nominee early is in the main stream media (MSM). But isn't it in the MSM's best interest that one candidate emerge so they can transition from the primary horse race into the presidential. I mean, the MSM is the one that wants the early nominee - it makes polling cheaper, it allows them to focus on who's ahead and who's behind (which they can't very well do if they don't know the nominee).
The way I see it, having the Dem race (this year, where there are two fantastic candidates) go to convention isn't necessarily a bad thing. There would continue to be two very very strong candidates. After the primary votes are cast, in addition to courting the superdels behind the scenes, they could mount a joint assault on the McCain candidacy while McCain sits there wondering who to direct his specific attacks against (or, rather, having to split them between two people). It seems to me like you'd be getting a double-headed candidate (or triple-, if you include Bill), doubling your pleasure and doubling your fun.
Or maybe I'm just naïve to think that a two-headed, joint attack on the presumptive Republican nominee will work. I'm just sayin, that's all...
The media is saying conservatives hate Hillary and will galvanize against her. But the only conservative I've actually heard talk, one Ann Coulter, said she'd campaign for Hillary if McCain got the nod (not that she's really serious). I guess it all depends on how conservative McCain can make himself before November. Democratic strategists should start figuring out how to label him too liberal for the Karl Rove base-vote to turnout.
On CNN.com's live videofeed I just heard a Bill Schneider report comparing the politicking in California to the 49ers heading west. Classic Warrenism.
My personal favorite on CNN - at about 8 pm Wolf Blitzer made a really big deal about a projection, only to tell us they were projecting that California was going to be a very competitive race for the Democrats. Seriously?
So much for Earl's theory on the Latino vote. Considering I didn't see a single Obama TV ad (not that I've had time to watch much TV) during this election season, I'm not at all surprised by the results. Did he really think a rally attended by supporters was going to get him votes against Art Torres' political machine?
Does anyone else think it's cool that Jamal Greene, today's faculty-candidate visit is Talib Kweli's brother?
8:52 - No.
I think many people are simplifying what happened in CA, saying Hillary got the Latinos, white women, and older voters and that's all it took. Absentee votes were a BIG DEAL. Watching the votes get tallied in CA, the first 22% of votes showed Hillary 55%, Obama 33%, Edwards 10% (with Richardson and Kucinich getting 1%, I think). That basically looks like the CA polls a MONTH ago, which would have been when all the absentee voters mailed in their ballots. And the numbers didn't change until after like 22% of the votes were counted - I think that might have all been absentee tallies. That 10% who voted for Edwards would have voted differently yesterday. Maybe many of those Hillary votes would have switched with the Obama "surge" that happened here the last few days. But that gap made a huge difference for Obama. That's what I think.
I think with the way things turned out, we'll get a good test regarding the Clinton/Obama "electability question." Both candidates are competitive enough to fight it out and Ohio and Pennsylvania are some of the last primaries. That probably means that whoever can win those two states will win the nomination and that's a good thing for the party going into November.
I don't know what to think of Obama's "red state" strength--I'm not informed enough to know whether he would have a remote shot at picking up places like Kansas as against McCain, or conversely whether he could end up losing any swing states, like New Mexico, that Clinton could pick up.
My take on the red state strength seen for Obama yesterday lies in the fact that Democrats in red states don't like Hillary Clinton because they are surrounded by Republicans who spit on the ground at her mention. Does the fact that Hillary took the big blue states mean that she can, in fact, beat McCain? Maybe.
12:30 PM: Glad I checked the posts because I had half written practically the exact thing you wrote. Yours got the point across better, so I'll just take this opportunity to re-direct people's attention to your post.
5:33 PM: It's important to note that there are likely NO voters who voted for Hillary who would not vote for Obama. Meanwhile there are most definitely voters who voted for Obama who would not vote for Hillary. If McCain's really the Rep nominee, it's not as great a leap over to the other side for those people compared to the prior two elections.
Why I hate politic(ian)s:
There are two candidates who both claim to care about the world. Democrats don't seem to think that either one is incompetent or unworthy of the position. They have very similar beliefs. Yet both are continuing to spend millions of dollars on advertising and campaigning. What value is being added to the world by the expenditure of those dollars?
My conclusion: Both Clinton and Obama are more driven by their egos than anything else. Anyone who will spend millions of dollars to campaign against someone with more or less the same policy views is not actually that concerned about the greater good. A rational person in the position of either Clinton or Obama would recognize that the world would be better off if they gave in, accepted the VP position and donated the saved campaign money to charity (or even spent it on the general election against a Republican).
excuse me max power, but i think you're forgetting bout one hillary supporter who is young (and beautiful).
ME.
GO Hillary.
I can also name several other young Hillary supporters. A few 06, a few 07. All young, all ready to vote for Hillary. Even a dude.
Please, don't lump all SF liberals into the Obama camp. He may have won SF and Alameda county but that doesn't mean that there aren't Hillary supporters here too.
Stacita--I said everyone I knew with the exception of one person. Who do you think that one person was?
And obviously not all liberals voted for Obama--Hillary did win, after all. But Hillary does not seem to inspire the same kind of devotion as Obama, so this was just a reminder that the sky won't fall if it's Hillary instead of Obama.
TJ's response to 5:33 pm is dead-on accurate.
i didn't know i was so important in your life as to be THE one!!
:)
I don't understand why people think Obama is more likely to get his legislation through versus Hillary. Just look at her record and you will see that once she became a senator she was willing to work with anyone (and did).
She worked on legislation with Trent Lott (and 49 other republicans) regarding FEMA after he had voiced, not unhopefully, that lightning might strike her before she arrived to the Senate. She also worked with impeachment leader Lindsey Graham on the issue of National Guard benefits. In fact, her ability to work with others was deemed so successful in moderating her image that Karl Rove, according to a source close to him, sent word last year to halt Republican cooperation with her—an edict that has been ignored.
Obama on the other hand hasn’t really been known for reaching across the aisle (yet). I suppose if he was there longer than 3 years that might change, but so far that is the facts. Also, I challenge Obama supporters to name one accomplishment that Obama has made in the Senate.
Although I like both candidates I think Hillary is more ready to lead. Not just because of her past 35 years of experience, but because of what she has actually done in the Senate. She has shown her critics that she can work with people that bitterly opposed her and still get things done.
Hey EW, don't think I have forgotten about your promise to do naked backflips in the courtyard if Hillary won the Latino vote despite all of his lofty endorsements. She did, just like I knew she would. I think you should do them at lunch for maximum impact. ;)
I think Obama has the momentum to go all the way, and is still gaining. He's certainly the most inspiring orator I've encountered in my voting life.
Hillary seems to be emphasizing her experience and the fact that she is a familiar figure, a known quantity. But experience and being a known quantity can a liability. For one, many people have simply decided that, based on long experience with her, they dislike her intensely (for various reasons, some fair, some not, some probably sexist). For another, like Kerry 4 years ago, she's such a familiar figure that it is hard to see her "catching fire" the way Obama has (or even the way Dean caught fire 4 years ago, though it turned out to be spontaneous combustion, "YHEAAAAAAHH!"). I really fear that the "anyone but Hillary" factor would help energize Republican opposition, while her inability to inspire a real grassroots movement would translate into reduced independent support.
There are two independents in my family (both voted for Bush at least once). One just gave money to Obama, the other recently told me she thinks Hillary is a "snake." Right or wrong, to me these people exemplify the problem of Hillary's familiarity. If she's the nominee, I hope I'm wrong. But I have a feeling she won't be, given how many hits that "Yes, we can!" video is getting.
9:48, how is his oratory inspiring? I find his speeches to be scary - it's as if he's leading a cult-gathering. Why do so many Obama followers blindly accept his calls for "change" and "hope" without investigating his policies? Change what? Yes we can do what? It's all so vague and full of crap. It seems that he and Hillary are almost identical when it comes to the policies.
Just rolling back through these posts to compare Primary predictions with what seems to be going down . . . and I am impressed. Not with the predictions, but with the tone of the discussion.
Ladies and gentleman and Boalties all!
Post a Comment
<< Home