I’ve seen too many Democrats arguing “I will not vote for Clinton/Obama in the general election, because I don’t like the way Clinton/Obama supporters are acting, because I’ve come to hate Clinton/Obama, because Clinton/Obama is running a sexist/racist campaign,” etc etc.
It is not the case that one candidate is being supported by dastardly people while the other candidate’s supporters have never acted with anything but kindness and decency. If you (“you” meaning either Clinton supporters or Obama supporters) can’t see that both campaigns and their supporters have at times acted badly, then with all due respect, you’ve lost perspective.
But that’s not nearly as bad a loss of perspective as that of a Democrat or liberal who would support Clinton in the primary but not Obama in the general, or vice-versa. Many of Obama’s supporters have been sexist, and many of Clinton’s supporters have been racist. But McCain’s supporters are worse. Much more importantly, McCain’s actions in office would be worse for women of all races and for people of color of all sexes.
To pick just one example, consider the UN Population Fund, usually referred to as UNFPA, which funds reproductive health care in many countries that no one else in the world is providing the same care in. You can read more about the UNFPA on this post on my blog. It is virtually certain that either President Clinton or President Obama would restore UNFPA funding, and that President McCain would not.
Reproductive health care saves lives, especially in the developing world. A lot of people in wealthy countries have forgotten that childbirth used to be very dangerous, and still is in some places in the world. (For that matter, it’s still quite dangerous for women of color here in the USA). There are also thousands more women who will live without access to care, but who will suffer from horrible, treatable conditions like fistula, and whose lives would be improved if increased UNFPA funding means they get more health care.
My argument is that refunding UNFPA is a zillion times more important than how Clinton supporters are mistreated by Obama supporters on Kos, or vice-versa on Taylor Marsh. It’s even more important than sexist garbage spouted by Jessie Jackson Jr. in support of Obama, or racist garbage spouted by Ferraro in support of Clinton.
And UNFPA is just one example. I could make a similar argument for judicial appointments, for the EPA, for FEMA, for labor rights, and for a hundred other issues, many of which don’t get much play on blogs. On all these issues, Obama and Clinton are flawed, but McCain would be far, far worse. And given the overall racist and sexist bias of our society, the harms of a McCain presidency wouldn’t be gender-and-race neutral. I don’t see any anti-racist or feminist advantage in refusing to vote against McCain.
Clinton and Obama are both too right-wing for my preferences. Nonetheless, they’re both incredibly smart, and they’d both be better presidents than McCain. I greatly respect many supporters on both sides. I also respect some of those who can’t support any Democrat at all, like my friends in the Socialist and Green parties.
But I can’t respect any Democrat who’d support Clinton or Obama in the primaries, but not vote against McCain in the general election. To me, that’s the ultimate example of having taken ones eyes off the prize.
EDITED TO ADD:
Shorter Ampersand: Whichever candidate you’re supporting in the primary, I want you to know I’m prepared to support the other candidate and hate you bitterly and without reservation for not agreeing with me, you traitor.
(A lot of this post was rewritten from my comments on Tom Watson’s blog.
(Comments from Democrats, progressives, leftists and liberals only please.)
We don’t even know who the Democratic candidate will be. And it wouldn’t surprise me to see some hijinks at the convention.
But I can’t respect any Democrat who’d support Clinton or Obama in the primaries, but not vote against McCain in the general election. To me, that’s the ultimate example of having taken ones eyes off the prize.
Define “prize.”
I’m a liberal, but not a Democrat. For me, there’s a much bigger “prize” than the presidency: having a liberal party in this country. Democratic strategists forgot that Clintonian Centrism isn’t primarily responsible for winning the Presidency in 1992; rather, Perot’s status as a spoiler did. Instead of learning from the Republicans and realizing that they have to energize their base to win, Clinton’s Democratic advisors are still obsessed with centrism and swing voters to the exclusion of real liberals. (And yes, theoretically I could vote for a Green candidate. While energizing the liberal base isn’t exactly high on their list of priorities, figuring out how to persuade third-party voters is completely off the agenda.)
In an odd way, it reminds me of Evangelicals in a debate about evolution — they’re effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and going “lalala-I-can’t-hear-you!”
Great post, Amp. AL, I’d define “prize” as preventing someone whose political career is defined by a deep love of permanent war from becoming the most powerful person in the world.
Yeah, I’d agree the “prize” is something besides the presidency too.
Clinton’s Democratic advisors are still obsessed with centrism and swing voters to the exclusion of real liberals.
But the same can be said about Obama’s campaign. One of his key selling points for many people is his ability to win over centrists and swing voters, and even conservatives.
But the same can be said about Obama’s campaign. One of his key selling points for many people is his ability to win over centrists and swing voters, and even conservatives.
Everyone keeps saying this, but as far as I can tell, they’re misinterpreting the research: “less bad” does not equal “good.”
Good post, Amp. I’ve supported Hillary ever since Edwards dropped out because I think Barack will face steep hurdles in the general that he hasn’t faced in the primaries, and I think it will be more difficult for him to win than it would be for Hillary. But if/when Barack gets the nomination, I won’t hesitate to support him.
To the extent we still have a democracy in this country — and it’s not at all clear to me that we do — it hangs by the slender thread of a single Supreme Court seat. If the Imperial Presidential Party gets a five seat Supreme Court majority, it’s all over.
Great post. I voted for who I voted for in the caucus here, but I would vote for ANY democrat for president before I would vote for McCain. We need to avoid breaking off into Clinton-factions and Obama-factions then voting out of spite in the general. I think the idea is to make the country more liveable for everyone–and that’s just not going to happen with McCain in power.
For me, I can’t promise who I will or won’t vote for in November. I support Hillary now, and if she gets the nom, I’d most likely vote for her — but that may still depend on the Democratic Party. I can’t stand Obama, and I think his bullshit hypocrisy and political games is worse than Hillary’s, because he’s the one who “promises” not to do those things, and then goes ahead and does them. Not to mention all the lies about his actual policy stances. I trust him far less than the average politician (and that’s scary, IMO), and I think he would be a horrible president — yes, possibly worse than McCain (no, not in areas like UNFPA, maybe — I have yet to see anywhere that McCain has stated he would not refund it — but in other areas that are at least as important to me, yes, I think he could potentially be worse. He sure as hell hasn’t shown that he will actually get anything accomplished nor can he actually seem to work in his “post-partisan” way that he claims to be all about). I can’t say definitively that I would not vote for him in November, but I can’t say I’d be comfortable voting for him, either.
I can say definitively that I won’t vote Republican, but depending on what the Democratic Party does over the next few months wrt shit like MI and FL (among other things) AND on who gets the nom, I may very well vote Green. And I’ll be proud of it. I won’t be bullied into voting against my conscious in 2008 any more than I was in 2000.
Neither Dem Party nor Al Gore were entitled to my votes in 2000. And the Dem Party is still not entitled to it. If Obama does get the nom and he wants my vote, he’ll have to show me that he can be a good president. Being a Democrat simply isn’t enough.
Oh, and it seems to me that you were quite supportive of Bill Bradley in the 2000 primary, yet didn’t support the eventual Dem nominee.
Spot on.
I dislike Obama. But so what? When it comes to Obama / McCain, the “least worst” analysis isn’t even close. I’ll cast my vote for Obama in a heartbeat.
The Dems don’t have a “right” to anyone’s vote of course. But because we’re a 2 party country and because the Green party mostly taps its votes from Democrats, most Green votes are going to help the Republican cause. That’s not a good thing, but it is what it is. If you don’t want a Republican president, the only effective way to prevent that right now is to elect a Democratic one.
I was interested in Bill Bradley at first, because I thought he might be an alternative to Gore. I became less interested when I did the research and realized that there was no sunlight at all between his and Gore’s policies. In particular, as I recall, Bradley supported the sanctions in Iraq, and opposition to the sanctions were at the time my primary issue.
I would have supported Nader in 2000 regardless of if Bradley or Gore had been the Democrat; Nader’s policies were, to put it mildly, far superior to either Democrat’s. In hindsight, that may have been a mistake, but I lacked hindsight at the time.
Clinton has said many times that she’s against negative politics and wants to campaign just about the issues (most recently in her first public comment on the Ferraro flap), so I don’t understand why you think she doesn’t also promise not to do these things.
And she’s a liar; she’s based her entire recent campaign on the claim that she was an essential and central player in the Bill Clinton administration’s foreign policy, a claim that is completely unsupported by the facts, and which has been outright denied by the people who actually were players in those negotiations.
The distinctions you’re attempting to make between Obama and Clinton don’t exist. Just because you like Clinton and thus make excuses for or ignore her hypocrisy and lies, doesn’t make them not hypocrisy and lies. Both of the candidates are successful high-level politicians; that means both of them are hypocrites and liars.
Finally, it’s true that there’s no guarantee that McCain won’t refund UNFPA. There’s also no guarantee that Clinton won’t retain Bush’s people running FEMA, or turn pro-life. But given her history and political comittments, it’s unlikely she’d do those things.
Similarly, given McCain’s political commitments, and his need for support from the conservative base, it’s extremely unlikely that he’d cross the conservative base on UNFPA — an issue that pro-life groups follow closely, but almost no one else has even heard of. Besides, he has a strong pro-life voting record; why do you think he’ll suddenly buck the pro-lifers now?
Not to mention the EPA, FEMA, NLRB, etc… It’s hardly as if UNFPA is the only issue in which Obama is many times better than McCain, but extremely similar to Clinton.
Sailorman, I have no problem with anyone from the Greens who can’t bring themselves to vote for either Democrat. That makes sense to me. I don’t think it’s a good idea if you don’t live in a safe state, but I can see it both ways; it’s a question of strategy. (Which is more important, trying to build a progressive movement outside the Democratic party, or voting for the lesser evil?)
What I think is a mistake is being willing to vote for Obama but hating and despising Clinton too much to ever vote for her; Obama and Clinton aren’t identical politically, but they’re similar, and someone willing to vote for one of them over McCain ought to be willing to vote for the other, unless their vote is based on something other than policy and strategy.
I agree w/r/t to the similarity between H&O.
The Greens thing is a bit different. I can easily see that people who adhere to the Green platform would be willing to make significant Bush-in-2004 style sacrifices to get the long term benefit of a Green party that was a real player.
But if your adherence to the Green party line starts to slip, then those shorter term consequences start getting really, really expensive. I don’t entirely get the “protest vote for Green” thing, except in states where it’s a no brainer who will win, or unless you vote swap with someone in a slam dunk state. It’s not that it doesn’t make any sense, but the cost/benefit seems too big.
By the way, for those who follow these things:
the 9th Circuit has refused to grant en banc rehearing to the vote-swapping-for-Nader cases, which means in this case that it has upheld its prior ruling that such swapping was legal and Constitutionally protected.
I really appreciate this post. I don’t understand the “I’m liberal and only Clinton/Obama is liberal enough for me.” They really couldn’t be much closer. The distinctions are the nuances in policy ideas, not the principles behind those ideas, which are equally somewhat left of center.
I’m quite liberal, as is my husband. I wish the country were further to the left. Neither Clinton nor Obama is liberal enough for me or my husband. but we both voted for Clinton in our primary. I am more undecided than my husband between the two. But we both agree on one thing — we are voting Democrat in the fall. For all the reasons you cite.
This is one of the reasons I prefer closed primaries. I think voting in the primary means you agree to abide by your party’s choice — which means you vote for your party in the general or not at all (if you really can’t bring yourself to vote your party). But that’s a whole other debate!
OK, I’ve been watching this whole saga playing out for several months, and I have to say, there’s a lot I don’t understand.
I have to admit that I haven’t studied either Clinton or Obama in any great detail. Partly because I couldn’t vote for either of them even if I wanted to, but mainly because as far as I can see, the Republicans are a far-Right party and the Democrats are just the tiniest smidgen to the Left of them (but still overlapping quite a bit) and there’s no way in hell I’d ever give my vote to a party that conservative.
So, my question is this (and it’s absolutely not rhetorical, I honestly don’t see it and want to know): what is it about these two that is inspiring such devotion amongst people who self-identify as progressive? I get why people who are party-line Democrats or whose beliefs do happen to generally mesh with the Democrats would get heated up about this campaign. What I don’t understand is why people who consider themselves much more to the Left than that seem to be so invested in this. Surely for them voting for Hillary or Obama is still a case of going for the lesser of two evils?
Because we’re so traumatized by the past 7 years, we’ll take anything short of More Of The Same.
Or to put it another way: The current driver is insane and heading us toward a cliff. We want to replace him with someone who can drive and steer us in another direction. Even if we wind up in a ditch, it’s an improvement.
Love,
Mr. Sunshine
I agree firmly with Anonymous Liberal. I identify as a solid liberal in the FDR mold, while I don’t always identify with the current Democratic Party. I will never support the DLC/Terry McAuliffe wing of the party. There are plenty Republicans I’d support over them*. I’d support Clinton only on the condition that she repudiates this faction within the DP, embraces the grassroots, has some meaningful claim** to near unanimous superdelegate support (which is what she needs now), and mends fences for her appalling conduct during this nomination process. The last two I see as possible, if improbable. The first two I regret will probably never happen in any instance.
*You may ask why I’d support a moderate Republican over a right-centrist Dem, since the two at best amount to the same thing. The reason is that there is the dual effect of rewarding moderation in the Republican Party and purging DLC’ers and New Dems from the Democratic Party. I’d take a defunct, collapsed Democratic Party over a right-centrist “slightly better than Republicans” one, any day. At least the defunct party has the opportunity to rebuild into something better within a decade, maybe less. I begrudgingly respect hardline conservatives for what they did to the GOP after the Goldwater debacle. I would definitely consider the same for the Dems.
** A meaningful claim to me would be being ahead in the popular vote but behind in pledged delegates. I understand that pledged delegates were the rule of the game and that the entire process would have been played differently if the popular vote was the goal from the outset, but it at least has some grounding and can appeal to democratic impulses.
OTOH, making up ad hoc criteria on what states and what Democratic constituents *really need* does not, because first of all, in a 50/50 nation, every part is essential. We need AA voters just as much as we need senior voters, and we need Virginia and Oregon just as much as we need Ohio. And secondly, such intentional rendering of divisions is stupid and should be rewarded by SD’s moving in the opposite direction.
He appeals to centrists and conservatives as people, not through the issues – that is his selling point. (Granted, his positions aren’t particularly liberal to begin with.) In doing so, he brings the political center of gravity to the left. Similar to Reagan. He appealed to white liberals and progressives without moving to the left, and in doing so instead pulled his followers to the right.
That is wholly different from giving into Republican demands, letting them frame the debate, out of a weak-kneed fear of the centrist voter, who in the centrist Dem’s mind is something like a hayseed chewing extra from a spaghetti western. I don’t buy for one minute that prominent Democratic Senators were “misled” by Bush, when everyone from moderate Republicans to bum bloggers to many members of their own freaking party could clearly see what was going on. No, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, et. al. were all eyeing future presidential runs and thought that a little gross immorality would be an acceptable price to pay in order to pander to hawkish voters. They have since learned otherwise. Of course, Kerry and Edwards have since at least apologized for their votes, while Clinton is still going to extreme lengths to twist what her motivations were when it’s plainly obvious to anyone sitting outside.
Along those lines, here’s a similar analogy. The current driver is greedy and evil (as I’m not comfortable insulting mentally people by calling Bush insane) heading us toward a cliff. I suppose one strategy is to replace him with someone who can drive and steer us in another direction…off a different cliff. But hey, at least it’s a prettier view on the way down.
IMO, making a pledge to do one thing and doing the other is simply not comparable to saying you’d rather not do something and doing it anyway. I also think someone with very little experience sure as hell had better surround himself with competent people — and since Obama can’t even do that, I have very little faith that he’ll be any good to anyone beyond temporarily making them “feel good.”
That said, I never said I wouldn’t vote for him. I did say a large part of my decision will be based on what the DNC does between now and then. If Howard Dean can manage to get his nose out of Obama’s ass and MI and FL get a fair shot at being enfranchised and Obama wins the nom anyway, I would consider voting for him. If they don’t, then it will officially be the end of my association with the Democratic party.
Thanks, Kevin & Radfem, but I think I should’ve been clearer with what I was asking: what’s really been confusing me is watching how people, in particular feminists who clearly self-identify as Lefties, are at each other’s throats over this.
I get the “anything’s better than more of the same” argument. But then, really either ofthe Democratic frontrunners will do, right? What I don’t get is progressives acting as if a win for their candidate, be it Hillary or Obama, really truly will be some sort of blow for Real Change. To the point that they’re acting as if any other progressive who chooses the other candidate is some sort of traitor.
What is it about this whole campaign that is whipping them up to this level?
Crys T, although I’m supporting Obama, I completely agree with you. The differences between Obama and Clinton are not — or should not be, anyhow — a big deal to any leftist or progressive. And I’m confused by it, too.
I don’t know if I’m the best one to answer. I don’t support either and haven’t voted Democrat since over 10 years. I’ve been kind of watching.
What’s interesting is that you can actually still vote for a Democratic candidate and be a traitor to the cause (which if more often how third-party-voters are looked at during the final round) this time around.
Maybe if McCain wins, instead of blaming the third-party voters, the members of the Democratic Party will take a good hard look at what they represent and how “progressive” it really is. Then again, probably not.
Ah, but they are different, and “progressives” aren’t any more immune to those differences than they often think.
Okay, but I think there’s something more important than the policies candidates claim to support on the campaign trail. Clinton, like her husband, represents the wrong faction within the Democratic Party.
How I hate that word.
I’m late to the discussion but what the hell.
I’m not going to vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.
As an African-American the arguments about SCOTUS and other Democratic party policies as being more important than the
The fact is that a Clinton Presidential or Vice Presidential nomination will set a dangerous precedent that you can completely write black voters off and succeed.
And considering the piss poor job Dems have done with issues like HIV/AIDS, the prison-industrial complex and other issues that disproportionately hurt blacks any event that gives already disinterested politicians the go ahead to completely ignore us IS worse than the things that you mention.
I lose when the kind of race-baiting succeeds and I will not be blackmailed into voting for someone when they clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about me or the issues that affect me.
Clinton = McCain for many blacks. If you don’t like that don’t complain to me complain to the people in the party who have sat back and done nothing in the wake of her attacks on us.
Rest assured, baltogeek, the Democratic Party would completely implode if its most reliable base of support feels cheated. Black voters – hell, even other minority voters – would not forget it if the first competitive Black presidential candidate won the primaries fair and square only to have the nomination handed to a white person*. They’d abandon the Democratic Party in droves, and I think the party leadership recognizes this. The statements I’ve been hearing from Pelosi and Reid lately suggests that the party insiders may not nearly be as pro-Clinton as some have suspected.
Yes, a coup of the pledged delegate leader by superdelegates is within the rules, but it has never actually happened before*, because for some reason even Democratic Party insiders probably feared that such actions would be widely perceived as being completely morally illegitimate. For some reason.
*By “white person”, I don’t mean to gloss over the historicity of Clinton’s own campaign, and because of that I suspect the backlash would be somewhat less than if it happened to someone more disgustingly typical of same old – like a Vilsack or a Biden. Nevertheless, it would be enough to destroy the Party.
**Contrary to some misinformed posts I see in the liberal blogosphere, superdelegates never handed Mondale the nomination. He had a commanding pledged delegate lead over Hart, and superdelegates acted on the paranoid suspicion that an alliance between Hart and Jackson could eke out an extremely improbable comeback, to cement his nomination.
I voted for Clinton in the my primary, but would vote for Obama in the general election.
I’ve got no problem with him.
I HAVE, however, stopped hanging out with several friends who are Obama supporters based upon their behavior regarding his candidacy.
Friend: How can not be supporting Obama? He’s so INSPIRATIONAL!
Me: Um, I wasn’t inspired.
Friend: Have you ever heard him speak?
Me: Sure. He’s a good speaker. I agree with a lot of what he says. But I agree with a lot of what Clinton says too, and think she’ll be a better President.
Friend: You weren’t MOVED by his message?
Me: Not particularly, but I don’t give a lot of weight to rhetorical and fluff like that. Otherwise, I would have voted for Reagan — which I didn’t.
Friend (getting defensive): Oh, so you think he’s all rhetorical and fluff??
Me: No, I didn’t say that. I just said that I wasn’t inspired by him, and if your primary argument for his candidacy is that he’s inspiring, and I wasn’t inspired, I don’t know where we go from there.
Friend: He’s got substance too!
Me: Sure he does. I just think Clinton has more . . .
[We go around in circles for a while, and then I decide not to visit this friend for a while. . . . I really hope the nomination is resolved before Little League starts, because she’s one of my assistant coaches.]
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » I love the presidential debates, but they don’t matter
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Obama Revokes Global Gag Rule, Is Expected To Restore UNFPA Funding
Pingback: Obama Revokes Global Gag Rule, Is Expected To Restore UNFPA Funding « Blog By Barry