My friend Fran Smith, a Hillary supporter, and I, a late convert to Obamaism, recently had an e-mail debate that to my mind encapsulates the dilemma that many of us face today. Fran has kindly given me permission to reprint our dialogue.
Fran: I actually don't know what kind of leader Obama would be. All I know is what kind of a speaker he is. What am I missing? Besides a drink of the Kool Aid...
Me: Good point, and I don't have an answer -- that Kool Aid is mighty tasty. I guess it really comes down to my sense that I know what kind of leader Hillary would be: Enormously competent but freighted with sixteen years of history. Obama promises at least initially to give us a break from that history. If it were just Hillary, I'd be more enthusiastic. But I'm just not sure I want to put up with four to eight years more of Bill Clinton, who will be there no matter what she can do to control him.
Fran: Yes, I get that about Bill and Hill and the baggage. But a lot of the "divisiveness" and "polarization" of Bill's administration that I keep reading about came from the mad-dog right-wing smear machine. Yes, the Clintons provided plenty of ammunition, but none of their sins comes close to what we've witnessed and endured and pretty quietly put up with these past eight years. Monica vs. Iraq? Hillary's clumsy health care efforts vs. torture, White House secrecy and the war on civil liberties? I think it's revisionist history -- and a delusion -- to think that the attacks and divisions were about the Clintons, and not first and foremost about the Republicans, and that Obama could somehow float above the partisan nastiness. If the Dems win, it may take the Republicans a while to regroup, and that would be an excellent thing. But if and when they do, they will go after whoever holds that office, with the cynical, vicious, deceitful win-at-any-cost tactics that are their M.O. At least with Hill, we know we have a fighter and survivor.
Me: You get no argument from me on the basic point that Republican nastiness (and incompetence and lust for power and so on) is to blame for what we've endured. Or that it won't resurface whatever Democrat is in the White House. But given a choice between two competent and attractive candidates (Hillary and Obama), I have to go with the one who has the better chance of giving us at least a brief respite from the brutality of right-wing attacks. The Republican Party is in disarray right now, but I fear that nominating Hillary will give them a point to rally around. Nor do I see any sign that Obama is any less capable of fighting and surviving whatever the right-wing attack machine may throw at him. He's already had to deal with the "Barack Hussein Osama" nonsense and the e-mails about his being a covert Muslim and so on. It's the enthusiasm I sense from younger voters and his ability to inspire -- even if it's only rhetoric, which can only take you so far -- that I think will help him along. It's why people remember JFK so fondly, even though he really wasn't a very good president. You felt something at the time that gave you a sense of promise. I feel it with Obama. With Hillary, I just feel the tug back into the Clintonian past -- and even though that past was better than the Bush years, I just don't much want to go back there.
Fran: You get no argument from me on your basic points, either. We agree on pretty much everything except which way to vote today! Kind of like Clinton and Obama....
Me: And may whoever it is win, and win big, in November.
3 comments:
First, regarding your headline, let me say this: If you don't vote for either Hillary or Barack, stay home and suck your toes.
Second: Charles and Fran (two wonderful people I respect greatly), you are both dreaming about the Republican Party being in disarray. I only wish.
I certainly hope either Hillary or Barack are elected and can be a force to counter the ills foisted on this nation by the GOP, but it's going to take a lot of continuous effort by the good side.
The Republicans aren't going to stop their power-mongering ways regardless of what happens in the presidential election.
The United States is in a lot of trouble right now. Shrub, and the people behind him, have made the United States into the Evil Empire, and it's going to take a lot of good deeds to get us back to not only being perceived as being the good side again, but to actually being the good side.
I like Hillary because I know she and Bill tried to do the right things when he was president, despite being hamstrung by a GOP-dominated congress. My hope is that if she becomes president, she can get the American economy back on track after all the damage done to it by Shrub's policies, and that she can work out something about health care.
I like Barack well enough, too, and if he becomes president I hope he can do the things I hope Hillary would do.
It seems to me that any party that gives its voters a choice of a crabby old 71-year-old, a Southern Baptist preacher, or an empty suit is in some sort of disarray. But yes, John, you're right. They're not going to give up. And however much Limbaugh, Dodson, Coulter, et al. may be badmouthing McCain right now, I'm sure they'll rally round him in the end. But it's not going to be as easy to get the suckers in the tent was it was before.
That's Dobson, not Dodson.
Post a Comment