Politics of Hope
“And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” I John 3:3
I posted something earlier about the Republican race. It’s probably appropriate to post something about the Democratic race too.
The obvious historic nature of this race aside, there is something else special going on here. This is a battle between the establishment forces of Senator Clinton and the “new world” forces of Senator Obama.
Forty years ago, when the Viet Nam war was at it’s peak, I supported Eugene McCarthy in a similar run against an incumbent democrat, Lyndon Johnson. The success that McCarthy had in New Hampshire led Johnson to announce that he wasn’t going to run for another term. The way the party shut McCarthy out of the race in favor of Hubert Humphrey and our collective grief over Bobby Kennedy’s assassination sent many of us into the streets in Chicago for the famous police riots during the Democratic convention of 1968.
This time things appear to be different. This time there is real hope that the insurgent candidate, Obama, may actually have enough support from the party establishment to overcome the inherent bias for preserving the current order. This time he seems to have enough money. This time he seems wise enough to stay above the fray. This time he not only has the support of the young, but also their parents, and minorities, and those who oppose the Iraq war. This time he could very well do what McCarthy, and Anderson, and McGovern were unable to do in their runs for the White House. He could win both the nomination and the Presidency.
Then we will see what sort of a President he will become.
The Washington establishment will not take kindly to a wholesale dismantlement, but if he does win, he will bring that mandate of change with him. The time may finally be over for attack politics and insider cynicism. Maybe it is time for that old guard to step aside. Maybe hope can foster change.
We will know soon enough.
In the meantime, the country will benefit from another generation of idealistic college kids investing their hearts and souls in the possibility that they can make a difference.
Welcome.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I think that it is a little arrogant to place the Obama vs. Clinton race in that kind of good vs. evil mode. In fact, one could make the case that if just a few more thousand of the Obama supporters actually turned out to vote in the right places in 2000 and 2004 that we would have been spared this abysmal administration.
The Obama campaign is wonderful in many ways. But there have been a lot of people working very hard for many years to chip away at the establishment and make it possible for the type of blowout year that Obama might take advantage of.
It wasn’t Hillary Clinton or Carl Levin or John Dingell who got us in that mess in Iraq. And it wasn’t the Democratic establishment who passed those Bush tax cuts and blew up the budget.
Obama needs to be confident, but arrogance is a dangerous thing.
BTW, whoever wins - Clinton or Obama - will be in a campaign against a true American hero. I have many disagreements with McCain, but he is an honest man who gave years of his life for the country’s benefit. He is not evil, bad or cynical. And it would be a mistake to portray either Clinton or McCain in that way.
And the Obama people also need to remember that a lot of the Democratic gains in 2006 came from centrist Democrats like Jim Webb and Ted Strickland. If he truly wants to end the partisanship, he’ll govern from the center-left.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Mike,
Nice to hear from you.
Sorry if it seemed like I attributed “good” to Obama and “evil” to Clinton. That was not my intent.
Also I agree that the similarities to 1968 do not extend to the White House. Since that was my baptism into national politics, however, I do value Obama’s ability to inspire and attract a new generation of political newbies.
I agree with you on McCain too. I don’t share very many of his political positions, but as my previous post on the Republican race suggests, when it came to character and authenticity, he easily defeated Romney.
I wouldn’t count Senator Clinton as a cynical insider either. The contrast that I would draw between Clinton and Obama is like the contrast between Liston and Ali (if you are old enough to remember that). Liston was a brawler who appeared unbeatable. Ali was an inspirational but untested boxer who was poetry in motion. If this were the street fight against cynical insiders, Clinton would win, but the days of street fighting may be over. Obama’s success may signal one of those watershed moments where politics, at least for the rest of our lifetime, may change.
I think that both of them could wage an effective campaign against John McCain. I also think that both of them would make good Presidents, but with different strengths and weaknesses. I believe the Senator Clinton would probably run government better, but I believe that she doesn’t have nearly the upside that Obama does. With that upside, however, comes great risk of simply being ineffective.
What do you think?
Jeff
February 13th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Spot on.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:37 am
To Mike & Jeff,
Mike….better check how hillary voted on the war and ALL her comments leading up to it. It was also the policy of her husbands administration for regeime change in Iraq. And since we’re being told of her 35 years of experiance which includes her time in the white house, I would suspect that it’s relivent. Also remember how she was booed during a speech she made to code pink supporting taking out Sadman b-4 we ever went in. Also Mike, tax cuts didn’t blow up the budget, they INCREASED revenue to the treasury. This is the purpose of tax cuts. (Kennedy, Reagen & Bush #2)Spending, and Bush spent like a drunken sailor, blew up the deficeit. On a percentage basis however the budget sort fall is not at an alraming rate. I would suspect most Americans family budget have a FAR higher percentage.
To my good friend Jeff, hillary would be the WORST thing that could happen for us now….She is so devisive. Obama is someone that I can support and I have hardly anything in common with him. He however doesn’t attack me with every spoken word. hillary simply spews division, and an attack with everything she says.
Her desperation to win and gain power is simply unbearable. Let me give this example. She will, trust me on this, take to court her own party to set the delegates at the convention from Michigan and Florida if she still has a 1 - 1,000,000 chance of winning. As you know the DNC told those two state not to move up their primaries or they would not be seated at the convention. ALL dem candidates agreed and vowed NOT to support those states nor campain in them. (On the Mich ballot only hillary’s name was on it.) Now she’s calling both those states “wins” and those deligates her’s.
Does this sound like an effective leader? Does this sound like someone with intergity, fairness, or one who consideres the rule of LAW????? Nope not to me. That is the trade mark of her and her husband, which is one purely motivated by SELF INTEREST….enough, turn the page and let’s get on with something new. OBAMA!!!!! (is fine with me if we can’t beat him.)
February 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Kieth,
Good to hear from you on a political topic.
I appreciate your support for Senator Obama.
I also understand your viceral reaction to Senator Clinton (though I don’t share it).
Your remarks regarding her history and character, however, seem to support my point.
Some Republicans have already said that they are going to employ the same tactics, if a Democrat wins the White House, as Newt Gingrich used with President Clinton. In that scenario, I think that Senator Clinton would be very effective because she has been operating in that environment pretty much her whole political career. Whether she is responsible for creating that environment, or simply the product of it, isn’t important for this argument.
On the other hand, if Senator Obama wins the nomination and then is swept into office with a large mandate for change, he has an opportunity to fundamentally change the way business is done in Washington. He will likely face the same sort of trench-war opposition, but he will have the added benefit that there will be legislators elected with the same mandate. He can use this base to appeal to the public when his policies of change are opposed. This gives him an opportunity end-run those who prefer the status-quo. There is great risk in this strategy, however, because those that have power are not going to reliquish it without a fight. The more people he alienates, the less effective his message of unity becomes. In order to be successful he must strike a delicate balance between change and compromise and be able to communicate where that balance is struck to the public in a way that preserves their trust not only in his vision but also his ability to govern.
John McCain on the other hand, appears to be a train wreck in the making. His strengths as a Senator (and a person) would be his weaknesses as a President. He picks fights rather that seeking compromise. It would be an entertaining four years, but not a very effective one. He would, for example, categorically reject the idea of torture, but also embrace the Bush doctrine of premptive attack. Also, if elected, he would be the oldest President ever and also the first President, that we know of, to have been diagnosed with cancer.
Jeff
February 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Don’t revise history with Bill C & Newt….( you appear to be saying something from below the surface that Newt did to Bill)
For two years that was the WORST administration EVER.
Only when the “Newt Revolution” won the day in both the house
and the senate did things turn for the better for Bill C.
The contract with America and Bill’s willingness to take
Newts ideas and work with them, the famous “third way,” (Dick Morris)
launched six pretty good years of policy. In fact if you leave out abortion and supreme court nominations Bill was a pretty good conservitive president. (Nothing could save him personally however, I guess that applies to Newt also)
While you’ve bashed G.W. again, remember he first came to D.C. and reached out to the Dem’s with both arms and over the objections of his own party. Remember when we was calling them in groups of a few for dinner at the white house? he even brought Ted K up and they watched JFK togather. Then the created the no child left behind bill togather which NO ONE wanted….the dems didn’t work very well together with him is the problem I remember.
As
February 16th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Kieth,
I guess we’re both reading different history books, or at least looking at them from a different perspective.
Newt shut the government down because he didn’t have enough votes to override a Clinton’s veto. That tactic blew up in his face, but seems a pretty obvious example of obstructionist politics. The Kenneth Starr investigation was another.
For all his personal flaws, and they were monumental, President Clinton was probably one of he most skilled politicians to ever to hold the office. As you indicated, he was able to find common ground with much of the conservative agenda, raise taxes, balance the budget, raise the standard of living for the poor and middle class, create more jobs than any previous or subsequent administration, and keep the peace.
Jeff
February 18th, 2008 at 9:09 am
her’s another way of looking at your last paragraph listing bill accomplishments.
he raised taxes on income in 1993 but balanced the budget by CUTTING the capital gains rate from 28% to 20 percent. this is when the money really started flowing to the public treasury. he also benifited from the capital gains from the tech bubble which burst at the tail end of his adminstration.
he balanced a budget he never intended to balance. that was inthe contrat with america. at what point was that a stated goal of his? when did he run on “balanceing the budget?” i’ll save you the time of looking for it. he didn’t.
the standard of living for the poor, great economic growth, and the bull stack market began with the reagan tax cuts and supply side economics. billy was “right time right place.”
he kept the peace by cutting our military and letting others take shots at us without responding. he let osama go a few times etc. it’s easy to keep the peace for a time by letting others do as they wish. as it turns out g.w. was left to clean up this mess and you see where that got us. (look up the oil for food prgram that good very little attention. this was on the clinton watch.)
as to newt shutting down the gov’t, i say good, but for this conversation we’ll say it takes two to do so. lets just say bill is the better politican for not getting the blame.