Open Letter To Hillary Supporters

I'm glad we're finally talking.  It's getting kind of ugly out there and I think it's time we had a heart to heart.  Off the record, of course.  So have a seat.  This is going to take a while.  Okay, so here's the deal:  We underestimate Hillary's divisiveness at our peril. In other words, she could win the Democratic nomination, but unless massive numbers of Americans have radically changed their opinion of the Clintons over the past eight years, we might be handing the keys over to John McCain in November. Lest we forget that the neo-conservative movement that has held our fine country in a chokehold for a decade was born out of a reaction to the Clinton presidency.  From the moment First Lady Hillary showed up on Capitol Hill with her health care plan in 1993, the Clintons were doomed to struggle against Republican legislative roadblocks and an ever-growing chorus of "How dare they!" sniping.  And that was before the blowjob.  My point is this:  The Clintons are still incredibly unpopular in vast segments of the American public.  And difficult as it is for those of us on the Left to comprehend, the Right hates and fears the Clintons as much as we do George W. Bush.  Actually, they seem to hate them more.  After all, the current Democratic majority in Congress has yet to bring any impeachment hearings to bear, despite all the blood and lies on Bush's hands.  But Clinton's Republican Congress devoted hundreds of hours of hearings and millions of taxpayers' dollars to ensuring the political ruin of a man for lying about his private life.  That's gangster hate, people.  And it's still there.  Don't think so?  Listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Fox News.  Millions of registered voters do.  The Clintons are still the Right's favorite scapegoat and punchline.  And there's nothing the Republican National Committee would love more than another crack at tearing down the Clintons.  They've been practicing since 1992. 

 

Of course, the Clintons are still beloved by large numbers of Democrats like you.  And obviously, the Rush Limbaugh disciples will never vote for any Democrat, so they aren't up for grabs in the first place.  But she can't win in November without the independents and undecideds, that's irrefutable math.  And as the decisive and unpredicted rise of Barack Obama makes glaringly obvious, even her own party isn't as sure of Hillary as everyone intially thought.  Bottom line, in a Hillary vs. McCain election, it's quite possible that lingering Clinton fatigue among those all-important independent voters could result in an "anyone but her" epidemic among voters next November and, voila, you've got President John McBombIran.

A second possibility, though less terrifying, is sad for its deja-vu-all-over-again potential.  Let's say that Hillary does beat John McCain.   How will President Hillary Clinton deliver change to Washington?  Well, she will certainly govern more wisely and effectively than her predecessor ever could, but what she (and her husband) will deliver is not so much a new way forward as it will be a return to the Clinton way of doing things.  Want proof of it?  Just look at how she's campaigning.  They're running Bill Clinton's trademark playbook, right down to the trademark Clinton no-holds-barred mudwrestling: Lawsuits against Nevada voting rules, accusing Obama of voter suppression and plagiarism, agreeing to the the Democratic National Committee's decision to omit Florida delegates, but then fighting to have them count after Hillary's momentum stalled, calling Obama's anti-Iraq stance a "fairy tale", and minimizing any Obama victory no matter how cheap a shot is needed: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88".  Hell, Bill even took a swipe a Democratic royalty Ted Kennedy the day after Kennedy endorsed Obama, lumping blame on Teddy for Bush's failed education plan.  It's always personal with the Clintons.  And so far, there is not much transcendent or unifying about the way Hillary's campaign is trying to win her own party's nomination, let alone the entire national election.  It's negative politics as usual.  So if Hillary wins the White House, are we to believe that this polarizing figure with her impeached president husband will suddenly rise above partisan games and rally a bitterly divided Congress to work together to deliver the sweeping, urgent legislation needed to get our country out of the gutter?   

 

On the other hand, in Barack Obama, we have someone whose entire campaign has been consistently rooted in a message of national unity.  And regardless of whether or not you think he's a naive speech maker with no substance, his efforts to remain above the negative campaign back-biting are undeniable.   Yes, it is true, we don't know all the fine points of what his proposed legislation will be, but we do know that Obama possesses a rare ability to garner support from across the political spectrum. He is unifying people.  That is fact.  He is taking majorities in every demographic in the primary contests.  And Republicans seem to believe him when he talks of including Republicans in his big tent vision of America.  Ultimately, that's far more telling of how effective of a president he will be than are the fine print details of a theoretical education plan that won't be formally presented for another two years.  (That said, since Obama began racking up primary victories, his stump speeches have become notably more policy-heavy). Really, the campaign is about intent.  Great leaders are distinguished for their ability to unify and rally, not to present hard policy outlines before winning elections.  First, get all parties on board, then the details will come.   And as a side note, contrary to the myth that we don't know much about Barack Obama, we actually know alot:  What other presidential candidate can you name that has published a frank autobiography in which he explains the motivation behind his college drug experimentation?  Besides, after watching Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld be wrong about every single thing they ever predicted, "experience" in a leader doesn't seem as all-important as it once did.  Those two fuckers have the longest resumes in Washington.  But in a way, we should be grateful to them for enabling Barack Obama to highlight the truth that time and again throughout American history, our country has been delivered from dire circumstances by fresh vision, not by giving the ball to the next veteran player in the lineup.  I can't put it better than Hendrik Hertzberg, who summed it up so beautifully in last week's New Yorker: "Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President.  Barack Obama just might make a transformative one."  

Good luck in Texas.  We've got plenty of room under the tent if you change your mind.