I haven't said much about the Presidential campaign. After my justification for voting for Hillary Clinton in the Arizona primary, I've still been paying attention to but haven't talked much about the race. I stand behind my vote and really am getting more than a little tired of the deification of Obama on the part of his supporters. I sincerely apologize if that's how I came off regarding Howard Dean four years ago. I understand how the Obama supporters feel about their candidate, he just doesn't inspire me in the same way he does them. I feel a little sorry for them when they ultimately realize he's only human and has human weaknesses.

But that's not what this post is about. In listening to some of the coverage of tonight's debate in Texas, I'm struck once again by the talking heads lauding the historic nature of this election because either a black man or a white woman stands is supposedly the first person of their respective race and gender to possibly become President of the United States.

This is of course an insulting and ignorant assessment absent any substantive historical context. Remember the hot water Joe Biden got in last year when he gave Obama those backhanded compliments about how "well-spoken" he is and that, according to Biden, was why he was "viable". And to think, that guy's campaign never caught fire.

But this post is about women who have been close to being President. There was of course Carol Moseley Braun in 2004. And Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice President in 1984. And of course Pat Schroeder in the 1970's. There have been other women, of course, who have stood decent chances of becoming President (or at least a heartbeat away).

Hardly anybody mentions Edith Wilson, President Woodrow Wilson's second wife. When the President purportedly had a debilitating stroke during his second term, his wife is said to have essentially assumed the duties of the Presidency rather than allow her husband to leave or be removed from office. Ironically, the stroke struck about a year after President Wilson reluctantly changed his mind and decided to support the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. Of course, that amendment wasn't ratified until the year after his stroke.

So in future discussions about women and the presidency, let's also keep in mind that Edith Wilson had done the job almost a century before the media decided that Hillary Clinton is the first women eligible for the job.

Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, history, women's rights

I've had a lot of people asking me who I'm voting for in next week's Arizona Presidential Preference Primary Election. Ever since Bill Richardson proved himself too inept at basic progressive messages to deserve my continued support, I've been uncommitted. I'm not bowled over by Hillary Clinton. I like her well enough, she's incredibly brilliant and, when not under the often-inexplicable tight controls of her advisers and consultants, is actually very warm and caring. She may not be a liberal lion, but I'm voting for her anyway.

A lot of people I know and like and respect very much are voting for Barack Obama. The enthusiasm with which they support the Senator from Illinois just baffles me. I have yet to see what they see. He talks a good game, but there's always been something mostly intangible that kept me from really feeling like I could get behind his candidacy. Until this week. I figured it out.

I'm looking for a fighter. I'm a red meat voter. As important as ideology and experience are to me, I want a nominee who will be a partisan pugilist. This isn't just a short-term battle for an elected office. This has long-term, big-picture implications for how elections will be won for generations to come.

Here's my major beef with Obama: his "post-partisan" message does nothing to shift the center of mainstream political discourse in this country back to the left, where it historically sat. He praises Ronald Reagan. He says the Republican Party is the party of ideas. He defends a homophobic preacher who he allowed to emcee a fundraising concert on his behalf with the excuse that we have to accept all points of view. This is worse than failing to shift the discourse to the left; "post-partisan" just reinforces the current rightward tilt of the center of mainstream political discourse. Nothing will change with this as Obama's message if he is the nominee, because the Republicans will not stop distorting and lying and attacking anything that would even remotely benefit the common good.

He talks a good game sometimes, but then he talks about elevating the discourse as though Democrats are the ones playing dirty tricks and dragging their opponents through the mud. There's just no comparison, and Senator Obama is sending mixed messages - at best - to Joe and Jane Everyguy. He may cause previously unengaged people to vote Democratic, but his rhetoric does nothing to sustain that partisan identification. This is the politics of personality, not the politics of possibility.

This approach may be bringing a lot of new people into politics who have never participated before. But I would rather people be engaged because of the issues, and the fact that Democrats are, by and large, right on the issues, than by empty rhetoric about how mean everyone in Washington is toward each other. This is especially frustrating because it is the Republican Party who has been, by and large, wrong on the issues but never reluctant to attack their political opponents anyway.

Let's not forget that George W. Bush ran for President in 2000 by claiming to be "a uniter, not a divider". Then he went on to become the most divisive and reviled and destructive president since the Civil War. Obama's message is rhetorically identical, but the difference is he believes his own hype. I worry that he won't fight back when he's attacked because he's so concerned about maintaining the moral high ground. Remember how John Kerry lost in 2004 because he seemed constitutionally incapable of fighting back hard enough or fast enough when he was attacked? We've seen Senator Obama and his surrogates willing to attack his primary opponents, but we've seen little evidence that he's willing or able to attack Republicans or Republican ideas (the really dangerous ones that he actually seems to herald).

I can find fault with Senator Clinton too, many of them in fact. But I know that when she's attacked, she'll fight back, hard and fast. She won't cede any more of the political discourse to the reactionaries on the right. I believe that she, more than Obama, will move the country back towards the left where it needs to be, has historically been, and belongs.

In other words, Obama supporters don't seem to see the forest for the trees when it comes to the long-term implications of a "post-partisan" campaign.

This is a primary competition, after all. Where's my red meat?

With all that said, I will enthusiastically support whichever Democrat wins enough delegates to secure our nomination. That person will make history as the first African-American or woman President of the United States.

Labels: Barack Obama, Democratic brand, Hillary Clinton, Pres-08