Allison F's Pro- Clinton Response

I have spent the day pondering my “assignment” from Maker's Mark.

My first thought was simply to reiterate that Steve and I like policy and the policies we most agreed with were hers. And people I know who are peers (socio- economically) that voted for Hillary like policy too. And to the extent that Obama’s campaign was getting caught up in its own message of inspiration I felt at greater unease with it.

Now, Steve suggested that we state what outcomes we are seeking in the next Presidency and how Clinton’s policies line up with that. At this point we are especially concerned about the economy.

But that approach, even if we had time for it (which we don’t) would be to take the high road, and as we used to say in grad school, [bracket] the considerations most on Mark’s mind which are more personal and political than policy-oriented.

But I will make one nod in this direction and refer you to the American Prospect cover story on whether to choose a “talented manager” or “visionary” to answer the question of what she has to offer.

Another thought about the assignment is to say, if you want to hate Hillary, I/we can’t stop you. However, you are, in the words of Donald Trump, FIRED, from being an official spokesperson for the Obama campaign for failing to practice his New Politics. You can join Ms. Power outside the camp.

It is not a question of how can I overlook Clinton’s skeletons, but how are you going to do it.

By the way, I am sure you read The Houston Press cover story, Obama and Me. So even folks with short political cv’s have skeletons. [Walker, if you missed this article, look for it online.]

Here is the important irony to consider: facing Hillary is the ultimate field test of Obama’s ideals. Some are advising that he go negative, asking about tax returns etc. I have already posted that that is the wrong way to go negative (i.e. he needs to go negative using the high ground: I’m the better leader because… her record is…)

But why take my word for it. Here is what David Brooks has to say on the topic:

"Unless they (the Obama people) consciously reject conventional politics, the accusations will build on each other. The BlackBerries will buzz. The passions will rise. The Obama forces will see hints of Clinton corruption all around, and they’ll accuse and accuse again. The war will begin to take control, and once you’re halfway through you can’t suddenly surrender because it’s become too rough.

And the Clinton people will draw them every step of the way. Clinton can’t compete on personality, but a knife fight is her only real hope of victory. She has nothing to lose because she never promised to purify America. Her campaign doesn’t depend on the enthusiasm of upper-middle-class goo-goos. On Thursday, a Clinton aide likened Obama to Ken Starr just to badger them on.

As the trench warfare stretches on through the spring, the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage. People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself. And even if he goes on to win the nomination, he won’t represent anything new. He’ll just be a one-term senator running for president.

In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him."

But his conclusion is even more significant:

"Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.

If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway."

Which brings us back to the Ethel’s of the world who do vote for Hillary and back to the politics of the situation, which includes the fact that real rank and file voters have made this a close race but the outcome is going to be decided by the party leadership. The first order of business is to resolve the MI/FL mess. While I am perfectly happy to exclude MI, I blame Howard Dean bumbling for creating FL situation in the first place. I believe it is only fair that FL get to re-vote or have their delegate status renegotiated.

Question two: How can Clinton win this without destroying the Democratic Party? By “this” I assume you mean the primary. Well, first of all, I am not entirely sure she will win. Being up for a knife fight, notwithstanding. But I am pretty sure that if she offers to be a VP and Obama turns her down, he’ll look like a bit of a shmuck. And I am pretty sure that if she agrees to pony up her half of the money for a FL re-vote and he doesn’t, that won’t look so good either. Let me ask you something, would you be asking this question about a really tough competitor who wasn’t Clinton? Do tough primaries DESTROY a political party? That’s an overstatement. (Although the Party Leadership could possibly destroy it – see above.) Could her nomination alienate some voters? Sure. But , hey, I was completely alienated when the Party choose John Kerry to run last time.

Question three seems to me to be asking: ”If she does win how will she be Barack Obama?” She won’t be.

Good night and Good Luck.

Alison Fairfield