Letters to the Editor
-
Critical discussion
It's nice to try to discuss race, class, and social justice in 2008 without discussing the Democratic primary, but inevitable that such an attempt would fail.
And it's probably not so bad that it did. Joan Walsh's attention to Democratic infighting is much needed. The opportunity for Democrats to make history and indelibly alter the face of American politics is monumental, and it would be a tragedy of the highest order for identity politics to thwart it.
If a white woman becomes president of the United States, black Americans benefit too — just as American women benefit if a black man becomes president. Even old white men benefit, whether or not they realize it.
Only the most superficial and unimaginative reading of American cultural and political history could possibly lead anyone to think otherwise. Democrats are facing an enviable choice between two great presidential candidates, each comfortably within the party's liberal center — and a pressing need to salvage the country from 8 years of high crimes and maladministration.
So why, for the love of all that's holy, is there so much anguish over this contest? Are we still stuck in 1980s p.c. la-la land, where every tiny facet of every possible identity conflict needs to be labored over and agonized over and re-enacted again and again until everyone is exhausted and nothing can actually be accomplished?
If it helps to have an airing of grievances and a "frank exchange of views," as they say in the diplomatic scene, then by all means, do it now, and please get back to winning. There will be plenty of opportunity for the traditional Democratic intra-party debates once a Democrat is in the White House.
And at least then there will be something to fight over!
-
It's unity or defeat
It's as simple as that. Either or.
And take these ruefully sad words from a former McGovernik: Ideological purity is no solace for defeat in the general election -- especially with the stakes as crucially important for our country as they are this year.
Also recall the Democratic Party schisms of 1968 and 1980, which put Republicans into the White House? Anyone care for a repeat?
Remember the immutable law of politics: Politics IS compromise.
A reasonable compromise now will be much better than four years of President John W. (Bomb-Bomb) McCain.
-
Hi Ana
I did about 10 minutes of research on google and I turned up some articles and editorials that you might find eye opening too:
1)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
2)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/opinion/08herbert.html?em&ex=1205208000&en=31d70c80e38a743a&ei=5087%0A
3) http://www.jbhe.com/obama1.html
4)http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/03/hillarys_foreignpolicy_experie.cfm
Here are some polls and research showing McCain beating Clinton but not beating Obama:
5)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html
6) http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0565259320080306
Here is a poll showing that Obama will win those big blue states:
7)http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/08/mccain-vs-obama-electoral-math-from-1006-compared-to-0308/
Enjoy the reading!
-
I agree: it's unity or defeat
I just think we disagree as to what unity means.
Ideally for Obama (and I think for our chances of winning in November), Hillary would withdraw from the race, and put her considerable intelligence to work towards repairing some of the damage that she has done so far this campaign. Obama would chose someone who has solid credentials in the Democratic party, but is respected by Republicans, as his running mate (maybe Wesley Clarke or Bill Richardson or even Katherine Sebelius) and we would crush McCain in November.
Hillary would go on to become one of the most respected and beloved Senators and elders in the party, probably becoming the first female Senate majority leader. In that role, she would still be in the public, while Obama could use his charisma, intelligence, thoughfulness and skills to address the problems that we face economically, internationally and militarily.
Hey, I can dream too!
-
Dream ticket--would Clinton be willing to be VP?
I keep seeing this on the news as "CLINTON/OBAMA Dream Ticket" but are these cheerleaders as excited about an OBAMA/CLINTON ticket? What if this is what the voters decide/have decided?
There is something insulting about insisting that it could only go one way. The benefit that Obama could bring Clinton is more clear than the reverse. Al Gore didn't appear to play a major policy role in the first Clinton presidency, so this is not the clear stepping stone to the presidency that some are making it out to be. Further, what if another scandal broke out with Bill and Hillary in charge? I know that this is an anathema to their strongest supporters to even suggest, but what would this do to the Democrats let alone Obama?
One of the reasons I think Obama is winning in the small states with big endorsements from local officials is that while the Clintons were in office the red states lost significant seats in both houses--virtually stifling their presidency since without the support of Congress a president has his or her hands tied. Clinton supporters forget that the small states do matter very much when it comes, for example to senate seats.
The Clintons need to prove that they can not only win, but increase Democratic power in Congress so that the President will actually be able to act. When you see what Obama has done to help Democratic fundraising and increasing their wins in Congress, the argument for his heading the ticket becomes stronger.
Clinton needed to win small states to prove that she could help keep or increase Democratic footholds in Republican states, to break the gridlocked fillibuster-proned Congress. She has not done this.
So it bothers me that Clinton supporters don't even seem to be considering things the other way around. Do they not like the idea of her working as VP? Age, Jack Hughes, has never before been an argument for who should lead the ticket. George is certainly younger than Dick Cheney...you can make a list.
Food for thought.
-
Little lord Baltimore
In response to your post,
1. Of course it's a ploy. Hillary was expecting a rejection by Obama. It maybe old politics but still smart politics.
2.Reality? I would agree with you if Obama wins total popular vote, but the way things are going Hillary expects to win the total popular votes after the Florida and Michigan revoted. Now would you argue she should step down if she wins the total popular votes. Remember, new politics every vote counts, not to mention those red states which Obama piled up his delegates will go to McCain regardless your spin on red turning to purple. And if you argue rule is rule then you can't really complain if super delegates push HRC over. Also general election goes by electoral college, not number of states.
3. HRC was a long time supporter of civil rights and children's right. The fact she got only 10-20% of black votes speaks volume on the race question than any part of her commitment to equality. If some of the Afican-American community refuse to support her if she gets the nomination then it's a reflection on them than on her. Her position on Iraq is indistinguishable from Obama's, are the anti-war movement going to abandon her if she wins the nomination because she refuse to groove on her knee for her vote in 04? I don't think so. Are the Latte-liberals going to Nader because their Hope got crushed?
4. It's certainly insulting and I expect him to refuse even if offered. the question of spearheading a movement is what is the nature of the movement? the fact of youth by no means signal any fundamental change. It's very insulting to suggest the baby boomer step aside because they are over 60. Obama preaches unity, how is he going to achieve that? begging the Republican senators or compromising on his goals as he did on his so call nuclear leak bill which didn't even pass after the water down.
The question of qualification is important to a lot of people. History may give examples on either side, from Lincoln to George Bush, but you can't sweep it under the rug and hope it will go away.