Balkinization: A Clinton voter repents

A Clinton voter repents

Andrew Koppelman

So I’ll admit it: I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Illinois Democratic primary, and now I’m sorry. I hadn’t anticipated the enormous sense of political liberation and exhilaration that an Obama presidency would create. Clinton wouldn’t and couldn’t have delivered that.

I tend to judge politicians the way I judge other hired help: can they do the work I’m paying them to do? There is, of course, a set of contestable political judgments in my view. I’m paying the government to deliver universal health care, ameliorate the maldistribution of wealth in the United States, provide safe workplaces, stop global warming, and deliver any number of other things that my conservative friends think ought not to be delivered. In the primaries, Obama and Clinton weren’t very far apart on any of those issues, and I never found a reason to care terribly which of them got the nomination. I was troubled by Obama’s lack of experience. Now it seems likely that whatever Clinton’s experience can offer the country will in fact be available to it in a slightly less exalted office.

The promise of Obama is nicely encapsulated in this prescient blog post, written last January for the Huffington Post by the 1960s radical leader Tom Hayden when he endorsed Obama. Hayden concludes:

“I have been devastated by too many tragedies and betrayals over the past 40 years to ever again deposit so much hope in any single individual, no matter how charismatic or brilliant. But today I see across the generational divide the spirit, excitement, energy and creativity of a new generation bidding to displace the old ways. Obama's moment is their moment, and I pray that they succeed without the sufferings and betrayals my generation went through. There really is no comparison between the Obama generation and those who would come to power with Hillary Clinton, and I suspect she knows it. The people she would take into her administration may have been reformers and idealists in their youth, but they seem to seek now a return to their establishment positions of power. They are the sorts of people young Hillary Clinton herself would have scorned at Wellesley. If history is any guide, the new "best and brightest" of the Obama generation will unleash a new cycle of activism, reform and fresh thinking before they follow pragmatism to its dead end.

“Many ordinary Americans will take a transformative step down the long road to the Rainbow Covenant if Obama wins. For at least a brief moment, people around the world -- from the shantytowns to the sweatshops, even to the restless rich of the Sixties generation -- will look up from the treadmills of their shrunken lives to the possibilities of what life still might be. Environmental justice and global economic hope would dawn as possibilities.

“Is Barack the one we have been waiting for? Or is it the other way around? Are we the people we have been waiting for? Barack Obama is giving voice and space to an awakening beyond his wildest expectations, a social force that may lead him far beyond his modest policy agenda. Such movements in the past led the Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelt to achievements they never contemplated. (As Gandhi once said of India's liberation movement, "There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.")”

Hayden’s judgment turns out to have been prescient. Obama will do the country good just by being in the White House.

He looks likely to be pretty good at delivering on those mundane policy details, too.

Posted 4:15 PM by Andrew Koppelman [link]

Comments:

On the one hand, "international, interracial, intellectual" are nice things to say about the President-eclect. On the other hand, "Brzezinski, Lieberman, Clinton" aren't exactly team members to stir the progressive heart (but they may well be the most credible and politically feasible options open to the President-elect). Time will tell. Yes, Hayden seems to have nailed it. Clinton would have brought too much baggage---and left over extremist polititainment overspray---to the White House.

What remains, then, is for progressives/liberals to manifest political will, hold the administration's feet to the fire. To that end Scott Horton's article in Harper's serves quite well by arguing what the inbound administration needs to do vis a vis the war crimes of the exiting administration.

# posted by

Robert Link : 4:28 PM

Professor Koppelman:

So I’ll admit it: I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Illinois Democratic primary, and now I’m sorry. I hadn’t anticipated the enormous sense of political liberation and exhilaration that an Obama presidency would create. Clinton wouldn’t and couldn’t have delivered that.

"The enormous sense of political liberation and exhilaration" to which you refer must be derived from an Obama cult of personality, because it appears that the Clinton Administration has simply changed seats at the cabinet table and now calls itself the Obama Administration. I fail to see the "change."

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:34 PM

Baghdad, you need to blog some more about Sarah Palin. I need to know what a great candidate she will be in 2012.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 4:37 PM

The "but this isn't CHANGE" talking point Bart is parrotting is certainly popular on the rightwing blogosphere these days, but it's incredibly lame.

First, the most important sort of change Obama talked about was change from the current administration. Let's recall that the Clinton administration left office with very high approval ratings.

Second, Obama's choices are (i) picking people with no DC experience, which would be met with equal derision on the right because they had no experience, or (ii) picking Dems with experience in DC, which basically means Clinton admin. folks.

# posted by

Unknown : 4:49 PM

jslater,

I agree pretty much, but think it fair to point out Brzezinski is Carter era, and the dude who, in the last months of Carter's administration, started the funding for the extremist jihadis in Afghanistan as part of Cold War strategy. What I've yet to hear is how repeating Russia's mistake (allegedly breaking itself with the war in Afghanistan) is going to work out better for us. No one on either side of the aisle has answered that one for me.

# posted by

Robert Link : 5:02 PM

To be sure, the definition of change that Bart uses, promotes and voted for was roundly rejected a few weeks ago. It's like asking Ken Lay how to fix the energy market.

# posted by

Eric : 5:09 PM

Little Lisa's bro should start looking in his backpack of lies for some spare change that he might need in his campaign of "Party before country."

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 5:43 PM

Hayden’s judgment turns out to have been prescient. Obama will do the country good just by being in the White House.

The inspirational figurehead. Sounds kind of like the British Monarch.

At least he's against the BCS. That, in itself, fills me with a sense of exhilaration as well.

# posted by

curtstest : 5:45 PM

"Bart" DeRNCTalkingPoints:

[I]t appears that the Clinton Administration has simply changed seats at the cabinet table and now calls itself the Obama Administration. I fail to see the "change."

Which (if true) is rather weird, seeing as "Bart" had been lauding the Obama picks, but was the first to blame the entire Clinton administration for everything from 9/11 to the banking failures, to the failure of bread slicers to slice evenly, to fluoridation in the water. You probaly couldn't find a more visceral Clinton-hater around these parts.

Ummm, nevermind, why should I expect consistency (or any semblance of logic) from a RW foamer?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:03 PM

can the righties please refrain from decrying the "lack of change" until obama at least gets sworn into office .. ??

# posted by

Jkat : 10:32 PM

Obama will do the country good just by being in the White House.
Hmmm...do you know what the Dow will close at, say at the end of '09?
Who will will the Super Bowl?
The World Series?
This assertion is baseless
Come back at the end of his 1st, and if applicable, 2nd term. Then let's discuss

# posted by

Mitch : 7:36 AM

I am not sure what makes Hayden’s post “prescient.” So he predicted that Obama’s election would be, at least briefly, inspirational to millions of people around the world. Was there anyone who did not predict this? Isn’t that something that you could figure out just by observing the crowd that heard Obama speak in Berlin?

On the other hand, there is this part of Hayden’s prediction: “There really is no comparison between the Obama generation and those who would come to power with Hillary Clinton, and I suspect she knows it. The people she would take into her administration may have been reformers and idealists in their youth, but they seem to seek now a return to their establishment positions of power.”

At least at the moment, Hayden appears not to be “prescient” at all, but the opposite. Whatchacallit, wrong. Obama’s selections so far are exactly the type of people who Hayden is suggesting that Clinton would bring into her administration. Indeed, one suspects that had Clinton made these appointments, she would have been accused not only of re-creating the Bill Clinton administration, but of re-creating the Bush administration.

Of course, I assume that you voted for Clinton because you wanted policies and personnel that largely resembled those of the Bill Clinton administration. So you should be happy. You get Clinton’s policies and personnel, and Obama’s charisma and DNA. Not to mention the entertainment value of watching Bill navigate the role of the Secretary of State’s spouse.

# posted by

mls : 7:40 AM

Isn’t that something that you could figure out just by observing the crowd that heard Obama speak in Berlin?

Hayden's blog post: January 27

Illinois primary: February 5

Obama's speech in Berlin: July 24

In a word: No.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 8:27 AM

PMS- I wasn't trying to say that Hayden had figured this out by observing the Berlin speech. But I should have been more clear, and as penance I will concede that Hayden's observation in January was mildly astute (solely with respect to the inspirational aspect of Obama's election).

But still not prescient.

# posted by

mls : 9:40 AM

Personally, I would expect righties to prefer a second Clinton Adminstration to any sort of "change" Obama might realistically offer.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 12:20 PM

@EP,

Don't confuse private preference and public politicizing. Other than that, I'm sure you're correct.

# posted by

Robert Link : 12:32 PM

jslater, et al:

Tweaking Team Obama for failing to deliver any real "change" (and their voters for believing Obama) is not the same as arguing that many of the Clinton retreads Obama is choosing are not the best the Dems can offer.

Conservatives are not at all upset because Obama is so for failing to deliver on the radical leftism with which he flirted in the past. Suits me fine. Rather, I am waiting on Obama's leftist base to start taking him to task for what appears to be a Clinton-esque ideological betrayal.

For an interesting take on these contrasting views and the beginnings of grumbling on the left, check out Robert Kuttner's "Team of Rubins" over at Slate.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:17 PM

Speaking of betrayals of the anti war left, Mr. Obama appears ready to hand over the national defense portfolios entirely to the GOP. ABC is reporting that Obama is keeping Gates as Sec Def after appointing former Marine Commandant Gen. James Jones as his national security advisor.

While one has to admire Mr. Obama's intelligence in relying upon those with experience in winning wars as his lieutenants in fighting wars, one has to wonder if keeping the architects of the Bush Doctrine is precisely the kind of "change" Hayen and many of you folks had in mind.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:03 PM

Bart:

"Tweak" away, but there's still no substance in what you say. My point remains that I'm quite sure that the majority of Obama voters wanted change FROM THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION, not so much from the very popular Clinton administration.

Further, Obama campained on a number of specific policy proposals, not just some abstract notion of "change." His supporters will judge him on how effectively he pursues those proposals, and his other actual acts in office. But do keep ranting about "cult of personality" and other Obama Derangement Syndrome memes.

Even as to keeping Gates, it's a welcome change from the poisonous hyper-partisanship of the Bush years.

Will there be some carping from the far left? Perhaps. But that just goes to show you folks were wrong in labeling Obama a radical leftist.

# posted by

Unknown : 5:18 PM

Little Lisa's bro may be aware that it was Papa Bush who saved Baby Bush from Rummy'e devastation with the arrival of Gates' moderation of the Bush Doctrine. (Maybe Mama Bush should get an assist as well, as least to give Jeb a shot in 8 or 16 years.) And little Lisa's bro is pushing his backpack of lies revisionism regarding Jones. Preemption prevails: Party before country.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:14 PM

Well, I won't say I "repent" -- that seems to suggest I was doing something bad by voting for Clinton. But, I too am beginning to think that I didn't vote for the best Democratic candidate in the primary.

# posted by

Michael Salem : 11:48 PM

What wars have been won, and by what definition of winning?

# posted by

Mr.Poindexter : 8:26 AM

While one has to admire Mr. keeping the architects of the Bush Doctrine
# posted by Bart DePalma : 5:03 PM

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle and Kristol won't have jobs in the Obama administration.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:15 AM

Bartbuster:

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle and Kristol won't have jobs in the Obama administration.

That's what RW 'think tanks' are for. You know, welfare for otherwise incompetent and unemployable RW foamers. Like PNAC, ferinstance.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:10 PM

Baghdad Bart, does PNAC finance your blogging?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:30 PM