looking ahead 2: hillary, barack and john
So, the other major theme which will no doubt preoccupy all of us over the next year or so is the emerging contest for President. In my mind, there are really only three interesting candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Now, before you click "comments" in order to throw out some other person's name, take a second to consider the list that I just threw out. One is a woman. One is African-American. The third just began his Presidential campaign by calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, universial health care and the importance of unions. Regardless of who else crowds the field, these three candidates will present a set of dilemmas for the Democratic left. How important is it to break the monopoly on power by white men in American politics? What does Obama's acceptance by many white voters really mean? Why hasn't Clinton tried to appeal to disaffected white working class voters? Will Obama?
It is tempting to oversimplify this dynamic, but it is rare to see such a blatant example of the difficulties of parsing race, class and gender. My guess is that, given the high stakes of the war and the powerful pulls of identity, this could be the most bitter primary fight since 1968. The debates started hard and heavy for me and my family over the Christmas holiday. My mother informed me that she'd stop talking to me if I voted for anyone other than Hillary...but then she softened as Edwards made an inspiring, if imperfect entry into the fray. My mother-in-common-law argued that Obama's rapid rise to stardom may have been a deliberate strategy by conservatives to divide the party. I think that white, liberal women will forgive a lot from Hillary, and I can't completely blame them. My father is going to support anyone who seems vaguely viable and who will take a strong stand on the country's murderous foriegn policy. As a black man, I am trying to figure out what I make of the fact that many of Obama's fans see him as an example of "post race" politics. At the same time, I think, goddamn. President. Barack. Obama. And then, there is Edwards. He's unambiguously anti-war, even if that position took a major mea culpa. He's talking about the economy in a way that few have in recent years. He's charismatic, unassuming and straight-forward. His is a voice which should continue to exist in the Party.
There's no conclusion here. I'm just trying to sketch out the terms of a debate which will no doubt rage here at hoverbike as it does among my diverse family. The decisive factor for me, however, will be to watch how these three campaign, what kind of organizations they build, and what the long term impact of thier efforts will be. That's how I settled on Dean, and I feel vindicated. Watch this space.
9 Comments:
One of my New Years resolutions is to not get too excited about this stuff, but screw it...
Jen and I had the good fortune to see Mr Edwards in Reno last Friday, the day after he announced. We took my conservative sister, who wasn't exactly dazzled but wasn't thoroughly horrified either. The only question he really blew as far as I'm concerned was whiffing on a softball taxes question, where rather then telling a coherent story he dove right into the budget policy deep end and lost everyone.
The campaign matters a lot. Edwards allllmost gets the transformative thing. So so close. He may yet figure it out.
On the way home we listened to a speech of Obama's on podcast, talking to the Sojourner's crowd. I think this might've been the speech where he got in some doodoo for suggesting that Dems can be a bit hostile to organized religion at times. But holy sweet mother of moses can he ever tell a story, and he really, really knows his shit. He dropped a reference to liberal theologian Walter Wink reference at one point (mentioning Jesus edicts to "challenge principalities and powers"), who I didn't think anyone else on earth had heard of. I almost had to pull over.
We have some good candidates again. Another plus for Edwards: he's going right after McCain's "let's throw more fuel on the fire in Iraq, yeah that will work!" stupidity.
tirsdag, januar 02, 2007 6:19:00 p.m.
So despite my better judgment, and after 2 full years of saying, "I'm just thinking about Congress in 06," I've actually begun thinking about 08.
And...I'm excited?
Mostly about the Repub primary. I really can't believe our luck when I see a poll where Giuliani leads McCain, Romney, and Gingrich (!). I can't wait to see the neo-con/religious right flame Giuliani and Romney (Massachusetts?!?!) and listen to people laugh at Gingrich's newfound respect for bipartisanship. And he divorced his wife on her deathbed (sanctity of marriage?).
McCain continues to pander and dig himself several holes.
Dems- I look at it this way: I could live with Obama and/or Edwards, very comfortably. They have good hair. And aren't afraid to say the p-word: p*verty.
Barack's christian-y stuff gives me the creepies sometimes, but I know that works.
I don't like Clinton's nonsense and I don't like families that are power hungry, on either side. Even though we have the same name.
I must share a theory that a prof dropped on me in a conversation last year, and I hope that this could become true: Sen. Clinton will act as a sacrificial lamb whom the media/right will tear apart (again) and she will of course pull all the focus of the primary. Meanwhile, either Obama or Edwards will rise to the top somewhat unscathed?
Let's hope.
Did I top Ancona's long comment?
søndag, januar 07, 2007 12:10:00 a.m.
Oh and I might stand alone in this, but can we at least call Sen. Clinton by her last name or with a title, cause she might suck but I think she deserves more respect than a first name basis with every reporter and blogger on Earth.
*rant over*
søndag, januar 07, 2007 12:13:00 a.m.
That's a great point. They do both have great hair.
No, seriously, the creeping sexism of responses to Clinton, (Jesus, I almost wrote "Hillary" again) is something to watch.
Though, I bet you six dollars that Senator Clinton runs as "Hillary".
-Daraka
tirsdag, januar 09, 2007 8:58:00 p.m.
I'll take that bet.
Sadly, I think the most important issue in 2008 will be the war in Iraq. Most pundits (example) think that Bush's "new way forward" is in fact an attempt to trap the Dems into an untenable position (oppose escalation = "you don't support our troops", endorse Bush plan = support an unpopular war).
I disagree. Bush's Iraq folly will stick to the Republicans over the next 2 years, as long as the Democratic candidates decry the lost opportunity that redeployment could have offered. Basically, it will be November 2006 all over again on this issue, and that bodes well for the Democratic candidate. As long as that candidate is not named either Clinton or Hillary, since she voted for the war before she voted against it. Wait, did she vote against it?
fredag, januar 12, 2007 4:45:00 p.m.
Daraka, are you saying there is a democratic-left argument for Clinton? I want to hear it. The only arguments I've ever heard in favor of her candidacy are along the lines of electability / inevitability.
mandag, januar 15, 2007 5:01:00 a.m.
No, I'm not going that far. The things I'm willing to say right now are:
1. We need to keep the lid on sexist rhetoric and argument around Clinton's candidacy: including the back-handed "she's a woman and should know better" stuff.
2. I understand why some liberal women are willing to "trust" Clinton beyond her voting record because of the historical significance of electing a female President who is not a Conservative Republican.
3. These are the only three candidates who "matter".
All that being said, if the election were held tomorrow, I'd be struggling between Obama and Edwards.
mandag, januar 15, 2007 12:17:00 p.m.
Since this post has become my official "speculate on 08" sounding board, here's the most serious treatment of the 08 potentials I've seen yet. Time magazine organizes the latest science, numbers, and poll data on both dems and repubs in a convenient grid.
http://www.time.com/time/2007/racing_form/0117/democrats/
torsdag, januar 18, 2007 12:55:00 p.m.
This is a great Blog! But health care costs money.
If you want to supplement your income you need
a simple method. Even with the severest handicap,
you can work at home with a system that is as good
as owning your own ATM Cash Machine!
ATM CASH
tirsdag, april 17, 2007 6:57:00 p.m.
Legg inn en kommentar
<< Home