Couple that with his desire to live up to the ‘heal the divide’ stuff people have been saying about him, and one might obtain this scenario: a centrist making overtures toward the right, and worse, making concessions *to* them, in the name of compromise and unity… meanwhile progressive can expect to have their attempts at reform stiff-armed as too divisive. So we get a slightly right-of-center administration rather than a wildly-right-of-center one, which (after the past 8 years) is a definite improvement, but so far short of what we need.

It’s exactly for those reasons that I could never support a DLC or NDN candidate, which is why I never warmed up to Clinton.

Is there the slightest evidence that Obama is interested in Clinton as a VP? Personally, I think Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama would be an excellent ticket, but I’m not sure anyone else agrees…especially Clinton and Obama.

I think this more points to the belief some of us have that it just doesn’t matter what negative thing is said about her because it’s either going to come across as idiotic, sexist, or juvenile. Would you rather people — Obama included — said she was acting like a big poopie head? Even that could likely be make into a sexist remark — how come women are always being likened to babies? Evil sexist, calling her a poopie head. I wrestled with comparing her to Al Haig because then it’s “Oh, Furry is saying she’s acting like a man, and only men are allowed to act like men.” No, she’s acting like a power-mad schmuck, and so was Haig.

Her best chance now, I think, is to be magnanimous in defeat and hope she gets the VP nod, learns to play well with others for 8 years, and runs again in ‘16. As it stands, she has four more years as Sen. Clinton (D-NY), and if McCain takes the Oval Office, she could try again then.

She, like too many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, have forgotten that she serves US, not we serve HER. We are not the facilitator of her ambitions. She’s supposed to be the facilitator of the collective ambitions of the citizens of this country, and that’s one message Obama has nailed cold.

I’d still disagree with the comment-writer’s “whining about sexism” point, though, because the tone implies that it’s not a real concern. If even subtle references (or “dog-whistles”) to sexism are painted as “whining,” that seems to lean strongly towards the conclusion that sexism against Clinton can never be a reasonable thing to complain about or object to.

Ah, but what about feminist dog whistles? I’m not saying they have or haven’t happened, but c’mon - these are politicians running for president - it has in other instances been claimed that such things have been implied based on dog whistles - perhaps Hillary is using some feminist dog whistles? In other words, asking for a specific quote of a bald-faced confession is rather silly. I could ask you for a specific quote from you where Obama says that “Vote for me because you shouldn’t vote for a woman over a man.” Your failure to find such a quote (because it does not exist) does not prove that there was no sexism from Obama in the campaign.

On the other hand, in an election between Clinton and McCain, I’d probably mash the button for McCain and hope and pray enough Republicans are tossed from the House and Senate that McCain can’t play Tin Soldier and invade still more countries or perpetuate the stupid war in Iraq for 100 years or even 100 months.

Clinton is not campaigning for a better America, which I think both Obama and McCain are doing. One might not like their vision — whether warm and fuzzy liberalism, or the prospects of fresh new wars in far away places, but at least they seem to have a vision for America. Clinton has a vision of The Clinton Dynasty, which is just SO wrong because I don’t think there is any denying that she has been politically active and involved long enough that her appeals to her experience are more valid than not. Of the last 28 years worth of presidential administrations, she was certainly more active in all areas of POLITICS than Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, or Laura Bush. In response to “she has no experience”, there were enough attacks against her while Bill was president for BEING involved that she could have used that as stock footage for campaign ads rather than attacking Obama or airing those idiotic 3am phone call ads.

Her behavior is better likened to the spoiled rich kid who isn’t going to get into college, or the power-mad Al “I’m in charge here” Haig (and when Google’ing for that quote I found this, and think it fits Clinton well), than the shrill, moody, cat-clawed or emotional cow Clinton is somehow trying to get us to think Obama is telling us she is. Male or female, Al Haig or Hillary Clinton, these tactics do more damage than good, regardless of how great ones politics are. It takes a certain amount of give-and-take and warm and fuzzy consensus building to run anything as complex as the US Government, and Clinton is proving, day by day, she doesn’t have the self-control or personality needed to do so. As a vice president who works more and attacks people less, perhaps she’d be great. We’d have a vice president who could work on policy and implementation better than any VP that I’m aware of. But if she is going to engage in slash-and-burn politics were she in the Oval Office, far from pulling America together, she’d do anything to consolidate still more power, no matter how much it tears America apart. As a consensus builder, she is Shrub in drag, and we don’t need 4 or 8 years of a president tearing people to pieces for daring to get in his or her way.

Right now I have no regrets about sitting out the AZ primary (sorry, “presidential preference election”).

Kevin Drum flags some dangers ahead for Democrats if the refuse to nominate Obama…and Hillary.

In the former case, Jerome Karabel notes that political loyalties are solidified in one’s 20s. Coincidentally, that age group represents Barack Obama’…

I don’t understand what the specific policy issues you’re concerned about are.

It’s more a matter of what I fear he won’t do… there’s little reason to expect his moderate candidacy will morph into a progressive presidency, for the very reasons you outlined in your response numbered 11. The electoral currents, present and future, will continue to push him toward the center.

Couple that with his desire to live up to the ‘heal the divide’ stuff people have been saying about him, and one might obtain this scenario: a centrist making overtures toward the right, and worse, making concessions *to* them, in the name of compromise and unity… meanwhile progressive can expect to have their attempts at reform stiff-armed as too divisive. So we get a slightly right-of-center administration rather than a wildly-right-of-center one, which (after the past 8 years) is a definite improvement, but so far short of what we need.

Won’t do a list, but will say I lost interest in Clinton as her campaign made blunder after appalling blunder. If she can’t run an intelligent campaign, how does she plan to run the country?

And both Clinton and Obama are. Let’s not lose sight of that: Both may be less than ideal, less progressive than most of us on this blog would like, and capable of using racism and sexism when it is to their advantage. But both are smart, accomplished, and determined. Either will make a fine president if they can acheive it. Not necessarily stellar, but competent. And after 8 years of Bush, that counts a lot with me.

1.) She is politically blind if she doesn’t acknowledge and deal with the unfortunate reality that there are negatives associated with the “Clinton Brand” and not everyone just Loved Teh Clintons during the 90s.

This is too close to “the Clintons are eeevvilllll” for my taste. The fact is, Clinton is only a few percentage points away from having more votes than Obama; the fact is, Bill Clinton won two national elections. There is a lot of Clinton-hatred out there, but the evidence suggests that both Clintons are able to successfully deal with it.

2) There’s no excuse for lying about things like being under sniper fire, or a big player at the negotiating table, when you really weren’t. Not to mention that it erodes credibility.

Agreed.

3) She’s run a drama-ridden, short-sighted campaign that sends the message that she is not in control.

I think it’s undeniable that she hasn’t run as good a campaign as her supporters would have hoped.

4) Instead of facilitating important discussions around real core Democratic issues like race and class, widespread discontent and economic opportunity, she is using divisive Republican tactics that are counterproductive to any serious discussion. In fact, she is all but saying that the Republican representing a continuation of disastrous Bush policies is the second-best choice after her.

5) She uses the Republican noise machine as part of her tool box - not just the same tactics, but she’s using their mouthpieces as well, lending credence to a beast that ought to be starved and ignored.

6) Her 3 a.m. phone ad plays to the politics of fear and in the past eight years that has not made for good policy.

These three points all add up to the same thing, which is that Clinton is willing to argue from the right, using Republican talking points, to gain an electoral advantage over Obama.

That’s true, but it’s also true that Obama is willing to argue from the right against Clinton: Look at his arguments against mandates for health care, which — if they have legs — could severely damage prospects for good reform of our health care system.

We could wish for better candidates than we have, but in this campaign, there is no plausible candidate who is not running from the right on some issues. So I don’t see any reason to favor one candidate over the other on this basis.

7) That she’s not paying her vendors and served six years on the Wal-Mart board say more to me than how many shots she throws back or ducks she’s bagged to show she understands the common man.

I agree that she doesn’t have much of a claim at being just ordinary folks. Neither does Obama, author of books that have earned millions, and sticker of foot in mouth when it comes to guns and gods. Again, no reason to vote for one over the other.

Frankly, I’m not sure I want a president who is “just ordinary folks” anyway. I think presidents should ideally be way, way above the mean, in their accomplishments and in how smart they are.

8) Her valuing of loyalty over conscience or competence remind me of someone currently in the White House and we don’t need more of that.

This goes back to point three, and I think you’re right: her campaign would have gone better if she was more willing to fire her friends. However, I don’t see the core problem with Bush as being competence, because even when he hires competent people, such as the current Attorney General, I still hate them. This is because Bush’s policy priorities are disgusting. I don’t see any danger of this repeating in a Hillary Clinton administration.

I do think there’s a real argument to be made that Clinton’s running of her campaign suggests that she has big flaws as a manager; flaws that, judging from how Obama runs his campaign, Obama does not share. So if that’s your argument, I agree that it’s a reasonable argument to make. But there’s no way Clinton would ever be as bad as Bush, because Bush’s primary flaw is not his loyalty to his people.

9) She is playing the victim card, as if sexism, and not 1-8 above, is to blame for the fact that her inevitable nomination turned out not to be so inevitable. Even if she believes it’s true, how does whining and blaming spell empowerment?

As feminists, we are well aware that any time sexism is pointed out by a woman, she will be accused of “whining and blaming” by people who prefer to minimize and dismiss sexism. This is a good reason to vote FOR Clinton, not a reason to vote against her.

Sexism is not the sole reason Clinton has had troubles in this campaign. But it’s one of the reasons, and Clinton supporters are right to object to it. Objecting to sexism isn’t whining; it’s necessary and worthwhile.

If you really want to continue this line of argument — and you really shouldn’t want to — then you better actually support it with specifics quotes and links. My guess is that you won’t be able to find a single instance of Clinton saying “the only reason I haven’t won the nomination already is sexism”; to imply she said that is, I believe, a lie.

In other words, as a symbol for feminism, she is the vanguard for my mother’s generation. She has brought nothing new to the table.

Yes, because goodness knows feminists in my mother’s generation never brought anything worthwhile to the table, and have nothing more of worth to contribute. (Rolleyes).

That so many people disdain older feminists is, in my view, another argument in favor of voting for Clinton, not an argument against.

9) She is playing the victim card, as if sexism, and not 1-8 above, is to blame for the fact that her inevitable nomination turned out not to be so inevitable. Even if she believes it’s true, how does whining and blaming spell empowerment?

…

I don’t understand what the specific policy issues you’re concerned about are.

You don’t think #4 is true?

Or, rather, you think it’s a bad reason?

The same political forces that make Obama a more effective candidate if he campaigns as a centrist won’t go away if he’s President.

To get anything passed through congress, he needs the support of centrist Democrats and of at least a handful of Republican Senators. So no matter what he feels deep inside, he won’t govern from the left; he’ll govern as a centrist Democrat. The politics give him little choice.

Furthermore, if elected, he’ll want to set himself up for re-election in 2012. Nor will he be willing to trash the Democratic party’s electoral chances in pursuit of an agenda (which is what Bush has arguably done to the Republicans). So not only will he have to contend with the political reality that nothing gets through the Senate without centrist (including some Republican) support, but the exact same electoral considerations which are currently making him genuflect to the center, will continue to apply.

(Note that these same arguments also apply to why Clinton won’t govern from the left, either, even if she secretly would like to).

Thanks for this, Amp–and I look forward to the good reasons to vote for him list. I might even do similar top 10s for Clinton, ’cause I think analyzing both the good and the bad is important for everyone.

Hi, Kate. I’m glad you like this — I’m a big fan of your blogging. (And we have something in common; as fat acceptance people, we can be sure that neither candidate is on our side.)

My followup posts won’t be in list form; they’ll be more sustained arguments. But I hope you’ll give me your reaction. And I’ll be eager to see your top ten bad arguments for Clinton. :-)

I do differ with you somewhat on the math question though. I think that if a candidate has no numerical way to mount up the delegates to win decisively then a logical and reasonable (and honorable) thing to do would be to acknowledge this fact and end the campaign.

But that’s not the same thing as saying that a person should not vote or should vote for something.