Yesterday, Sully's Ask Me Anything video clip was answering the question, "How Would President Hillary Be Different." Andrew gave what was a pretty meh answer - not so much, blah blah blah. Whatever. It's not the answer that bugged me so much, as the premise.
What's the motivation for that question, anyway? It remains the odd case that a lot of Hillary Clinton campaign supporters still hold on to the idea that Hillary Clinton should have been president. I should resist stereotyping that group as feminists, but...yeah, it's a lot of strong feminists, smart ones even, whom I often respect tremendously - but then there's this issue. Deep down they still seem to hold views almost as irritating as the Republican base view that Barack Obama is an illegitimate president. Remember that Hillary's campaign was the first to stoke the flames of birtherism and Obama-is-Muslim-ism. Those embers have not entirely burned out. Clinton supporters don't still argue that Obama isn't American, but they often remain attached to their view that Hillary/they were entitled, and that all of the Administration's so-called failures are the result of Hillary's destiny having been robbed of her. Obama is weak. Obama's style isn't to their liking. They believe Barack Obama stole Hillary's (and their) victory.
It's all this stuff wrapped around the politics of identity and hope, and the sense that it was Hillary's time and time for a great leap forward for women, and whatever else. And that's all fine, and somewhat understandable, given American history where The Women of the U.S. Government is more likely a Playboy pictorial rather than a statement about elected officials (though it bears mention that there are a record number of women serving in the 112th Congress). Still, to make that more important than everything represented by Barack Obama, well, come on folks. But this isn't about that. This is about the argument that Hillary Clinton was entitled to the Presidency, and that Barack Obama got in her way.Frankly, I'm calling bullshit.
In simple terms, here's reality. Hillary would not be President today if she had won the nomination.
That's not a comment on Hillary's qualifications, her ability, or what kind of success she could have had as President (though I think much less than President Obama, for a number of reasons). I always supported the Obama campaign, but I never disliked Hillary - well, not until she campaigned the way she did, but her service as Secretary of State has restored my respect.
But let's first discuss electoral reality. I know that reality doesn't much matter in alternative histories, or histrionics, but it matters to me. And the reality is that Hillary Clinton could not have won any states in the South, save perhaps (but not necessarily) Florida - but most of Florida isn't really the South, anyway. A Democrat winning North Carolina or Virginia is simply inconceivable if Barack Obama had not been the nominee. I'm really not even willing to entertain the argument, because it would be disingenuous and silly.
For purposes of argument I would even discount the fact that Hillary's campaign was directed by the ridiculously incompetent Mark Penn, and consider, for this paragraph alone, the possibility of a narrow Clinton victory in a general election, all other things being equal (which, of course, they were not - but more on that in a moment). Even with this hypothetical narrow electoral Hillary Clinton victory, Hillary would have had very different coattails. Hillary Clinton would not have enjoyed the brief and incredibly successful period of a supermajority senate that led (despite - I would actually argue made possible by - the Kennedy-to-Brown switch) to the misnamed "Obamacare" and the slew of other legislative successes of Obama's first two years. Would Hillary Clinton, again all things being equal, have done much the same as Barack Obama? Possibly. But then again, all things would not have been equal.
But that brings us back to whether there was any possibility of Hillary Clinton being sworn in as President. And there are two words that pretty much change the whole picture: Sarah Palin.
John McCain would have never selected Sarah Palin as his running mate if Hillary had been the nominee. Palin was, among other things, a cheap, shallow attempt to attract female voters who were angry (see above) about Hillary losing the nomination. The cynical ploy was aggressive on numerous fronts, as the McCain campaign ran ads, including the infamous "Passed Over" ad, to explicitly woo Clinton voters and simultaneously point out that the Democrat didn't have a woman on his ticket (but John McCain did). And then there was the incredibly dishonest PUMA movement, their anger and insistence that Hillary was treated unfairly (by the media or by Obama? I never could figure it out), and the claim by a quarter of Clinton supporters following Hillary's concession speech that they would vote for McCain. McCain would have a female running mate. The brilliant McCain campaign believed that Sarah Palin would seal-the-deal. The idea that McCain could win the presidency by peeling off Clinton voters might have been terribly poor strategy (or not - it may have simply been a complete failure of execution, their tactics rather than their strategy), but it was in fact one of their most important strategies in the election.
The McCain campaign also thought they could overcome Palin's obvious inexperience by using it to highlight the argument of the Base that Barack Obama had no experience. They thought it was fine to have the issue of experience front-and-center because they truly believed it would hurt Barack Obama more, because a campaign focused on experience would benefit the guy who had been there forever. In that sense, Palin's inexperience as (lack of) qualification was ridiculously perceived as an electoral advantage. Maybe I'm giving John McCain more credit than he is due, although if you go back and read my blog entries from the campaign, including long before Sarah Palin was even firing off starbursts in the eyes and shorts of middle-aged conservatives, you'd see that it was unlikely that I would have ever given that huckster more credit than is his due. Still, it is simply inconceivable to believe that the McCain campaign, as it were, could have tried the Palin trick if Hillary - who also campaigned against Obama on the basis of her experience - was at the top of the ticket. The premise for Palin's ascendancy would have simply not existed.
Now, some may say that is another reason why Hillary should have been the nominee, because the nomination of Hillary Clinton would have prevented the foisting of Palin on greater America. But that would miss the point, too, because the selection of Palin was a dramatically important revelation, about John McCain and about the state of conservatism. It wasn't really that the sorry state was news, but the media felt free to ignore it. A Clinton nomination would have simply allowed a continuation of the old narratives. John McCain was a media darling. John McCain ran against George W. Bush eight years earlier. He was often supposedly at odds with is party. The myth of McCain the Maverick enabled so-called fair-minded people to ignore the intellectual and moral rot of institutional conservatism.
Instead, more than anything else, the selection of Palin, which would have never occurred following a nomination of Hillary Clinton, revealed the real John McCain, his colossally poor judgment and cravenness, which he has only continued to show (plus, bitterness!) in the three years since his defeat. Instead of so-called experience, the campaign turned on temperament and judgement, two issues that the McCain's Palin selection (and Obama's character) put in a different contrast. That's the environment in which Obama was able to present his case to America. That playing field would have been much different for Hillary Clinton. Hillary wouldn't have been campaigning against the creepy get-off-my-grass curmudgeon.
Hillary Clinton would have faced the John McCain that people pretended was a great guy, the war hero they imagined him to be, the buddy of journalists and John Stewart. Hillary Clinton would have faced the John McCain that my friend who was on the leadership of the Florida Democratic Party told me he would vote for in a general election between McCain and Clinton. It's something he told me as he headed to a $500-minimum Clinton fundraising event.
So let's not reinvent history. Let it go.
Now, some may say that is another reason why Hillary should have been the nominee, because the nomination of Hillary Clinton would have prevented the foisting of Palin on greater America. But that would miss the point, too, because the selection of Palin was a dramatically important revelation, about John McCain and about the state of conservatism. It wasn't really that the sorry state was news, but the media felt free to ignore it. A Clinton nomination would have simply allowed a continuation of the old narratives. John McCain was a media darling. John McCain ran against George W. Bush eight years earlier. He was often supposedly at odds with is party. The myth of McCain the Maverick enabled so-called fair-minded people to ignore the intellectual and moral rot of institutional conservatism.
Instead, more than anything else, the selection of Palin, which would have never occurred following a nomination of Hillary Clinton, revealed the real John McCain, his colossally poor judgment and cravenness, which he has only continued to show (plus, bitterness!) in the three years since his defeat. Instead of so-called experience, the campaign turned on temperament and judgement, two issues that the McCain's Palin selection (and Obama's character) put in a different contrast. That's the environment in which Obama was able to present his case to America. That playing field would have been much different for Hillary Clinton. Hillary wouldn't have been campaigning against the creepy get-off-my-grass curmudgeon.
Hillary Clinton would have faced the John McCain that people pretended was a great guy, the war hero they imagined him to be, the buddy of journalists and John Stewart. Hillary Clinton would have faced the John McCain that my friend who was on the leadership of the Florida Democratic Party told me he would vote for in a general election between McCain and Clinton. It's something he told me as he headed to a $500-minimum Clinton fundraising event.
So let's not reinvent history. Let it go.
No comments:
Post a Comment