| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« VALENTINE'S DAY ON 3QD: THE CATCH | Main | MONDAY POEM »

February 11, 2008

Senator Clinton and the ABCs (Anybody but Clinton)

Michael Blim

As I was entering my Massachusetts polling place on February 5, I encountered a Clinton supporter yelling out to prospective voters about how Senator Clinton was “the real liberal,” and how Mr. Clinton had brought the country eight years of economic growt and well being. I couldn’t hold my tongue. I responded that it was after all Alan Greenspan and Silicon Valley that accounted for the good times; that they were only really enjoyed by some; and that it was Bill Clinton’s good fortune to be in the White House at the time. Senator Clinton’s poll watcher responded chanting over and over again as I walked into the polling place: “You're wrong. Clinton did it, Clinton did it, Clinton did it…” So much for dialogue, but here in Jamaica Plain, people spit up their politics like they spit up like curdled milk. Even at 6:30 in the morning.

Chalk it up to misguided enthusiasm, wishful thinking, or just ignorance. Take your pick. Senator Clinton cannot be held to account for one over-zealous poll watcher.

But in a way, Senator Clinton and Ex-President Clinton “did do it,” or are doing it.

And to Senator Clinton and her consort, I say: Beware the ABCs -- "Anybody But Clinton." I have never sat out an election in my life, and never voted for anyone but a Democrat for president. Even if my own politics stand considerably to the left of the party, I come from a yellow dog family, and have never strayed in the voting booth. In American politics, there is no other option, and I accept this as an “inconvenient truth.”

Well, God help me, as my Irish grandmother used to say.

“Anybody but Clinton” has crept into my thoughts. It was a shock – a kind of Pauline horse fall – that I experienced last Tuesday at the polling place. In my family, sitting out an election was a sin of omission. Despite all of the doozies that the Democratic Party has passed off on voters from time in memoriam, they still have to thank Franklin Roosevelt, my grandmother and her undying love for “that man” as the local reactionaries used to call him for my life as a, ahem, “block voter.”

It used to be so automatic. “Just pull the big red lever,” the committeeperson would say. Doing poll work and getting voters out for about forty years of election days, I would say the same thing too, and I even served some time as a committeeperson in the black and liberal remnants of the Philadelphia Democratic organization. Palm cards, election courts, running the voter lists around five in the afternoon were as natural to me as watching water run downhill. Not going out to work an election seemed a sin, let alone sitting one out. For all of the insurgents I worked for – and yes for the party hacks who at least voted the right way -- there was always a reason. Spring or fall, fellow workers and I were like the postal carriers of politics. I guess the apple didn’t fall far from the machine. Da Mayor and his crowd in Chicago taught me a lot.

So I say to Senator Clinton and her supporters: Beware the ABCs. There have been many elections about passion since World War II. People were passionate – I was passionate – about John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson until the latter really dug us into the Vietnam War. I was for Gene McCarthy in the worst way, but I felt bad about Hubert’s Humphrey's 1968 loss. Though a red-baiter historically and a little too friendly with his patron Dwayne Andreas, the Archer Daniels agro-business boss (Wonder why we have ethanol now so conveniently at our disposal? Your tax dollars at work for almost half a century), Humphrey fought for causes in the Senate nobody else would touch. Lyndon Johnson's by then deadly embrace effectively ended the career of a now-forgotten man. Then when George McGovern’s running mate reported that he truly had lost his head in bouts of depression, George lost his. And as they used to say in my house, for McGovern that was all she wrote.

Reagan and a roll-over Democratic Congress pretty much finished the passionate politics of the Democratic Party, save Teddy Kennedy’s run in 1980 and the good works of fringe candidates like Fred Harris and maybe Mo Udall. Mike Dukakis is a very intelligent and decent human being, but didn’t inspire passion. There were other worthies, but I hope you get the picture. The passion that make movements and effective political majorities has passed from the Democrats to the Republicans.

Senator Clinton and her consort had better watch out. Barack Obama inspires a passion I have not seen abroad in the land since the Teddy Kennedy 1980 run, and that was nothing in size and scope to the feelings that Obama is inspiring. Perhaps Bobby Kennedy’s 1968 campaign came close, but many like me chose McCarthy, or mind over matter. With the assassination, the passion dissipated.

Kennedy’s capacity to inspire passion was palpable. In 1966, Bobby Kennedy stumped for Senator Paul Douglas, perhaps the last truly gifted intellectual Illinois sent to the Senate until it elected Obama. He and Senator Douglas spoke to about 50 people on the lawn of a shopping mall about a mile from my house. Bobby radiated heat. Trying with all my might to resist him, to channel thoughts for instance of his despicable performance as an aide to Senator Joe McCarthy in the fifties, it was impossible. He inspired passion.

So it goes with Obama. Pick your side, but he radiates that heat.

Obama is the “Hail Mary” pass of American politics.

Passion and desperation run together today: everyone except the rich has the sinking feeling or experiences the brutal truth that the United States itself is sinking into a cesspool, using the hiking boots of empire to drag itself out of a 25-year morass of a politics as destructive of American life as any since the age of the Roosevelt rescue.

By the way, talk about heat. Listen to any of FDR’s fireside chats and try not to feel the warmth of voice and feeling that when all else failed, actually talked my grandmother’s generation through the Depression. He was "that man" for a reason.

Obama is the “Hail Mary” pass of American politics because our political system has no game plan, no plays to move the country toward mending its ways and sorting out how to become a decent society of equal opportunity and a good neighbor abroad. Its elite of which the Clinton are proud members has little intention of pulling American ambitions and power back from their world struggle for resources and military dominance. Americans, one senses, are finally tired of fighting for Standard Oil (we call it Exxon now) and fighting daily struggles for affordable medical care and education for their kids. They want a Social Security retirement they can count on, and would I think be interested in stopping the spending of its blood and treasure for imperialism and repression abroad.

Obama brings no guarantee: when did you ever see a “Hail Mary” pass that did? He has joined America's political elite, no doubt about it. The risks of betrayal are always there. But have you ever been to the South and "East" Sides of Chicago where Obama worked as a community organizer? I have. I worked there too, almost a generation before Obama. That counts for me as at least a forward pass.

Beware, Senator Clinton, of the passions Senator Obama is stirring up. Heart is winning over head – not yours, Senator Clinton, but the hearts winning over the heads of tens of millions placing whatever hopes they can conjure or hold on into Obama’s candidacy. Don’t expect those voters to come home to you if your campaign goes the way of your Massachusetts poll watche -- and worse with each triumph. Democrats don’t always reunite for Election Day. Remember Hubert Humphrey. He lost because people stayed home, their passions spent and their hearts unwilling.

I was appalled by the 2000 “Vote for Nader where you can, and Gore where you must.” The narcissism was breathtaking. I recall so many West Side liberal New Yorkers I knew believing they could vote for Nader and leave the rest of the city, black, brown, working class, or whoever was not them, to get Gore New York’s electoral votes. Don’t you wonder where those Florida Nader voters got some of their gumption? From just the arrogance that the politically safe expressed Election Day 2000? And those assurances that Nader would be there for “us” afterwards: that was some whopper.

But as I write, I wonder: Perhaps Gore was the Nader voters' bridge too far. By my reading, Gore despite efforts on behalf of Big Pharma and his deadly participation in the protection of the patents of multinationals, was surely decent enough to deserve election. His subsequent record speaks for itself. Did he deserve to lose because of Nader Know-nothingism?

Voting or not voting for Gore rested with the head, not with passion. It was a duty. It was pulling the big red lever. You did it out of habit, or out of rational belief. Save billionaire Bloomberg, he who proves what all that money can do to you and do for you, no third party prospects are stalking the horizon. So Democrats may have a decent chance this time.

Millions are leading with their hearts. Passion can be unreason, but it can also trigger the stuff of which major social changes are made. Step on that, Senator Clinton, and bring on the ABCs.

When people are passionate, and feeling that their candidate was ill-used or cheated by a well-oiled, client-driven political machine (The Clintons have been running for the presidency for a quarter century, and with those eight years of patronage from the White House, likely can call up favors in every election precinct in America), reason can take a holiday.

Beware the ABCs. Anybody but Clinton? If you are the candidate in November, Senator Clinton, it could happen to you.

Regrettably, given a desire for a rational world, I could happen sense a case of the ABCs coming on. Even possessing what Max Weber called the ethics of responsibility is not helping this time.

When the air leaves the balloon, it falls. Obama is part of the air in our political balloon. Puncture it, and the energy for reform dissipates, as does the majority to do it.

Ask Hubert Humphrey, who loved not wisely but too well. He was the happy warrior of his time and was defeated by disillusion and withdrawal. His combination of reason and passion didn't prevail. The passions were too strong, and the disillusion too great.

Mark Twain said that history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. Against all hope, I have begun to hear the world in couplets.

Posted by Michael Blim at 05:44 AM | Permalink

Comments

An excellent column to start a hectic day.

Now, go out and vote in November for America's only hope...

Vote for Obama and do your duty.

Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Feb 11, 2008 6:20:29 AM

Obama is part of the air in our political balloon. Puncture it, and the energy for reform dissipates, as does the majority to do it.

That is so true. It is easy to imagine the picture with Obama out of it: a bleak, tow-the-line, uninspiring, oh-so-non-reform, boring dynastic vote.

It's too bad the current political machine doesn't let Obama say things he really feels. His message is exciting, but his potential is even more so.

Posted by: beajerry | Feb 11, 2008 8:58:45 AM

I surprised myself, waking up one day and realizing I had become an ABC. The race-baiting and the sleazy attempts to get the MI and FL delegates seated just turned my stomach, and, one day, I realized that I cared more for integrity than the agenda. That I was tired of a government at war with its own citizenry. That the big jumps in progressive politics would not happen in this country without the attendant backlash from the right and that I wanted someone who could sell it.

The DNC has best be careful with those superdelegates, the last thing anyone will stomach is the feeling that the election was stolen from them.

Posted by: akatsuki | Feb 11, 2008 10:14:52 AM

I don't know about MA, but it's illegal in OH to campaign within 100 feet of the polling place entrance. That includes wearing buttons or clothing inside. Did you ask the judge to get this person to go outside?

Posted by: mr.ed | Feb 11, 2008 10:15:03 AM

I don't know about MA, but it's illegal in OH to campaign within 100 feet of the polling place entrance. That includes wearing buttons or clothing inside. Did you ask the judge to get this person to go outside?

Posted by: mr.ed | Feb 11, 2008 10:15:26 AM

Was watching CNN yesterday. Hillary speaking in streaming video to my right and one inch away, an ad for a Hillary Clinton nutcracker via Overstock.com. Hillary's legs spread around a walnut. I read op eds in the most left-leaning newspapers referring to her campaign as Billary, as though she has done nothing on her own. I feel that there is some irrational hate towards Hillary Clinton that is leaking into the left from the right. I say, beware Democrats! If she is indeed our nominee because she is backed by the superdelegates, we MUST stand behind her. Otherwise, we are in the war for the long haul, health care: more of the same, etc... When I lived in France, I watched some of my most liberal friends block the ultra-right with a vote for the (less ultra) right (Chirac). I can't remember the numbers, but he got something like 85% of the vote that year. Why? Because the left was slightly disillusioned by their candidate. They felt he wasn't quite left enough. (I did no polls, but this was the general feeling I got, what I read in the papers at the time.) They didn't vote in the first round. At all. In the second round (see French voting process), their candidates were the ultra-right and the right. So they got stuck with 5 years of Chirac and an opportunity for Sarkozy to be in his government taking advantage of all photo-ops that this position allowed him. And now they are stuck with Sarko and the right again for 5 more years. I say, BEWARE DEMS! I love Barack Obama as much as you do, but careful now...
I hope she has a good strategy for this if it does indeed occur.

Posted by: laney | Feb 11, 2008 12:09:11 PM

Odds are the an Obama admin will be as dismal as an HRC admin is certain to be.

Hardly an inspiring calculus, but the one we have.

Posted by: bdr | Feb 11, 2008 12:54:39 PM

I feel that there is some irrational hate towards Hillary Clinton that is leaking into the left from the right. I say, beware Democrats! If she is indeed our nominee because she is backed by the superdelegates, we MUST stand behind her.

Wrong. There is no hatred unless you are counting Republican misogynists and blathering talking heads on TV among the ABCs. Others like me, simply harbor a healthy skepticism driven by past experience. There is nothing wrong with the term "Billary" because that is exactly what it is going to be. "Fool me once, shame on you ..." etc.

If Hillary wins by legitimate means, I will probably swallow my disappointment, trudge to the voting booth and pull the metaphorical lever on my E-Slate for her because McCain and 100 years of war are a scary thought. But if Obama wins the popular vote and the electoral delegates but the party insiders and super-delegates manage a sleight of hand to anoint Hillary, I am going to either leave the presidential ballot blank or vote third party in the general election. After complaining for eight years about Florida and Bush, I won't be complicit in putting another "pretender" in the White House, one hundred years of war notwithstanding.

Posted by: Ruchira | Feb 11, 2008 2:14:53 PM

Great article, but I'm sorry to see you've yet to get over Nader's run for the Presidency. I have never fully understood the bitterness held for those of use who voted for Nader in 2000, a vote I far from regret. Who are you to expect me to vote for someone that in no way seemed to represent a vast majority of my views?

Hector, I challenge you to go back to that campaign and watch Gore speak and then watch Nader speak. If you don't feel impassioned after a Nader stump speech then I don't see how Obama can fire you up so much. The same energy and passion for change was there. A similar deep understanding of the structural ills were there. Gore offered none of that.

There is no doubt that Nader's tag line, "there is no difference," was patently false. I've learned my lesson there. But I remain tired of the old Democratic line "vote for us, or else." The Democrats have to earn my vote like anyone else, and while they may have it this year, they better make good, else they wont have it next.

Sorry that voting with my heart in 2000 causes you offense. But I promise to do it again this year, while voting for Obama.

Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Feb 11, 2008 4:57:59 PM

Hello to All: Thanks for your comments.

Several things. I don't like the Billary moniker any more than Laney. There is a good bit of misogyny around, no less than racism. The difference is that the former President race-baited, and Senator Obama to my knowledge has sought no gain via misogyny and has made no effort to stir it up. A big, big difference.

Again, Senator Clinton could have disavowed the ex-President's remarks, instead of excusing him as simply being tired when he said them. That's on her, and I think she would make out if she sent Bill back to Westchester County. Why doesn't she?

Then there is policy. Recall not her medical care failure -- it was abject -- but its nature. It called for "managed competition." The medical care system is too far gone for the market to save it. What will reverse the flow toward oligopoly in health care providers such as research hospitals? Here in Massachusetts, the Harvard hospitals have pushed community hospitals into bankruptcy, or extended their tentacles to soon make it so throughout the Boston metropolitan area. Hell, they ever are devouring each other. The research hospitals are for all practical purposes profit-making institutions, and want to run a cost-plus show. Managed competition will reward the strong and destroy the weak or the poor medical care providers. Medical care will get more expensive as they push out the community hospitals or seek to stunt their growth.

We are now spending 16-17% of our GDP on medical care. It simply is crazy. For as much as half the cost, life expectancy in many European countries is far and away longer than ours.

Then of course there is Big Pharma. No one in Washington yet has the guts to take them on. Imagine that Medicare, the biggest drug provider in America, has no authority to negotiate lower prices based upon volume. In fact, they are banned from doing it.

As we are discovering in Massachusetts, if you don't control and yes cut the cost of medical care, a compulsory insurance plan cannot make it. More customers means higher prices. Poor people required to carry health insurance now or face tax penalties even then don't have good insurance options. Without lowering medical costs, lousy insurance policies for poor wil lead to less care.

Let' s grant that Senator Clinton knows more about health care and health insurance than the other 99 senators. Has she the will to face down the reactionaries who will come at her if she tries to do the really right thing? Has she the political skills to do it? All the former Clinton Administration did was to back down whenever challenged? Why didn't she object? Let her tell us why we should expect more.

The Clinton Administration got patent protection for Big Pharma in the last WTO round, another ruinous measure, this time againts the poor around the world. Did Senator Clinton object? Bob Rubin pushed poor countries to the brink with onerous "structural adjustment" policies that sought to cut state services and free up the market so that local elites can chew up the poor even more effectively. Did Senator Clinton object? The Clinton Administration pushed welfare reform, the odious consequences of which we will see in the oncoming recession. Did Senator Clinton, the author of It Takes a Village, object?

It is widely known that the Senator not only voted for the Iraq War, but to heal the antipathy between the military and the former Clinton Administration, she has become a key Pentagon spending advocate.

Senator Clinton compared herself to Eleanor Roosevelt who took her husband on daily in defense of the poor and the pushed out. He would complain to anyone who would listen in the Oval Office that Mrs. Roosevelt was driving him nuts. But she never disguised her differences, and she mobilized members of FDR's administration to push the President as far left as she could.

The Senator is no Eleanor Roosevelt.

She is a neoliberal and no less committed to its program than the ex-President. It is not his program; it is an international movement in which she is a Davos-going, or putative Davos-going member. Tweak the economy, release the animal spirits of capitalism, sew up the safety net, and mobilize American power against its peceived enemies abroad.

Senator Clinton is a bourgeois feminist, not an internationalist committed to changing women's lives for the better. She was the number one booster of microlending to poor women as a solution to poverty in poor countrie in the Clinton Administration. Not only is it a pittance, coercive, and divisive -- it only succeeds if some of the poor struggle out to exploit their former peers -- but it doesn't hold a candle to the welfare relief for women that a country such as Brazil for instance is providing with guaranteed income support.

Senator Clinton is no Bill Clinton. No, she is her own person -- worse perhaps because she believes in what they did and didn't do for eight years. She could disavow it, change course, admit mistakes.

Now eight years later with country in worse shape, how can her powers of reflection be so distorted as to not realize how deeply implicated the Clinton Administration was in the horrors that came after it?

Let her offer a fresh start. She's no Billary; she's HIllary, and I am betting she will offer no more change than the Clinton Administration did for eight long years. Why? Because she believes in what they did. She won't make the leap of faith to realize that that model is broken.

Finally there is something weird about all of this. Senator Clinton wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, she wants to be seen as independent from the Clinton Administration. On the other hand, she offers those eight years as the bona fides for the next four. Which is it?

If she is no different politically than her husband, then enough is enough.

Let her stand up and stay; that was then; this is now. I'm starting over and here is what I, Hillary Clinton, want to do. It is so simple, and so impossible for her. You can't deny something you believe, nor frankly should you. Let us in on the big secret: Hillary Clinton, what do you believe in? Let people vote it up or down.

I hope you understand now some of the motives as to why Senator Clinton is giving me a case of the ABCs.

Michael Blim

Posted by: Michael Blim | Feb 11, 2008 6:11:49 PM

Michael, I want to apologize for my last post, as I appear to have mentally transposed your name with Hector. No idea how I did that; tired brain I'd guess. Never the less, the point stands.

That said, I recognize your genuine desire to see a better world, to which your last comment is all the more testament. Let's hope we can agree on a candidate this year and push forward with as much vigor as you have shown in your posts!

Cheers,
Cyrus

Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Feb 11, 2008 6:57:20 PM

Cyrus Hall, I respectfully must disagree with you. I've never found Nader to be a dynamic speaker and his evident boredom with many policy particulars bothered me greatly at the time. But of course Gore lost that election (or at least made it close enough for Bush to "win" it), and Nader just exposed some of Gore's weaknesses and was complicit with the media, who desperately wanted Gore defeated. The clear lesson of Nader though, is that he was wrong and a narcissistic candidate who harmed the Green Party. Though of course they were stupid enough to sign up with him.

I'm a little surprised at the vehemence of the reactions to Clinton. After all, she clearly has a great deal of support in the party. She's won a number of primaries fair and square, and the delegate count is close to even. If she is such a clear disaster for the ideals of the party, it seems like she would face far more resistance from the voters, much like John McCain has done. How do you explain the recurring votes for Senator Clinton if she is so obviously such a terrible choice?

I suggest spending some time investigating why Clinton has such levels of support. I think it would give everyone a more nuanced view of the race and provide some ammunition against sinking into ABC-dom.

Posted by: Hektor Bim | Feb 11, 2008 8:22:49 PM

This perceptive and well-reasoned piece is much better than most of the commentary I read in the newspapers. Thank you, Michael Blim.

Posted by: Marilyn Terrell | Feb 12, 2008 8:55:10 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD Science Prize

Logo designed by Vicki Winters

Iran Twitter News

Andrew Covers Iran

The Lede on Iran

HuffPo Liveblogging

Help 3 Quarks Daily

3QD on Twitter

Search Using Lijit

Lijit Search

Bookmark This Page

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3QD FEED FOR GOOGLE


Add to Google

3QD ADVERTISING


Compare prices

  • Canada (French)
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa
  • Brazil
  • Recent Comments

    fred lapides on The History of Jazz, by Darcy James Argue

    Louise Gordon on Everyone Should See "Torturing Democracy"

    Louise Gordon on The Swedish dream is no more

    atomburke on Will Europe’s Economies Regain Their Footing?

    aguy109 on my ten favorite fetishes

    Elatia Harris on my ten favorite fetishes

    Elatia Harris on my ten favorite fetishes

    Elatia Harris on crowds, clowns, contempt, and cacophony

    maniza on Friday Poem

    Jesse on crowds, clowns, contempt, and cacophony

    David Schneider on Friday Poem

    Dave Ranning on Friday Poem

    maniza on The Improbable American

    Ruchira on Friday Poem

    D on Philosophy as Complementary Science

    Dave Ranning on The resignation speech of Sarah Palin: a deconstruction

    bill on Ah the singing, ah the delight, the passion!

    Fill on The resignation speech of Sarah Palin: a deconstruction

    Luke Lea on tatlin

    Richard on Philosophy as Complementary Science

    Dave Ranning on Thursday Poem

    Frances Madeson on Lessons from an Unexpected Life

    maniza on Thursday Poem

    maniza on Thursday Poem

    David Schneider on Thursday Poem

    Acclaim For 3QD

    ------XXX------

    "I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

    "I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

    "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

    Subscribe to this blog's feed