President Obama was my fourth choice in the 2008 primary -- I took a lot of heat for the others [View all]

[bigtree]

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

I chose Richardson first because he came right out and said he'd pull all the troops out of Iraq immediately after assuming office. He had been a DLC moderate, but that promise was good enough for me because I actually thought he'd catch on -- and the other leading candidates were all establishment Democrats; meaning that they'd all been part of one compromise or the other with the opposition and were standard pols without any outstanding or inspiring policy achievements or initiatives. Run of the mill Democrats, which means to me they were good and reliable hedges against republican extremism and good and sometimes reliable vehicles for planks of a progressive agenda.

Two debates and a handful of fumbling answers, and Richardson was history.

I chose Edwards next, because he promised to focus on poverty. That unequivocal promise was in line with his work as a trial lawyer who had taken on wealthy and powerful interests on behalf of less fortunate victims and had won. He presented a good platform and sounded all of the populist notes that I wanted to hear out of a presidential candidate. I didn't hold any illusions at all that Edwards was 'one of us' or was a 'common man' or anything delusional like that, but I heard enough to trust that he would not only work the political system to the advantage of the folks he was advocating for, but that he wouldn't waver in holding the republicans accountable. There looked to be no love lost between the southerner and the south's beloved republican party.

Nonetheless, after a trouncing on Super Tuesday, I believe, Edwards was gone.

That left two major candidates (Obama and Clinton) and I intended to pick a leader who had enough support already to make a strong run in the general election. I had to choose between the two.

Both had been Senators. Both had sought to align their votes with the center of the political spectrum. Obama had actually made a few speeches about finding consensus with the opposition and the like, but Clinton had actually already established herself as a centrist in her votes and otherwise.

Obama looked like a strong progressive choice, but the pragmatism he was promoting throughout his campaign was the same type of centrist attitude that I had found exasperating in the years and years I'd followed almost every instigation of national government waiting for my Democrats to overcome the conservatives and establish more of our progressive ideals into action or law. After all, Congress had never been openly, and willingly accommodating to a progressive agenda since I'd been observing the institution. Progressive politics was always revolutionary when it managed to get a hearing in the Capitol -- and made controversial by the conservative media and their legislator cohorts the second it was signed into law. So Obama was selling the status quo. Fine with me as a Democrat always prepared for the long-haul, the long fight. I could work with that.

Hillary Clinton had all of Obama's qualities and more. There was, first and foremost, her husband who was a personal hero for me because he booted the goddamn republicans out of the presidency and spared me another term of Bush. He'd given me four years without listening to the drivel and antagonism coming from a republican presidency. Not only that, I'd raised my young family during those years (part during Reagan, part during Bush). We thrived economically, for whatever reason anyone wants to promote. My income rose, opportunities abounded, and we just thrived. It's hard to not miss that. I remember Mrs. Clinton's fight for health care reform. I remember how hard she fought and who her enemies in that fight were. I stood firmly in her camp during that battle. We certainly lost, but we did get CHIPS program for children's health insurance. All in all, those battles were why I was proud to identify myself as a Democrat.

So Mrs. Clinton already represented the best of the establishment of Democrats, to me. Moreover, she had already managed to achieve a large and diverse number of supporters which looked like a decent challenge to the republican nominee. She had it all. She was well-poised to upset the republican candidate, but, she was also well-positioned to challenge the republican party.

Here's my reasoning between the two: Hillary Clinton had a couple decades of pissing the republican party (and other conservatives) off so badly that her very presence in Congress seemed to retire a bunch of them. Yet, she legislated like a centrist with a good number of votes and with more than a few alliances with republicans on key legislation; not unlike Barack Obama had, in many respects.

The difference between them was that Obama was coming onto the political scene posturing and being widely perceived as a progressive. He was certainly an unconventional candidate to have achieved such a large number of supporters. Black with a funny, foreign-sounding name, to the opposition Obama looked positively revolutionary in comparison to his Democratic rival. To many of his supporters, he was the revolution.

Yet, Clinton had the opposite reputation among progressive Democrats. She had been at odds with that bloc on several key issues and initiatives, if not in complete opposition. Clinton had been a solid, establishment Democrat who voted the majority of times along party lines -- a good liberal on most legislation. But, she had developed a reputation on the left as a dreaded centrist.

To republicans, though, Clinton was the devil incarnate. It was hard for this lifelong Democrat to not appreciate that to the extreme. However, I had a different logic for settling on Clinton over Obama in the primary which was entirely political. I wanted to win he issues, on the policy, on the legislation.

I felt that Clinton had great motivation to move away from the centrist image and reputation that clouded her support and acceptability among party progressives. Like 'Nixon in China' she would be perfectly opposed to most every instigation from the republican opposition in a way that was personal and would be a definitive stand against her longtime rivals. No way would they give her an easy road, and no way a Clinton would back down from that fight. That's what I still believe.

Remember, in the primary, Mr. Obama chastised Mrs. Clinton for her confrontational stands. He promoted his intention to 'work with republicans' at every instance to advance his agenda. there looked (to me) to be a huge learning curve for the young candidate which I'd already lived through. There is no appeasing republican liars. That's practically all that are left in power in the Capitol. Perfect liars. I positively knew that 'cooperative' approach would mean that Obama's promise of transformational change was destined to be incremental, at best, and diluted with republican mischief-making initiatives and corporate appeasements.

I was also concerned with Obama's relative inexperience in military matters. Clinton had, at least, served years on the foreign relations committee. She had amassed a long record of direct involvement in foreign issues which often merged with military initiatives. She wasn't beginning from scratch, either with the policy or the relationships within the military community. I felt that Obama would need to rely too much on the Pentagon establishment for his decision-making and I saw few allies of his which gave me comfort that he'd be in a strong position to challenge the status quo.

Clinton also came to the table with her husband who had a Rolodex of military contacts who had helped establish a Democratic agenda during his two terms. I felt that her position and her political perception would more compel her to push against the conservatives instead of feeling (like Obama) as if she already represented the height of progressiveness and need to temper that to appease their right-wing views.

Of course, Hillary Clinton dropped off.

I eventually supported (strongly) and voted in favor of Barack Obama for president because I wanted to defeat the republican nominee. I also supported him because he's a good Democrat who recognizes and fights for the federal government's primacy in and responsibility for our social concerns and our general safety and welfare. I've never seen him as a dedicated progressive, but always as a pragmatist who sees more value in forging reasonable compromises than in just arguing. I always want more fight from the party and our President, but I recognize the political realities of the balance of power in the legislature and their limiting effect on the influence and effectiveness of presidential actions and proposals.

No one in our party, not in Congress or the White House, is falling on their swords in defense of our progressive agenda. There is still a committed bloc of progressive legislators always willing to stand firm when it's called for, and willing to bend when political reality only allows incremental progress on their ideals. This President has not been out of line with the efforts and intentions of the majority of our Democratic legislators. Most of them, including President Obama, are actively working to develop, propose, and initiate planks of our progressive agenda. In other instances, they are mostly holding the line against conservative meddling and obstruction within and without our party.

It's not perfect; it never has been, in my lifetime. Maybe the protests in the street will help transform their pragmatism into revolutionary action. It's a long-shot, but there's nothing to be accomplished unless we have our party in the White House and in control in Congress. That's not to say at all that success is somehow assured by a Democratic leadership, but there is absolutely NO way to advance ANY of our progressive ideals into action or law without first occupying these legislative offices.

That's why I am in strong support of our (assumed) Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama. He's the best and only hope we have of keeping republicans from retaking the White House, and the best hope we have right now of advancing our Democratic and progressive agendas. Don't let anyone tell you different.