The cool kids want you to feel guilty about supporting Clinton (I’ll call her Hillary when you start referring to McCain as “John”), but I challenge anyone to sell me on Barack Obama without using the words “hope,” “change,” “unity,” “Kennedy” or “poetry.” Or without dusting off the old “She voted in favor of the war” gambit, which is a tough pill to swallow, but ultimately less important five years later than some would like us to think.
La Clinton isn’t sexy or idealistic. Thank God. (Besides, what candidate could be as sexy as, sigh, John Edwards?) Every time somebody criticizes her for being calculating and entitled, I’m like, “Fuck yeah. Right on.” Anyone who thinks Obama is going to swoop in, overhaul a lazy, ineffectual Congress, and “unify” our great fractured nation by remaining true to his ideals is in for a world of disappointment. Here in Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick ran a similar campaign and found himself hamstrung by a contrarian legislature once he took office.
Clinton, on the other hand, seems like an easier lay. She knows that compromising in order to get 75% of your goal is better than holding out for 100% and ending up with 0. Yes, she’s “divisive” and “polarizing.” Guess what – come General Election time, so are both candidates. Every time.
The fun thing about this race is that, since both Clinton and Obama have similar levels of experience (at least in terms of actual elected public office) and stances on the issues (neither is more than politely gay-friendly, and we have no way of knowing, really, if either can avert the coming economic meltdown or salvage the Iraq-tastrophe), it genuinely is a war of personality. And to my eyes, Clinton wins that race hands down.
Obama may inspire ex-hippie snail trails at rallies, but Clinton deserves an Oscar for just about every debate performance she’s given. This is where the haters who call her chilly and overly rehearsed need to eat their hats. She’s a great quipper. When faced with that awful, sexist likability question, followed by a churlish Edwards/Obama gang-up during the January 5 debate, Clinton’s response was so riveting I half-expected her to break a dish and scream like Sissy Spacek in In the Bedroom. Her laser-beam takedowns of Wolf Blitzer’s WWE tactics during the January 31 debate (“Nice try, Wolf”) were a hoot. If she loses the nomination, I kind of want her to guest star as Barney’s mom on How I Met Your Mother.
I have no doubt that Barack Obama is a smart, moral guy with good ideas about how to turn our country around. But at heart, I’m still, as Jack Donaghy would say, a “godless, glassy-eyed Clintonista.” I’m pretty sure that after one of the Axis of Evil nukes us into oblivion, all that’s left standing will be the three C’s: Cher, cockroaches and the Clintons.
Turnout was not huge at 7:20 this morning, as I was ballot #20 through the machine. But I can’t recall ever casting a vote feeling like a traitor to the world- hell, calling the Iraq invasion “ill conceived” one wasn’t made to feel so, well, out of the cool kid’s group. Great story on Slate about that, too.
As everyone has said, democracy in the Democratic party means that unless someone comes out so violently ahead in this process, it will drag on until summer. Of course, someone will dare to say something good about HRC in the press, and conversely the freight train of hope (wasn’t that a 4 Non-Blondes lyric?) will surely hit a tariff crossing. But Mitt may soon have time on his hands to take the gardening duties off the undocumented help, and that’s indeed, something…
They do not have similar stances on gay issues. Do you remember how Hillary supported Bill’s vote on DOMA, the most homophobic piece of legislation enacted by a liberal president? She still won’t apologize for coming out in favor of it and she refuses to repeal the entire thing. That’s HRC in a nutshell — she refuses to apologize for her centrist pandering. She is far more conservative than he is (it’s a result of 90s Clinton triangulating), and why do we need to run a candidate like that?
There you go…and I didn’t even use “hope,” “change,” “unity,” “Kennedy” or “poetry”!
That’s not selling me on Obama, it’s selling me on Not Clinton.
Besides, no one’s heard Obama even say a word about DOMA since he was a State Senator. Neither supports same sex marriage, but neither is going to stop individual states from allowing it. What’s the difference?
What? Obama has spoken about DOMA on the campaign trail several times. He was opposed to it from the start and would repeal the entire thing, as opposed to Clinton, who was for it and wouldn’t repeal it.
In particular, Obama would open the door for married gay couples to earn federal benefits and he would ensure that other states recognize marriages performed out-of-state. That’s a far, far bigger step on gay rights than HRC — in fact, it was second only to Kucinich amongst the Democratic candidates this season.
I’ll stop calling her Hillary when her official campaign signs and placards stop saying “Hillary in ‘08″.
yes.. we all find DOMA noxious. however, as hill rightly points out, the part about not forcing other states to recognize gender-neutral marriages has been the most effective arguement against enshrining hetero-only marriage in the constitution. this is what we need : a smart, pragmatic politician who knows how to work the system to eventually get us where we want to be rather than a pie-in-the-sky promise that tomorrow everything will be fluffy bunnies and rainbows because everyone will just be so awed by the mere presence of a half-black str8 man in office that all opposition to our equal rights will just disappear into a cloud of “hope”. i have plenty of hope, thank you very much. i want a tough, knowledgeable advocate in office, not a faith healer.