I think I was hanging back, observing, commenting, but also slowly bonding with Obama. Then, he won the Iowa caucuses, and it suddenly seemed that he was going to win the nomination. With the real possibility at hand — and the prospect of finally being done with Hillary — I got a little excited about the idea of Obama winning. But I had my distance.Shorter Ann Althouse*: It's all about meeeeeeee!
I was reading Carl Bernstein's "A Woman in Charge," and I identified with something Camille Paglia wrote:Paglia supports Barack Obama "because he is a rational, centered personality who speaks the language of idealism and national unity." This is similar to what Andrew Sullivan said — and, frankly, similar to some things I find myself thinking from time to time... when I'm not talking back to myself about what a disastrous delusion that might be.Shortly thereafter, that video provided emotional massage.
I was impressed by the characterization of Barack Obama as a "once-in-a-generation" possibility, and by the fact that it sounded like quite an understatement to me.
There are good reasons to support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and good reasons to oppose them. Both candidates are flawed, and both candidates are nevertheless far better than the average Democratic candidate over the past forty-odd years.
I think reactions to Obama and Clinton often say more about the person doing the reacting than the candidate themselves. If you see in Barack Obama the Second Coming of Kennedy, Jesus, and/or Lincoln, you're probably Andrew Sullivan or Ann Althouse -- someone desperately hoping that a lone figure will bring "unity" to our country, despite all evidence to the contrary. Similarly, if you see in Hillary Clinton the second coming of Richard Nixon, well, you're a credulous fool who's been suckered by Richard Mellon Scafie.
And of course, Barack Obama is not secretly a Republican, a Muslim, or a Christianist, and Hillary Clinton is not pure as the driven snow. Both candidates are, like all candidates, imperfect, but like most candidates, not decidedly so.
Althouse reminds us of why Hillary Clinton is behind in the race right now, and it's not all Clinton's fault. Tactics aside, Clinton has been fighting an uphill battle against the image of her as "Hillary Clinton." Just as "John McCain" is far more honest and forthright than John McCain, "Hillary Clinton" is far more sinister and evil than Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton, of course, is a moderate-to-liberal junior senator from New York. She's got about the record one would expect from a second-term senator; she's slowly climbing the ladder in the Senate, but has an oversized megaphone because she is married to a former president. She's run hard for the presidency, and if she loses, she can still hold her head high; indeed, if she loses gracefully, she still has a long and potentially prosperous run in the Senate ahead of her. Clinton has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Harry Reid as Majority Leader, a position that would suit her.
She isn't the Antichrist, and she isn't the harridan that she's portrayed as. She's just a powerful woman who's running for president, and throwing some sharp elbows along the way -- which, incidentally, is part of the game.
Yes, I poke fun at Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson and the other White Boys from the Clinton campaign, primarily because they've run a lousy campaign tactically, and because they've compounded their tactical errors by making transparently phony attacks on Obama for plagiarism, and because they've shot themselves in the foot by flatly stating that some votes count more than others, a foolish line of attack when there are still voters waiting to cast votes, many in the types of states Penn has written off.
Certainly, Clinton deserves some flack for hiring Penn, or for making the decision to skip eight states after Super Tuesday. But that's something Clinton has actually done, a decision she actually made. Those are reasons to oppose a candidate -- because of the things they do and say, because of the positions they take, because of what they support, and what they oppose.
Ann Althouse claims in her post that "I don't like politicians and I don't need to like them. I just try to pick someone who can do the job well enough. I keep my distance." And then she goes on to say that she really likes Obama and doesn't like Hillary and that's why Barack is getting her vote.
Opposing a candidate because you think he or she is icky? Because you buy the media spin on who they are? Supporting them because they seem nice? That's foolishness defined. Al Gore lost in 2000 because of media spin, and George W. Bush won.
There are good reasons to support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, and good reasons to oppose them. But if you're doing so based on what you think you're supposed to think about them, you're doing them, yourself, and your country a disservice. If you believe Obama is the superior candidate on issues, or that he is more electable, or that he has a better upside, by all means, vote for him. If you believe Clinton is the better candidate on issues, or that she's more experienced, or that she can better handle right-wing attacks, by all means, vote for her. But don't base your vote on how warm and fuzzy you feel. That got us George W. Bush eight years ago. I shudder to think what we could end up with this time.
*This is, incidentally, Shorter every single Ann Althouse post, ever.
