I wish I had a dollar for every time a fellow Kossack has reviled those of us who say we will not or cannot or might not vote for Clinton in the GE if she does manage to win the nomination.
The essence of the criticism is that even Clinton will be better than McSame on matters of Iraq, SCOTUS, etc. All very true -- as far as it goes. But for some of us, it goes a little farther than that:
What if you really, really, really want to end the war and/or ensure pro-choice appointments to the Supreme Court, but you want to end toxic politics, dishonest and lobbyist-driven governance, and arrogant, unprincipled leadership even more?
Although I've publicly said I will never vote for Hillary, the truth at this moment is that I honestly don't know what I would do. With some combination of vomiting, rubber gloves, nose-pinching and bleach, I might be able to force myself to vote for her.
But if I couldn't, it would not be because of peevishness or failure to realize what's at stake. It would be because I think what's at stake for the long-term governance of our nation is more important than the other things that are at stake.
As I wrote in a recent diary, the moment of my political awakening came shortly after my 15th birthday, the day I heard John Dean tell the Senate Watergate Committee that Nixon had lied to us and had engaged in a cover-up of criminal behavior.
I'm not sure which direction the causation runs, but since that day, moral character has been the single most important criterion for me in choosing a President. By "moral character," I don't mean the issues that are the stuff of right-wing wet dreams -- sexuality, youthful use/abuse/inhalation of illegal mind-altering substances, foul language (boy that Nixon had a vile mouth on him, didn't he? Oh well, so do I).
I am speaking, rather, of those aspects of character that determine how one approaches governing and leading a nation. Things like:
INTEGRITY -- a fundamental consonance between what one claims to be or believe, and one's actions (even when no one is looking)
RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE one represents -- this would include, for instance, the recognition that we have brains and memories (and YouTube); a healthy respect for the outcomes of the democratic process; and reluctance to manipulate or game that process;
A passion for PEACEMAKING AND CONSENSUS-BUILDING -- whether in using the bully pulpit to address divisive national issues, reaching out to members of both parties and representatives of multiple constituencies to hammer out consensus plans on the issues, or in diplomatic interactions with the other members of our very volatile world community
A strong bias in favor of HONESTY, TRANSPARENCY AND FULL DISCLOSURE -- I am not so naive as to believe it is possible, or even advisable, for us to have a President in the White House who will never lie to us. But I do want someone in there whose default position is to speak the truth deliberately, intentionally, and powerfully, not someone for whom truth is really just one very minor, and seldom dispositive, consideration in choosing the words he or she will speak on any given subject.
A "SERVANT LEADER" MENTALITY -- one who really and truly wants power not for its own sake but for the opportunities it provides to make a positive difference in the world -- and who recognizes the corrupting influence of power, and therefore takes affirmative steps to ensure that he or she retains a healthy level of humility in exercising that power (for example, by choosing Cabinet members who will openly challenge one's assumptions and conclusions)
A sensibiity rooted in STEWARDSHIP, NOT ENTITLEMENT -- the belief that one's own rights and desires do not carry any more weight than those of the most obscure and powerless individual in our society, whether now or in future generations. This would manifest itself, for instance, in a practice of frugality in the use and care of our natural resources and our national treasury.
Using this list as a scorecard for the two Dem candidates, it becomes clear that there really is no comparison. All of you know as much about the history of this campaign as I do, and I don't need to belabor my thesis by giving a point-by-point breakdown of where each event of the past six months falls within this framework. But I would like to discuss just a couple of current items -- not only to illustrate the depth of the difference between the two candidates, but to explain why I believe that these criteria may be more important than the candidates' positions on even such important issues as Iraq and choice.
Item 1 -- The oil crisis: Along with McSame, Clinton advocates a Gas Tax Holiday. It is difficult to think of a more blatant example of a leadership style opposed to the one I am seeking. This proposal exemplifies dishonesty with the electorate, lack of respect for our intelligence, and poor stewardship of our economic and energy resources. It panders to our basest instincts, rather than calling on us to work together to really solve our problems.
What does Obama offer instead? In addition to the points of his formal plan, today's headlines provide us with a truly astounding example of who this man is as a leader. PLEASE, if you have not already done so, read and rec samizdat's EXCELLENT diary entitled Now that's the way to lead while campaigning. While Clinton is busy pandering for votes, Obama is engaging in behind-the-scenes diplomacy with Nigerian rebels whose attacks on their country's oil industry are just one of many factors contributing to problems with the world's oil supply. Which kind of President do YOU want in the White House?
Item 2 - Thomas L. Friedman's Op-Ed in today's NYT: Who Will Tell the People? Friedman discusses the crumbling and shabby infrastructure ouf our nation, giving examples that make it clear we are regressing in comparison with the rest of the world, on a trajectory toward obscurity and insignificance. He then discusses the implications of this on the election. I can't say it better than Friedman does:
Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is "toughening up" Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.
Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. . . .
The notion that the idealism [Obama] has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. "Of course, hope alone is not enough," says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, "but it’s not trivial. . . ."
It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others.
These are the kinds of big questions that I believe matter most when we are talking about what we need in the White House. More than the question about any individual war, such as Iraq, or any specific aspect of Supreme Court appointments, I want a President who has the virtues of character in leadership that I have listed above. Because a President who approaches leadership from that vantage point will not take us into stupid, immoral wars in the future, and will help us find national solutions to the abortion question that will overshadow the effect of Supreme Court appointments, and will lead this country back to "goodness" in ways that we, sitting here today, cannot even visualize.
So yes, Iraq is important. But tranforming the diplomatic role of the US in the world community, and re-defining the geopolitical structure to minimize world conflict on a global scale -- that's MORE important.
And yes, appointing Justices who will not overturn Roe v. Wade is important. But it is more important to solve the many problems that cause women to see abortion as their best option -- from providing young women in our inner cities with hope and self-esteem to reversing the economic conditions that cause married couples to feel that they cannot bring another life into this world.
What kind of President do YOU believe we need?
My biggest fear about the possibility of Clinton's somehow winning the nomination is that by electing her President, Democrats would be saying, "We really didn't mean it when we said that we are hungering for a new kind of transformational leadership in our country and in our world. Same-old same-old is just fine by us, as long as it's someone who will use the old politics to enact OUR policies."
If that happens, it would represent trading short-term gains for the possibility of real long-term changes in how this country operates and what role it plays in the world. I believe that would be a tragedy of the highest order.
If McCain is elected because Democrats leave the top of the ticket blank in November or write in Obama, we would still be sending a principled message that we will no longer settle for the old ways. We could blunt the most heinous effects of his presence in the White House by electing Dems to Congress and ramping up our activism over the next four years.
And in 2012, when he is too old to run again, we can try again to get a leader in the White House who can really make a difference. I don't know if Obama would be willing to try again. But he has laid out the blueprint, and we can make it clear that we will settle for no one who is not willing to follow that blueprint.
What kind of President do YOU believe we need?
