Two months ago I wrote a piece for Huffington Post in which I carefully and delicately expressed my growing desire to see Barack Obama win the Democratic party's nomination for president. The main reason I outlined in that piece was my admiration for Obama's call to action from the American public, and his insistence that meaningful change in American government would only come as a result of vigilant oversight of the government by American citizens. I want a leader who insists that I, and my fellow citizens, tell him what to do, I've thought upon listening to him. I want a leader who tells me point blank that the only way I'm going to get my money's worth from him, or from anyone else, is if I watch his every move and don't let him get away with anything. That's what has been missing during our recent national nightmare. It's not George Bush's fault that the vast majority of American citizens have been complacent while he's plundered our wealth and destroyed international goodwill toward us. I don't care anymore whether he rightfully won or lost an election by a few thousand votes. He said what he was going to do, and millions of people voted for him anyway. Twice.
I also commented on what I saw as Barack Obama's growing strength throughout the campaign to that point, as compared to Hillary Clinton's increased unraveling. I expressed admiration for what I saw as the sincerity of his positions. Since then, of course, we've seen more than one switch of positions. Clinton became energized as she successfully preyed upon the fears of no small number of people. Even in her recent disappointing outings, she has exposed rifts that could, conceivably, make it difficult for Barack Obama to succeed in winning the White House.
But what else has she accomplished with her message? Anything? Because if she was accomplishing anything other than exposing the potential weaknesses of another viable Democratic candidate, then I could possibly be on board with her argument about her continuing candidacy being a "positive" thing. But I've searched, and I don't see the upside. At least not to anyone but her.
The problem with Clinton's recent comments and campaign techniques is not just that they're divisive and destructive, as others have already pointed out. It's not just that they're Rovian, and reminiscent of earlier Republican smears against other Democratic candidates. It's that they're all of those things, as well as pointless. They serve no purpose other than to tear down a competitor. They demonstrate nothing about Clinton's superiority, or Obama's inability to be an effective leader in comparison, where he to be elected. They illuminate no useful qualities about her. They are useless, as well as destructive. That's the crime.
I have heard the argument that Clinton is demonstrating toughness, fortitude, and even a desirable ruthlessness, with these tactics, and that these are qualities we want in a chief executive and commander in chief. I'd agree they're qualities I'd want such a person to have, and to be able to employ judiciously. But even if we postulate, for the sake of argument, that she's shown an ability to use them judiciously (which I'm not willing to postulate for any other reason) the knocks she's offered about Obama and his supposed shortcomings, the sly and only slightly subtle race-baiting, don't demonstrate any impressive or useful combativeness to me. They demonstrate only one thing: skill in manipulating unsophisticated voters, and a ruthless willingness to do so. Nothing more. Does that translate into a ruthlessness that would be useful in outmaneuvering a Putin or Chavez, or their equivalent? The equivalent of a wily Saddam Hussein? Or, hell...maybe someone superior, who's yet to present him or herself. I don't think so. They're simplistic demonstrations of bravado, effective with broad segments of society, and I believe we seen quite enough of that for some time to come.
Hillary Clinton's continuing barrage of comments about Barack Obama's supposed unelectability, inexperience, and inferiority do nothing but serve her own ambition. They might prove she's a more ruthless candidate, but they indicate nothing positive about her ability to thrive were she chosen to serve. In fact, I'd propose the opposite. The strengths she's demonstrating, and her willingness to deploy them, are exactly the same strengths that have allowed the current administration to wage an illegal war under false pretenses, to imprison uncharged individuals without any due process or Habeas Corpus protection, to roll back civil rights and privacy protections, to put innumerable areas of our military and social services into the hands of corporate entities (that have been allowed to operate without adequate oversight and with near absolute impunity), and even to employ corporate entities to assist the government in illegally spying on its citizens. Those are the areas where the ability to ruthlessly manipulate an unsophisticated citizenry can really work wonders. Not in building back a healthy economy, not in revitalizing American interests by rebuilding trust overseas, and not in preserving the fierce intimidation of American military might by withholding its application unless absolutely necessary, and only when success is assured. Those accomplishments require a different skill set. They require honor, trustworthiness, and a willingness to take initially unpopular positions for the betterment of the nation (read "no gas tax holiday"). I'm not saying Obama gets perfect scores on every one of those counts. I'm not a blind fool (though many seem to feel anyone who supports him must be). It's just that, when I look at my scorecard, he's beating the hell out of her on the totality of those important counts. He's beating her hands down.
Would I like Hillary Clinton in my corner in a knife fight? Sure, why not? Because in a knife fight, nothing matters after the one battle is won. Only one party walks away. Would I want her on my side if I wanted was to win a campaign? Maybe. Only if it didn't matter what happened after the election. Because her tactics for victory insure defeat in governance. The toughness she's demonstrated is designed to dupe, not for lasting dominance. The very same things that have allowed her to nearly prevail, are the things that indicate to me she's failed the test. She's not the leader I want, or the one we need. My hope now is that her potent and skillful destructiveness doesn't hobble the chances of someone whose toughness might not be as well suited to the hand-to-hand combat of a long and often deceptive campaign, but whose abilities to inspire, to lead, to fight judiciously and effectively, to transcend, and to win, are superior to hers.
If you agree with my views and think we're like-minded enough for your enjoyment, or hate everything I've said but think I've said it cleverly, or simply want to do me a favor and an honor, my new book is in stores now: IT'S ONLY TEMPORARY: THE GOOD NEWS AND THE BAD NEWS OF BEING ALIVE. Info and entertainment is available, free of charge, at evanhandler.com.