The critical difference that Obama will make
Kari Chisholm
Last week, in a post about Jeff Merkley and the Oregon for Edwards committee endorsing Barack Obama for President, I mentioned that I'd tell you more about my own decision process.
It was a tough one. I'm in politics because I was inspired by Bill Clinton - and I've always liked Hillary Clinton. I think she's a tough partisan fighter, her health care plan is strong, and she always worked hard on issues that I care about.
But elections aren't about the past. They're about the future.
The reason I'm supporting Barack Obama now (for whatever that's worth) is his ability to win support in places that typically don't do well for Democrats. It's been noted many times by others that he's picked up win after win in red states.
I'm confident that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (or just about any of the other long-since-gone candidates) will win the White House in November. But I'm worried that the strong reaction against Hillary Clinton (which is largely not her fault) will cause down-ballot losses in tough purple and red congressional districts and legislative districts around the country. If Hillary's on the ballot, I fear, right-wing conservatives will be mobilized to turn out in droves - dooming many of our best candidates in tough districts to defeat.
By contrast, Barack Obama doesn't energize the right-wing base in the same way. And it means that in tough districts, he'll be able to actively support Democratic candidates.
The best example of that right now comes from Illinois. One of my clients, a nuclear scientist named Bill Foster is running for Congress. In a special election this Saturday, Democrats have the first opportunity of 2008 to flip a Republican congressional seat. And not just any congressional seat - it's the seat currently held by former GOP Speaker Denny Hastert.
This morning, the Foster campaign released a new TV spot - featuring Barack Obama personally making the case why voters in the 14th ought to elect Bill Foster to Congress.
Barack Obama's support in this tough district will likely make the difference on Saturday. We'll flip a red seat and start the tidal wave of blue for 2008. And that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama.
(And incidentally, if you're an Obama supporter worrying about superdelegates - consider this: If Bill Foster wins on Saturday, he'll immediately be sworn in as a member of Congress, and he'll immediately become one more superdelegate for Obama. Donate here to keep the Obama ad on the air in Chicago.)
[Full disclosure: My firm hosts the website for Bill Foster for Congress. I speak only for myself.]
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:21 a.m.
Mar 4, '08
Obama supporters should have no fear about "super"-delegates. Those that didn't support her when she was the overwhelming favorite aren't going to go against the wishes of the Democratic electorate when she comes up short of pledged delegates at the convention. Period.
And please people, remember who these unpledged delegates really are. They're the "Dianiacs" who specifically got elected in the party to clean it of institutional sclerosis and cozy connections with self-dealing lobbyists and campaign consultants. They're the last people on earth to put dynasty over principal.
10:22 a.m.
Mar 4, '08
Ugh. Make that "Deaniacs".
Mar 4, '08
Well today is judgement day "super tuesday 2"- If Hillary wins OH and TX the road to the nomination will take an interesting turn. Stranger things have happened! Either way, we will make history in November 2008. I am still rooting for Hillary.
Mar 4, '08
All are welcome.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
11:10 a.m.
Mar 4, '08
i would have agreed a month ago. but her desperation to win has led her to get increasingly nasty, increasingly ugly. as a blogger on Huff Post pointed out, when asked on 60 Minutes if she thought Obama was a Muslim (and why Steve Kroft even asked that is beyond me), she replied "No....As far as I know." she can't just say "No" based on the fact that he is not a Muslim? has to leave the little seed of doubt out there, a la Mark Penn's "cocaine" crack.
if she wins the nomination, the only thing i'll do for her is put an X by her name in November. no money, no good words beyond "Well, she's better than McCain." i have zero respect for her, and that's too bad because i'm far from alone.
Mar 4, '08
The fact that Clinton has the support of cross-over R's in Texas based on presumed vulnerability to McCain is significant. I sincerely hope it back fires.
Mar 4, '08
I'll tell you one thing. When we think about a charismatic Obama on the debate platform with a dottering, poorly spoken McCain we are afraid. We are very afraid.
11:57 a.m.
Mar 4, '08
I agree with the assesment that Hillary has, lately, caused a lot of folks to turn to Obama. Everytime she pursues the politics of division, she reminds me why I am looking forward to working my fingers to bone for Obama. I think that she will do anything, including playing the race card, to win this election. When the Farrakhan issue came up in the debate, I cringed over the idea of returning to the politics of semantics (what the meaning of is, is -- denounce vs. reject). I also wholeheartedly agree with Kari that this election is about the future....she and Bill had the White House for 8 years and the fundamental tone of politics didn't change (yes, I said she and Bill because she is clinging so tightly to the Clinton years, taking credit for so much of what happened that was good.)
A few months ago, I didn't really care who won, and I went back and forth over who I was going to support. As a former staff person of NOW, I also felt that I should be loyal to who they endorsed. Now, after watching Hillary, I just can't quell my enthusiasm for Obama.
Mar 4, '08
What ought to cause spine tingling among the Rethugs vs Obama is the 100 year war proposed by their candidate. Hillary's one time support of the Bush fiasco, not so daunting a challenge, eh?
12:22 p.m.
Mar 4, '08
I was a diehard Edwards supporter and I have been on the fence since he dropped out.
I have a certain vestigial affection for Hillary, and even feel a bit of a connection to her (as a female lawyer in my 50s with a degree from Yale), but every time she opens her mouth lately I feel she is pushing me toward Obama.
OTOH, I was invited to an Obama house party on Sunday and I went. But when I got there I found it was all about calling voters in Texas to remind them to vote and caucus for Obama, and I just couldn't take up my phone and call against her. Not yet.
Mar 4, '08
...the strong reaction against Hillary Clinton (which is largely not her fault)...
Her votes for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman and a few others cost her and nobody is to blame but Hillary.
12:47 p.m.
Mar 4, '08
I'm not convinced that Obama's ability to get Republicans to cross party lines to sabotage Hillary equates with any real red-state success for Obama in November.
Particularly if he loses places like New Jersey.
The myth-busting is just beginning, Kari. I sense that as Obama is to McGovern, McCain is to Nixon. Unfortunately it's going the be the 1972 landslide Nixon, not the 1974 watergate Nixon whom young Hillary Rodham helped bring down.
There's still time to rally behind Hillary - but not much!
1:02 p.m.
Mar 4, '08
"I'm not convinced that Obama's ability to get Republicans to cross party lines to sabotage Hillary"
That's a pretty bold statement. I've heard many Republicans cross party lines because they LIKE THE GUY, and don't like their own options. That's quite a persecution complex you have. Could it simply be that the polls are correct, and about half the country just doesn't like Hillary Clinton for one reason or another? If there's any myth-busting to do regarding Obama, there is none regarding Hillary: she is a polarizing figure who is currently trailing McCain in general election matchups in many states.
A recurring tip: it's not all about Hillary Clinton, despite the attempt to make every action appear reflective of her presence in the race somehow. She would be wise to take that advice, herself.
Mar 4, '08
Pew findings interesting:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254
looks like obama would lose 25% of clinton supporters in the general, if clinton wins the nomination it looks like she would lose 10% of his supporters - among democrats. But this is today, no telling what they would actually do it november. Plus Obama gets more indendepent support. Then again, democrats are going to be excited to vote this year. I just think it's interesting.
1:18 p.m.
Mar 4, '08
"A recurring tip: it's not all about Hillary Clinton..."
That's recurring slander, torrodjoe. What you're doing here is, precisely, negative character-attack politics. Your statement indicates some incredibly vanity on the party of Hillary. Guess what? There are millions and millions of Hillary supporters. We love her because we think she's not about her own vanity or ambition; her humility and work ethic in the Senate say to us that it's about America, not her. We see in her a better future for our nation, an inspiration for our daughters, and a more experienced and competent leader in our government.
You might disagree, but your habitual vilification of Hillary will not win us over to embrace your chosen power-fantasy.
1:40 p.m.
Mar 4, '08
Then you need to start paying attention to the facts, I'd think. Insulting 40 states as insignificant to her (for just one example), doesn't suggest humility or anything other than reckless ambition for her own career. She may well be a great person as a human being, but she is hot death and bad news as a candidate and a politician.
Mar 4, '08
Unfortunately it's going the be the 1972 landslide Nixon, not the 1974 watergate Nixon whom young Hillary Rodham helped bring down.
Thank you for this input that provided me with information about Nixon and Watergate that I was not aware of. I knew about Sam Irvin, Barry Goldwater, Howard Baker, John Dean and others contributing to the forced resignation of Nixon, but I didn't know that Hillary Rodham was a key player. It just goes to show we're never too old to learn. It's odd how I missed that young, 27-year-old woman among all those old white men. You'd think the media would have shone the spotlight on her at that time.
Mar 4, '08
Chris-
I understand that you may be a Hillary supporter. Personally, I'm still a bit on the fence. But I do want to attest that Republican fence-crossing for Obama is real, and it's not a cynical anti-Hillary attempt to support McCain.
My uncle has, for my entire life, been a Republican. Yet this February, he caucused in Kansas with the Democrats, so he could vote for Obama. It completely took me by surprise when he told me, but I don't think he is an outlier in any way. I think there are a lot of people, all over this country, from both perties, who think that Obama may be our country's best change for change right now -- because it certainly appears that business-as-usual is no longer good enough. They may be right, they may be wrong, but they truly feel that way. Not every Republican is a racist who will vote against Obama because of the color of his skin. And not every Republican is an idealogue who will support their party no matter who the nominee or the reason. Many Republicans came to their party affiliation by a conscious choice, and they can just as easily make a conscious choice to leave that affiliation behind and vote for Obama. And they are choosing to do just that.
Weird, isn't it? I mean, truly -- not ironically. We are living in interesting times, indeed.
5:07 p.m.
Mar 4, '08
Her votes for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman and a few others cost her and nobody is to blame but Hillary.
Yes, that's true. And I think those disagreements are legit.
But I was mostly referring to the bizarre hatred of her from the right-wingers over the last 16 years. You know, all those vast-right-wing-conspiracy folks.
Mar 4, '08
I've been working on an analysis of the editorials the three main candidates have had published between August and November 2007 in Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations. It is an easy internet search, just enter the candidate's last name and "foreign affairs" to find the articles. Author Greg Palast once told me that he considers the CFR to be the most powerful think tank in the U.S. I would agree. Professor Carol Quigly, Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University, traced the origin of the CFR back to the original Round Table Group in the U.K. in his masterpiece, "Tragedy and Hope."
Having established the importance of the Foreign Affairs and the CFR, let the reader of these comments weigh the importance of each candidate's foreign policy vision in its pages. Both appear to be ardent globalists, not wishing to slow the rush toward greater global political and economic integration, despite the fact that it has been more detrimental to the American middle class than it has been favorable.
The basic difference I see between Hillary and Obama is that Hillary is commited to a Middle East centric foreign policy. Whereas McCain's commentary is bellicose and belligerent, in keeping with the current Bush Admin, Hillary makes a strong appeal for greater diplomacy even with perceived enemies like Iran. However, Hillary makes it clear ALL options are on the table (preemptive nuclear war being one of "all options") while Barak remains vague. Most people realize Obama has enlisted Zbigniew Brezinski, former Carter Cabinet member and original president of the powerful Trilateral Commission think tank, as his foreign policy advisor. Not coincidentally, Obama's foreign policy rhetoric resembles that of "Zbig."
It seems to me that the current choice between Clinton and Obama is one largely one of Middle East focused foreign policy or a return to Cold War foreign policy that focuses on the few super powers and their interrelationships.
Mar 4, '08
But I was mostly referring to the bizarre hatred of her from the right-wingers over the last 16 years. You know, all those vast-right-wing-conspiracy folks.
Hillary can thank Slick Willy for some of that because he gave the right wing some legitimate reasons to attack him and by extension Hillary. Many of their attacks were not justified, but those that were helped create the illusion of legitimacy and allow them to get away with some attacks they shouldn't have gotten away with. I was reminded today of the massacre at Waco for which Bill Clinton should be charged. These and several other incidents that remain in the memories of people with above average historical recall have added to (Bill and Hillary) Clinton fatigue.
Mar 4, '08
Not coincidentally, Obama's foreign policy rhetoric resembles that of "Zbig."
I developed considerable antipathy towards Brzezinski because of his record in the Carter Administration; however, I was very surprised and pleased to note that he is talking sense on the Middle East and recognizes the importance of settling the metastasizing horror in Isreal/Palestine. There is hope that he can persuade Obama to become an honest broker and help him to become one.
6:39 p.m.
Mar 4, '08
I'm not sure that we'll see as many Republicans crossing over in Texas to throw the race off. In many areas of Texas there are other important primary races on the ballot (such as a Congressional seat). I know in my home town there is unlikely to be as much of this going on as usual because they have a battle over who is going to take on Nick Lampson this fall.
Cross over happens in years where Republicans don't really have any important primary battles on their own ballot, so they try to throw off the Democrats' primary races. I saw it a lot when I lived there. Since they don't have PCPs or party registration, you can be a voting member of your local party and vote with the opposite party in the primary.
Mar 4, '08
HILLARY HAS BEEN PROJECTED AS THE WINNER IN OHIO. She is leading 50-49 in TX... YEAH!
Mar 4, '08
HILLARY HAS BEEN PROJECTED AS THE WINNER IN OHIO. She is leading 50-49 in TX... YEAH!
<h2>Yeah. And that means that more than half of the people in Ohio and Rhode Island and about half the people in Texas don't care that Hillary reneged on her oath to defend the Constitution, betrayed it and signed Bush's blank check to wage an illegal war on Iraq that has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and essentially said, "Screw you" to the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions. What law? Who cares about laws and treaties? Kind of makes you proud, doesn't it?</h2>