Be Gracious (Counterpoint)
Frequent contributor Mike Dyer weighs in on the Hillary/Grace debate.
My roommate and I fairly represent the divided Democratic Party: he's for Hillary, I'm for Obama; it's been that way for a good long while, and it's been contentious nearly the whole time. Lately, let'ssay in the last few weeks, I'd begun to notice a softening of his Hillary hardliner status as her campaign became more quixotic. He'd roll his eyes when she'd declare she's won the all the big states or was ahead in some labored tally of the popular vote. And he'd outright criticize her when she'd rhetorically step in it, like she did with her RFK or "hardworking Americans, white Americans" comments. He, like me, seemed to be ready for the primary to be over, and was warming up to the idea of Obama the Nominee. Then Hillary gave her speech last night. He loved it: "defiant!" I hated it: "divisive!" An argument ensued. So much for unity.
Yes, Obama supporters need to be gracious. So do Hillary supporters. But, more importantly, the candidates themselves need to be gracious right now. And for many Obama supporters last night, her speech was the furthest thing from it. Grace is genuinely leading your supporters to recognize the achievements of your rival, not diminishing his complete victory by ambiguously referring to his "achievement." Grace is beginning to try to unify a party and a country with an inclusive message. It is not delegitimizing the party's presumptive nominee by pushing the disingenuous-at-best argument about some version of the popular vote. Nor, given the context, is grace tailoring your speech only to your hard-line supporters by implying that you are the only one who "respects" their votes.
For many Obama supporters, it is fine that Hillary didn't concede; that's not what this is about. But she did lose. There are no more primaries and there are no more votes to be had. She lost a legitimate contest. And, for the sake of the party, she needs to be gracious enough to act in a way that recognizes that, even if she's not ready to drop out yet. Giving a stump speech last night wasn't a step in the right direction. My sense is that the exchange with my roommate last night is being played out on a much larger scale today, and that is not good for Democrats. And it's hard to say that it's anyone's fault but Hillary's.
9 comments:
My issues with Hillary were two.
The first being that she often acted like what she was, Standard Politics, Standard both side answers, while trying to present herself as new and fresh.
First, just because someone falls into the Old School category doesn't mean they are wrong. BE who you are, and show us why who you are is good and works.
Second, the whole "I'll support any results that give me a win, while ignoring the same for anyone else" She often tried to have her cake and pie. If it wasn't popular vote, it was number of delegates, if it wasn't delegates, it was popular vote that should matter.
Florida and Michigan should count, even though it goes against my parties rules. Because it's taking the voice away from the people.
It's your party, you are in the thick of it, you should know how it works inside and out, and if you want the voice of the people to be heard, you better dam well better make sure that your party doesn't have any rules that could do that. And certainly before you are running for President, not after the fact.
And personally, I don't like it when ANYONE, decides that certain rules should be followed when it works to their advantage.
All the rules, all the time.
(I'm going to respond to Ben's questions via this post because I think it is more relevant.)
Essentially, I heard Clinton's non-concession speech and thought, "Wow, she really IS driving home the point that she won the popular vote/got more swing states; Obama folk aren't going to like that." Then, as I kept listening, and she said something like, "People ask me , 'What do you WANT?'" and she went on to list everything she has wanted, and it made me realize - this woman stayed in it for a reason, in fact, for a lot of reasons. Over the past four months people have been quick to disregard politics as a one-or-the-other game, as if the chosen candidate doesn't really matter. I think Hillary knew very specifically why she thought she would be the best president, and truly believed it was worth the battle. Last night she reminded everyone of that. She didn't just stick it out to stick it out; she stuck it out because she really believed in some things.
I think last night she knew that her supporters weren't just going to put down the Hillary posters and march over to the Obama rally, so she used that momentum to tell them, "This is what I wanted - this is what YOU and many, many people wanted. No matter what, remember that." If she had said, "Okay, I'm stepping down, now," that would have distracted from her message.
Essentially, Hillary wants universal health care and wants it bad; and I hope all of the people who fought so hard for her remember that as we go to the ballot box over the next four and a half years. I also hope Obama can pull it off. (Er else I'm gonna call him a dipshit!)
Ok, Stephanie. I can go with that. In keeping with what she wants, I think we should talk about health care a bit on this site. What were her real differences with Obama as far as her signature issue? One would think that they were significant enough for her to make those differences a sticking point during the primary. Most people are confused about the differences in their plans and what "universal healthcare" even means, and what are the potential problems. I'm one of those confused people.
I will work on something. I'd bet readers would be interested in that conversation.
I agree with Stephanie. Hillary has shown that she doesn't walk away from a fight for what she wants. Even when she's pretty much lost.
While Barack is the nominee, he has a slim majority. That needs to be recognized. Winning the nomination by a couple of points is not a mandate. Many of us out there do not feel Hillary should walk away.
I say let her secure a few policies with Barack. Maybe get the VP spot(longshot). Whatever. I believe she deserves that much due to the number of votes she did receive.
I do hope universal healthcare is what she's securing mainly b/c Barack's policy is far from it.
How is is policy "far" from it? This is just false. McCain's policy is far from it. Obama's is close to the same. At least justify your characterization.
Obama's policy is far from it cause the word "universal" means universal...it means EVERYONE is covered. His plan leaves out 15 million people and even his own campaign admits it. So Princess Dragon's comments aren't "false," they are the truth and I hope Hillary keeps pushing for universal health care because she's been the only candidate between the two of them who has had the backbone to continue fighting for a health plan that covers everyone, no exceptions.
I think calling the difference between obtaining universal healthcare via mandates or via lowering costs so that it's affordable a "far" difference is an overstatement. I guess reasonable people can disagree on that. I would note that no one has done more for the fight for universal healthcare than Ted Kennedy, and he saw fit to endorse Obama over Hillary. I'll take Ted Kennedy's lead on healthcare any day.
Now, if you really want something that's far from universal, look up John McCain's plan.
this post cites experts and draws the conclusion that the difference between the two healthcare plans is negligible:
not far apart
on the other hand:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html
sure, only fine print may look different but i think the crux of the matter/Obama problem can be found in the quote below:
"Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll."
Post a Comment