There is a disturbing meme in the Democratic air tonight. Democrats admit that on one level, they are disgusted with the unfairness and pettiness of Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama. And yet they profess an admiration for that very same quality in Clinton: Her sharp elbows might win her the general election. On the front page of TPM, a reader drew the analogy this way:
I'm reminded of people who hate lawyers because they're too contentious and sleazy and aggressive -- but when they get sued, they insist on getting the meanest bull dog of a lawyer they can find.
There is no doubt that Hillary is the meanest candidate that we Democrats can find this year. I'm troubled, however, by the logic that says that we should support her because she fights dirty. It seems to me perilously short-sighted. If Hillary can campaign without principles in the Democratic primary, then she can also govern without principles in the Presidency. This might not only be disastrous for our country, it might completely undo the Democratic revival that's currently sweeping the country.
This is a time for us to be better than the Republicans. This week, we looked just like them. Consistently, the motor of the gossip wars that distract from the debate of real issues has been Clinton's campaign. I don't think that's under dispute among the people who have been paying attention. We all know, and the Clintons know even better, that the whole "Reagan had ideas" issue is a complete red herring. We all know that Obama's "present" votes were the execution of a successful political tactic masterminded and organized by Planned Parenthood of Illinois, and that Barrack cares about women's rights enough to play from their playbook.
But somehow, we admire Hillary anyway for making a guy look bad for saying something obviously true, and for making a guy look like a prevaricator when he was defending a woman's right to choose with all guns blazing. The lawyer analogy is a good one: We admire the crew that got O. J. Simpson acquitted, just for pulling off something so patently unfair. After all, it was their job, and they did it very well.
So we say: Hillary the campaigner is also doing her job well: Her job, after all, is to win, and like a lawyer, she's entitled achieve that goal however she sees fit. Isn't she?
But there is a problem with this analogy: We're not choosing a campaign-winner in the Democratic primary. We're choosing our future president. We're choosing the face that will bear the standard of our country in the rest of the world. We're choosing the person who has to grab the reigns of power and yank them hard to the left, because far too many things are far off track in this country to allow us to continue on the same course. We need a person who can govern with a mandate and with a good will from the American people, someone who would inspire us to do better. We all know that Hillary isn't that person, that both Obama and Edwards would be far more likely to get this mandate and implement the necessary changes.
Despite this, we remain charmed by Hillary's ruthless commitment to victory at any cost, since we see her as someone who's trying to win one for us. And to some extent she is. But let's not confuse the fight that happens during electioneering with the fight that happens when a leader has to overpower entrenched interests in order to do the right thing. Despite her excellence in the former sort of fight, Hillary has a miserable record at doing the latter. The motor of her strong campaign consists of the entrenched old guard in our party. At this point, she couldn't do anything bold as president even if she wanted to. She owes too many bigwigs too many favors. But of course, the old guard are on her side precisely because they know that she doesn't really even want to shake things up too much. She wants to apply the old Clinton formula to a post-Clintonean time. Perhaps in the 90's we had the luxury debating the merits of mandating v-chips in our tv's. Those days of gravy are behind us. Obama and Edwards are leaders that understand we need new policies that suit the new reality. Can we say the same of Hillary?
Sure, we can hope that sometime between the election and the inauguration, she will see the light and discover some genuine principles, and realize that her decisions should aim only at what's good for the country. But let's face it: It would take a miracle to make Hillary see this light. Her votes for the war in Iraq and her support for the pretext for a war with Iran are an indication of the sort of thing Hillary does when it's her turn to govern. I have no shortage of hope, but even for me, hoping for a miracle seems like a luxury that I can't afford this year.