Why Hil

I suppose I should explain why I went Hillary. Again, I should have done this before that big ol' Tuesday. Oh well, better late than never? This may not be terribly well organized. My reasons are cumulative. I also want to hear your reasons for choosing. Write them in the comments or e-mail me.

First of all: Hillary is to the left of Obama. This comes as a surprise to most Obama supporters, but when you get into the grit of the policies its true. In addition, Obama discusses the need to work together across party lines. This means as President he would be more willing to compromise an already centrist position. In truth, if you take away the charisma and Iraq then as a politician Obama closely resembles Joe Lieberman. I don't want a President like that.

There is another reason I will mention Lieberman. I remember when Obama had his keynote address at the 2004 DNC. It blew me away! I was so so excited and started envisioning Obama in 2012 or 2016. I went out and read his first book and fell in love with him, more or less. And then I started following his career in the Senate. What a disappointment...

He played it so safe! He wasn't the progressive ideal I envisioned him to be. He kept quiet for the most part and worked a bit on congressional ethics issues. He did nothing to set himself apart except for one thing: Joe Lieberman became his mentor. Yup. The two worked closely together for years and Obama was a strong supporter of his in the 2006 Senatorial campaign that saw Joe run as an independent versus a progressive left movement to oust him.

It is understandable when many folks argue that there are no significant differences in the policies of Hillary and Obama. But thats not entirely true. There are differences and I support HRC in most of them.

The most significant difference that is sited is in health care. Obama's health care plan would cover about 20 million less people that Hillary's. If that is not significant than I don't know what is. Hillary's ensures everyone is covered. It is not truly a universal single payer system that I'd like to see, but it does provide for universal coverage.

There are other differences as well. Education is incredibly important to me and a huge issue for me is getting rid of No Child Left Behind. NCLB is one of the most poorly crafted pieces of legislation I've ever seen. It is an absolutely terrible law, even if it is "fully funded." I don't agree with its goals or methods. I want it off the damn books. Hillary agrees. Obama does not.

Another issue I care deeply about is immigration reform. Last year at Jane Addams School I did some work on the USCIS fee changes. Obama was co-author of a bill to change the structuring of the fee increases. This was incredibly important to me and was the most important thing he did as Senator, in my eyes. However, Hillary goes further by supporting the DREAM Act. For the future of immigrants and accepting immigrants into our society as equals, the DREAM Act is a far more important piece of legislation.

I care deeply about human rights, and not just in matters of foreign policy but in how we live in the United States. I've never heard Obama mention HR and he does not mention it in his FP platform. Clinton doesn't note it on her website either, but in the mid-90s she gave that incredible and important speech in China about women's rights being human rights. It was big.

In all of the above issues that are very imporant to me Hillary is to the left of Obama.

Obama speaks significantly about service, and I really like how it is a central piece of his campaign. He would increase the size of Americorps, Peacecorps, and like organizations. Yet there is a problem here: currently not all Americorps positions can be filled. This is primarily because the positions don't pay enough. Increasingly it is only middle and upper class individuals can participate in these programs, thereby reinforcing twisted notions of charitable volunteerism rather than folks working together to solve their collective problems. Clinton provides the material opportunity for all to participate in Americorps by doubling the size of the college scholarship.

There is one significant matter that Obama speaks of that I haven't heard Clinton on as much. That is poverty (and naming it as such), especially combatting concentrated poverty. Yet Clinton's plans on health care and education will have a more significant impact on the daily life and future of families living with poverty.

With this issue, Obama's appears more to the Left but when you closely examine the overall thrust of their policies and would they would impact American life, it is clear that Hillary Clinton's policies are more progressive and lefty.

There is an elephant in the room. Iraq.

Now, I don't have the solution to Iraq. You'd have to ask the Iraqi people that, and I haven't spoken to many Iraqis (though I have spoken with some). I've never supported the war in Iraq, just as Obama has not and unlike Hillary. When I look at their two plans on the future in Iraq, the only significant difference I see is that Hillary would work with the UN. This is something I have been advocating for several years.

There are other significant pieces that are central to both campaigns: the movement for Obama, political culture, and Hillary's experience.

I understand and support the excitement for Obama. It is an excitement that I have felt, and then lost when I saw through the rhetoric to the practice and policies. This is the first time that many folks, especially young adults, have felt excited and passionate for politics. It is a powerful feeling to be a part of a movement. I respect that. Yet I am surprised when those inside a movement which calls for unity, dialogue, and reaching across party lines cannot understand why I would not agree with their choice for the Democratic nomination and would choose rather to attack my choice rather than learn why I would make it. I would ask: What is the movement for? If it is only a movement for one person, than it is meaningless.

Visions of change are everywhere. Yet, what is the change? I live change everyday in my work and approach to the world, this is the true way to change society. Obama is one person, the problems in our society are much deeper than that. There are structural issues that need be changed that would require most of society, both parties and some constitutional amendments. Obama as president would not revolutionize our way of doing politics, indeed the election of any one person is not enough. I support the creation of a consensus based democratic culture, it is a culture that exists in Scandinavia and I find it refreshing and incredible. Yet the reason it exists here is not because of one politician, it is because it is built into the structure of politics here. This is not the case in the the structure of American politics. Until this structure is changed, we are limited in our capacity to build consensus politics.

I will admit the above section is the weakest of my arguments. After all, no one gets exited about Hillary and changing society in the way they do for Obama. He motivates people in an incredible way. It is just that his vision doesn't do it for me.

However, I believe Hillary's pragmatic approach to doing politics within the American system would do more to positively change the everyday living conditions of Americans. I imagine Obama would more readily jettison his proposals in order to reach an agreement. I need someone to stand up and fight for change, and it is the only way change has been achieved in the United States. Hillary has an incredibly record of work and concrete achievements, much more so than Obama. I cannot disregard this proven record of experience.

There are charges of cronyism within the Clinton camp. It is likely that many of the folks that were part of the 1990's Bill Clinton team would be back again. Personally, I only hope this happens. The Bill Clinton Administration is the second greatest of the 20th century, behind only FDR's. We would all be better off if a good chunk of that group came back again. I'll admit two mistakes of that era: the 1995 welfare reform was terrible for working families and NAFTA should have included provisions for protection of the environment, labour rights, and re-education programs. As for welfare reform, it can be argued that we should be thankful the reform wasn't worse than it was considering a strongly Republican Congress. The NAFTA concerns largely came into the national consciousness post-NAFTA, so perhaps we shouldn't be too critical for it not being included then.

Hillary's team, including these 90s holdovers, have the experience and power to deal with the incredible challenges of society today. Iraq is fucked. Our economy is not as strong or healthy as it could be, and there is increasing inequality. Don't even get me started on environmental challenges. I want nose-to-the-grindstone to get these things taken care of, and it will not be pretty it will be ugly. But I trust an HRC admin to achieve more that I can support than an Obama admin.

Part of this is due to his lack of experience. And yes, he does lack experience. The only things he has run (that I am aware of) have been the Harvard Law Review, a small community organizing operation in Chicago, and a congressional ethics committee. He lacks significant national and international political experience, and I don't know if he can handle (or more significantly HOW he would handle) today's challenges. I always imagined him running in 2012 or 2016 once he was more seasoned.

It is argued that JFK also lacked experience. This isn't true to the same extent as Obama. Indeed, JFK had been a leading figure in congress for over a decade and grew up in politics. I would also note, that I am not inspired by JFK's presidency as thus comparisons to him do not impress me. JFK fucked up with the Bay of Pigs, he started the war in Vietnam, and didn't do anything for civil rights (unlike his brother). The only thing he did (that I am aware of) that I support was start the Peace Corps (an institution which has been critiqued for neo-colonialist aspects but that I still support). LBJ was the Dem. president who brought forth the great Lefty victories of the 1960s (although his great failure was getting us further involved in 'Nam).


It is argued that Hillary is less electable than Obama. I argue this is believed by those who listen to a right-wing smear campaign more than anything else. Hillary achieved incredible electoral victories in New York in 2000 and 2006. These victories were large and were achieved through capturing the left, independents, AND moderate Republicans. Indeed she even had upstate New York voting for her, a well known bastion of Republicanism. She has proved that she can win over everyone. So has Obama, who won a ridiculous margin in 2004 to get into the Senate. He also faced no significant opposition from the Right.

McCain appears to have solidified the Republican nomination. I believe an Clinton ticket, with Obama as VP, has the strongest chance of beating him. For a long time I have maintained that anyone that the Dems put up can beat anyone the GOP puts up in 2008. The only matchup which concerns me is Obama v. McCain. McCain does EXTREMELY well with independents, which is Obama's target voter. It is possible that Obama will be able to motivate enough voters to the polls, especially as McCain will find it difficult to get the conservative and evangelical bases out, but I would bet McCain wins more independents than Obama. Head to head I think Obama would more or less be schooled. Hillary stands a stronger chance head to head through the support of more women, Hispanics, and Bill's popularity among Black Americans. Most charges of Hillary being such a polarizing figure are not accurate and once folks take an good look at her many support her (or at least aren't freaked out). The polarizing stuff has been a line of the far-right for years and seems to now be a self-fulfilling prophecy. A dream ticket of mine is Clinton-Obama. With Obama's movement Clinton would be a shoo in. And I am convinced that she would make a better president than Obama.


On the more disturbing side that should cause us to pause and reflect, I've heard several folks compare Obama to the left's or middle's GWB. There are similarities in political stylings. GWB won the White House through a similar popular movement supported by evangelicals (compared to Obama's "progressives"). GWB, if you remember, came to office with little experience but much discussion of the need for unity and compassionate conservatism. "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Obama is compassionate neo-liberalism with similar discussion of the need for unity. Also note that many during the 2000 campaign argued there were little differences between the policies of Gore and Bush, similar to today and Obama v. Clinton. W also campaigned vigorously against the Clinton political machinations and 90's politics culture while arguing that he would bring ethics back into politics so we could have a white house and president we could be proud of. This paragraph is inarguably the most upsetting I've written. Feel free to give me hell, but consider what I wrote.

So. Those are the reasons why I put a photo of Hillary on this blog. Again, I want to be in dialogue with those who want to discuss. E-mail me or write a comment about YOUR reasons!