Ready on Day One

Hillary Clinton is one of the bright lights in American politics.  She is super bright and has proven herself to be an able senator, widely respected by her colleagues.  She represents her adopted state well and ran a smart initial campaign focusing much of her effort on Upstate New York, where Democrats are weakest.  She came to that race with a well-oiled political organization that, without a presidential campaign to manage, was able to employ its considerable skills and experience on her behalf.  Her reelection campaign was a cakewalk, but well deserved.  She had performed.  That history, combined with the expected strategic support of the man widely, and rightly, considered the most talented politician of his generation, was the context in which the 2008 race began more than a year ago.  For the many months of seemingly endless campaigning leading up to Iowa, the Clinton campaign was constantly described by pundits one and all as “flawless”.  She held a commanding lead in the national polls; smaller but nonetheless impressive in the early states.  Her nomination and election were widely assumed (probably by the candidate herself) to be inevitable.  She had raised a considerable war chest which included $32 Million earmarked for the general election, another expression of confidence.  Indeed, from day one her speeches were aimed as much, if not more, at the general election as at a competitive primary.

Given those overwhelming odds, its surprising that so many candidates entered the race, perhaps the best group of contenders seen in modern times.  Virtually all were credible potential presidents.  But given the inevitable, what were they thinking?  In retrospect, that so many smart people entered the race should have served as an early warning that something was missing in the Clinton juggernaut.  That something first became evident when Barack Obama won Iowa and, through the Internet that Howard Dean had used so effectively four years earlier, had amassed a competitive war chest of his own.  Dean, we all remember painfully, failed in Iowa because of a faulty ground operation; Obama won because of a vastly superior one.  That, too, was a hint of things to come.  The press latched onto the Illinois Senator and began to write Clinton’s epitaph.  New Hampshire changed all that and inevitability was back on track.  The tight schedule that followed worked in her favor; the turnaround story further fueled by some impressive big state victories.  But, to the great surprise of both the Clinton organization and the press, Super Tuesday was big but by no means conclusive.  Obama performed decently where Clinton won and, most significantly began to take a commanding lead in caucus states.  It turns out that his ground organization in Iowa was not an anomaly but part of a fine-tuned machine.  It had both reach and depth.  Local supporters organized systematically for months ahead and then were augmented by the national campaign workers in the final weeks.  Jim Doyle, the veteran politician Governor of Wisconsin, marveled last night on how the nationals integrated seamlessly with the locals, something he had never before seen.

Over confidence has always been the Achilles Heal of politicians.  Not taking the caucuses seriously may ultimately prove a fatal flaw.  But there is something even more significant at play.  Ironically it is an echo of George Bush’s Iraq invasion – no planning for the day after.  Clinton expected to finish off all her opponents on Super Tuesday and apparently made no plans for the day after.  That included expending her war chest and having inadequate organization in place for the races ahead.  Perhaps Bill Clinton’s machine was something of a wonder in 1992 and 1996, but 2008 may prove that Obama’s is better, perhaps substantially so.   And that brings me to Senator Clinton’s most consistent campaign claim – “ready on day one”.  Performance, not words, is what’s required.  Well, if performance and, assumably, management are at issue, this campaign would suggest that perhaps it’s Barack Obama who will be ready on day one.  Apparently a large number of voters think that to be the case.

The Big Picture

It’s the Republicans who have given new political meaning to the cliché, “a picture is worth a thousand words”.  So it was particularly striking last night to see the contrasting images projected by John McCain and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  McCain made his victory talk standing before a small array of aging politicians.  Clinton in Texas and Obama in Wisconsin were enveloped by thousands of bright excere uited and mostly young faces.  Some younger voters were present at the McCain event, but they were out of the picture, separated by the stage from which he spoke. Clinton and Obama, while also on a platform, spoke from within their midst.  It was a stunning snapshot of where we’re headed in the months ahead, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination.

2004 seems a distant memory, but many of us pointed to a highly motivated and expanding electorate, thinking that we could recapture the White House.  The flawed candidacy of a wooden standard bearer, and a message that was more against than for anything, left us both disappointed and bewildered.  Those 2004 expanded numbers pale in comparison to what we are experiencing today.  150% more voters came to the polls yesterday in Virginia than turned out the last time around.  That is an astounding statistic.  Both Clinton and even more so Obama are drawing huge crowds – 18,000 with another 2,000 outside for him last night in Madison.  An extraordinary percentage of primary voters are first timers.  All of this bodes well for the country.

It wasn’t only a difference in image that separated yesterday’s winners John McCain and Barack Obama.  The Arizonan couched his remarks in a “time of war” cloak, standing ground against the enemy.  It is of course his perceived strength; a reflection of both his resume and primary interest.  His vocal cadence last night was subdued and serious, if not dour.  This is no “Happy Warrior”.  Apparently convinced that he will face Obama in the fall, he characterized the message of “hope” as a “platitude”.  Some Democrats also feel it lacks sufficient specificity.   But McCain has hung his hat on what the vast majority of Americans see as a failed policy in Iraq.  It is driven by much greater conviction than Rudy’s hanging his candidacy on Florida, but perhaps no less flawed.  The fact is that the majority of Americans, regardless of party, want out.  More importantly, I think McCain misses the underlying mood and yearning of his fellow citizens.  In the most recent polling 71% thought we were on the wrong track, a number that has fluctuated little (never below 68%) for well over a year.   In the context of a country governed by the platitudes of claimed victories (including McCain’s own with regard to the surge), voiced hope takes on profound substance.  Just ask a seemingly blind sighted Hillary Clinton about its power.  Those faces around both Democrats last night were full of hope and they are our future.

Barack Obama insists that the central issue in this campaign is not so much about any one policy but about clinging on to the past verses embracing future — a new mindset and a new direction.  He has maintained a laser like focus on his “can do” message just as did Bill Clinton with the economy in 1992.  Past and future: think about his first televised debate with John McCain and the image you’ll see on your screen.   Make no mistake, that will be a picture which truly speaks louder than a thousand words.

Gender and Race Redux

A number of good female friends have referred me to articles or op-ed pieces pleading the gender case for Hillary Clinton.  It is an easy one to make, and more importantly an understandable one.  As said in a recent post, I too am torn by the choice presented to us in this election cycle.  That both the gender and race barrier have to be broken if America is to finally fulfill the high-minded promise of the Declaration of Independence is indisputable.  Progress remains excruciatingly slow and generally we like to make it serially, one at a time.  It wasn’t only Gerry Ford who couldn’t simultaneously “walk and chew gum”.  So this election has caught those committed to both civil and women’s rights off guard.  Historic opportunity is at hand and we’re faced with an impossible and unanticipated choice; a real conundrum.  Perhaps so, but it may also be that, in the very option given us, we’re further along than any of us dared to believe.

I would argue that 2008 might well mark the moment when the choice between gender and race was rendered irrelevant.  Looking at it objectively, for me the argument that one is “entitled” to a shot at the Presidency more than, or before, the other is a non-starter.  Sexism has deep roots beginning in the first chapter of Genesis where the he-God creates man in his image.  The subjugation of the children of unwilling African slave immigrants is an indelible stain on our past and present.  Perhaps you can make a case for who had it worse – black women often suffered a double blow – but that really is silly.  The “my hurt it greater than yours” is a childhood playground argument.  Deep and devastating wounds are ultimately race and gender agnostic.

The only issue in this primary season is who, among two excellent finalists, will make the better President at this moment in time.  Like most Democrats, I will support the party’s nominee, and do so with a good conscience.  In fact, if that nominee were named Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich or Richardson I would as well.  We’ve had an extraordinary candidate field this year.  And the choice we have is not really about issues – there is little daylight between Clinton and Obama even on healthcare.  Let’s remember that party platforms and candidate speeches are simply directional signposts.  While we have surely learned the power of Executive Orders of late, fundamental initiatives require legislation.  That means amassing sufficient public support and votes on the Hill.   

For me this primary season is not about race or gender nor is it about policy.  The former has been taken out of the mix and with regard to the latter; John Edwards would be on his way to the White House.  He has been the policy initiator; Clinton and Obama the followers.  No this election is about who we are and how we feel about ourselves.  It is about taking that now delayed bridge to the future – reality not words.  That future is not merely one of substance it is also one of tone.  In fact, I don’t think we can alter the substance without changing the tone.  However she may deny it and express her independence, Senator Clinton is campaigning to restore what indisputably were the good times of her husband’s tenure.  So they were, but they also initiated a level of acrimony that has poisoned the nation’s internal discourse.  We have replaced conversation with shouting.  Bill Clinton may not have started the barnyard fight, but his partisans were, and are, more than willing participants.  The crossfire of militant right and left talk radio is equally distasteful.  At times of conflict, who started it is beside the point.  We have all been its collateral damage.

It’s not that we’re mad as hell and can’t take it any more, it’s that we can’t take being mad any more.  We want out, we want to delete the ugliness from our collective lives, reduce if not eliminate the red and blue divide.  We are damaged and in many profound ways demoralized.  That runs contrary to the essential optimistic national DNA.  And it isn’t a matter of some romantic notion of nirvana, or that substance doesn’t matter.  A positive outlook, some semblance of shared direction, is what has always fueled our economy, defined our self image and established our standing in the world.  Does Barack Obama speak of hope, of change and of the future over the past?  You bet he does.  He has set the underlying conversation of this election.  Would Hillary Clinton be a good President?   I think she has the potential of being one of our better chief executives.  The problem is that we need something more; not the potential of better but of greatness commensurate with our desperate current need.  Not gender over race or race over gender but a unifying, and yes an inspirational, leader.  That isn’t something to which you’re entitled, but something you embody regardless of your name, background or sex.  To me that still translates into Barack Obama.  In the end, I remain confident the majority of Americans will come to the same conclusion.  If not, and regardless of how disappointed, I will readily admit to having been wrong from the start.

A Formidable Candidate

Anyone who underestimates John McCain does so at her or his own peril.  I remember watching him conduct early New Hampshire town halls more than a year ago.  It wasn’t only that he answered questions; he engaged with the audience – he connected.  Whether or not one buys into the message, the idea of "straight talk" resonates at this moment in our history.  His and its political potency is demonstrated in a comeback that pales Bill Clinton’s in comparison.  McCain’s “fall” in the early stages was attributed to being on the wrong side of the war debate, but I think his rise speaks to a yearning for authenticity felt by a majority of Americans, regardless of party.  If you have any doubt, consider the counterintuitive victory over Romney among those in Florida who consider the economy our most pressing problem.  Voters opted for the “real deal” candidate without economic credentials over the “Jell-O” candidate, a private equity man who shifts with every prevailing opportunity and wind.  Unless something dramatic happens, McCain will be the Republican nominee.  He will be a very formidable candidate.

McCain, and even more so the McCain-Huckabee ticket now being bandied about, offers an unambiguous choice against Hillary Clinton, but most especially against Barack Obama.  In the upcoming months as the debate of ideas takes hold and the hype of horserace dims somewhat, the differences will become clear.  These are serious candidates and they will insist on substance. Americans will be forced to look at where the nominees stand and what they represent.  If, as I continue to hope, Obama emerges on the Democratic side, the oratorical choice between past and future will be given new and more vivid force.

There is no way one can argue that McCain represents the new.  His maverick streak and reputation notwithstanding, he has hardly been a bystander during the so-called Reagan revolution.  That includes virtually 100% support of Bush, for whom he vigorously campaigned in 2004.  He is anti-choice and committed to remaking the courts, one of the core beliefs that he included in his victory speech last night.  He is a serial tax and spending cutter who believes in as little government as possible – "government should get out of the way". as he puts it.  If he does indeed select Huckabee, be assured that we would see even more cracks in that “wall of separation” between church and state.  And let’s not minimize the importance or potential of a running mate.  If we haven’t learned that lesson, shame on us.  If elected, McCain would be the oldest incoming President, one who has a history of serious medical problems.  Succession is and must be an issue whomever he selects.

McCain will be running on national security.  He vigorously supported our country’s two most unpopular and disastrous wars: Viet Nam and Iraq.  He was a heroic victim of the first, which has become the central leitmotif of his narrative.  His unyielding commitment to “victory” in the second is informed by a visceral “not again, not this time”.  It is not just business, it’s very personal.  If George Bush was seeking to complete his father’s unfinished business, McCain is desperate not to experience Saigon redux, even if once again self inflicted by wrongheaded policy.  Of course part of what makes McCain so potentially potent is that his years of sacrifice have effectively inoculated him from all but the most elliptical critique of another misguided war.  Americans don’t suffer the overt criticism of heroes like McCain lightly.  It won’t be easy.

Florida does deserve a footnote: Rudy Giuliani.  The pundits will feed us all kinds of reasons why his candidacy evaporated in this election cycle.  All of them may have merit.  Some of us actually had Rudy as our Mayor and to us the reason for his fall is probably much less complicated.   “America’s Mayor” is an alluring romantic myth; his honor is something totally different.  Perhaps New Yorkers elected him twice (not guilty), but he would never have made it to any other City Hall.  The idea of Rudy was intriguing to people in New Hampshire, where he spent a lot of time and money before “refocusing” solely on Florida.  The reality was less compelling, if not tedious.  He bombed badly in that primary.  So, too, in Florida; they loved Rudy until he moved in and they had to live with him.  If Mitt Romney comes off as plastic, Rudy’s incessant smile (evident in all his TV interviews) is a transparent cover-up of the inherent nastiness that New Yorkers grew to hate, especially in the years between his reelection and 9/11.  Remember the old “What’s my Line” quiz show –“will the real Rudy stand up?”  He did, and that began his fatal decline.

The Mighty have Fallen

I am deeply grieved for you my brother…
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle.

When America’s “first Black President” was asked about the apparent results in South Carolina, he responded, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."  Translation, this is a Black man’s state and an ethnic victory.  I wonder if some of Bill’s best friends are Jews?   I have been a loyal supporter and admirer of Bill Clinton since he ran for the presidency in 1992.  Even when he triangulated about his public and personal life, when he faced that disingenuous impeachment, I was on his side.  When he spoke (overly long) at the 2004 Democratic convention, I felt that undeniable yearning.  He was a mighty force.  When he cashed in on his fame and virtually overnight was transformed from a man who didn't even own a home into one of the super rich, I didn’t begrudge him this windfall of good fortune.  Indeed, I admired the good works that he was doing with his foundation, even overlooking the pretension of hoping we would think of it as somehow equivalent to that of Bill and Melinda Gates.

I cut Bill Clinton a lot of slack.  In the last few weeks it’s all gone down the drain. Sadly, it would seem that what his detractors have always contended, is true.  Bill really cares about only two things: Bill and winning, regardless of the cost.  Perhaps most disturbing of all, is the question these last weeks have raised about his sincerity in long claiming to be one of African America’s own.  That Jesse Jackson comment conjures up the guy who makes a moving civil rights speech and then tells coon jokes in the Green Room.  For sure that is much too harsh.  I don’t question his friendship as much as his pragmatic priorities.  Some of the things Bill and the campaign (with, as I suggested in an earlier blog, old Black pol support) have said or implied crossed a very big line.  Perhaps, it’s better to get that race stuff out in the open, but not from those who have painted themselves as colorblind good guys.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not looking for resurrection on January 20, 2009.   For sure Bill Clinton spoke with eloquence (something we’ve so missed) and presided over a strong economy (even if bubble-driven), but his presidency also birthed the divisiveness that is still poisoning our discourse.  Perhaps he didn’t start it – he is always the victim – but it remains part of his legacy.  It is that loss of civility that prompted the Oklahoma “summit” some weeks back, along with it, the self promoted Bloomberg boomlet.   I’m also not looking for a President who can’t make it to the White House without heavy handed spousal support (and mischief) or who thinks (in part because of their complicated relationship) it’s her turn. 

No Bill, it’s our turn.  Yes Caroline Kennedy (NY Times Op Ed), what we’re experiencing now is exactly how it was when your father ran in 1960.  That campaign was also about the future, also involved a youngish standard bearer who was accused of inexperience.  And of course there is another unmistakable similarity.  Your father, a U.S. Senator, told those Houston ministers, he was the Democrat Nominee for President who just happened to be a Roman Catholic.  So, too, is Barack Obama a Senator seeking the Democratic nomination who just happens to be an African American.  Jack Kennedy touched me deeply as a young man in 1960, changed my view about politics and, in some profound way, life.  Barack Obama is doing much the same, not merely for you and your children but for me.  It’s not déjà vu, but something really new.  It’s the same, but refreshingly different in a vastly more complicated world.

When David sang that moving elegy so many years ago, the fallen mighty included Saul the king who had so turned against the young pretender.  Bill Clinton is, in many ways, that king.  Once a very bright light, his time has passed.  Saul was given to irrational rage, possessed of demons, probably clinically so.  Bill Clinton’s rage is understandable, perhaps even poignant; whether it’s clinical I leave to professionals.  No one likes to witness their power waning; they’re being eclipsed by perhaps an even brighter light.  Bill Clinton has not fallen in battle, and I wish him the extended life that he deserves.  With all his faults, we have reason to thank him for the good he did, for “his service to the country”.  There may yet be some small near term victories ahead, but I think yesterday in South Carolina, the mighty took a big and perhaps ultimately decisive fall.

Who Anointed You Buster?

Change agents, by definition, rarely come from inside.  What makes them so threatening to the establishment is as much, who they are, as what they say.  When they emerge from the once disenfranchised, they can be particularly suspect.  To those who came before, they’re perceived as not having paid their dues, not have had to “walk–the-walk”.  Understanding that, explains in part the now more organized resistance of insiders to Barack Obama’s candidacy.  In some ways, this Democratic primary process is all about entitlement, and in that Hillary Clinton is as much a token, as she is the presumptive heir.

Nowhere was this brought home more than in watching interviews with Charlie Rangel and then John Lewis.  Perhaps Bill Clinton has shown signs of exasperation about the challenge to his dynasty.  These two seemed truly angry.  Congressman Rangel went further than most in using the race card against this African American upstart.  Congressman Lewis kept on referring to him as “Mr. Obama, not Senator.  Rangel came up through the streets of New York fighting his way through its complicated precincts of political power.  When his turn came, he assumed the seat once held by the legendary Adam Clayton Powell.  He worked his way methodically from the backbench to the chairmanship of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.  John Lewis was bloodied on the bridge at Selma.  He protested his way through the terrain of a hostile South, eventually claiming a House Seat from George, a still highly conservative State.  They may have started out as young Turks, but both (Rangel at 77, Lewis at 67) have become elder statesman.  No longer outsiders, they are leaders within the establishment.  It’s been a long journey, and it has not been easy. 

Enter a (relatively) young Harvard educated man, an African American whose father really came out of Africa, but a beneficiary of, rather than a participant in, the “movement”.  So who is this Obama guy, who anointed him to break this important ground for African Americans?  We, one can hear them saying, were neither asked nor did we give our blessing.  Who indeed is this guy who has taken it upon himself to represent us?  Where is his respect for what we have done?  That was the implied message I heard, as these two seasoned and exemplary men spoke in support of Hillary before the New Hampshire primary.  Obama has hit a nerve.  Admit it or not, it was a painful admission that the warhorses of revolution, the outsiders, the “we”, had become the established “them” and it was unsettling.  Like Hillary, they feel a sense of entitlement and, in some significant way, have a greater claim on it than does she.

To be sure, Senator Obama, may well have failed to pay due deference to the old guard.  As a result, his candidacy may have come off as presumptuous.  But in all honesty, would they have done it any differently?  Wait your turn, meld yourself into the past, is simply incompatible with change making. Insiders don’t call upon the revolutionary to usurp their crown.   Of all people, these two men know that better than most.   So, their reaction, however understandable, is emotional not rational.  Perhaps their hurt is compounded by the fact that Obama has claimed to be Joshua, the role they saw for themselves when their Moses, whose life we celebrate this weekend, was prevented from entering the Promised Land.  It is sad, but a fact, that the land was not ready then. Now, their Joshua years, if not passed, are passing.  It is hard to say whether the country is ready for Joshua even now, but let’s not punish the next generation for pushing the envelope further than we were able.

Obama, no question, has hit another rough spot.  Whether it is too late for him, we don’t yet know.  I personally hope not.  If change, if an outsider, was ever needed, it is now.  That those who once were outspoken standard bearers of change now resist it, only makes the argument.  We’ve had the torch passed from one family member to another.  Without comparing the talented and thoughtful Senator from New York with the vapid zealot in the White House, doing so again is as her husband might say, “a throw of the dice”.  I for one would rather take a chance at change, for making a u-turn and heading us in a vastly different direction, audacious as that may be.  But I also recognize where we are and why.

In the end, the country will have to decide who comes first in making that inevitable and essential breakthrough.   Given our history, and our nation’s shameful start in condoning slavery, it’s easy to argue that breaking the color barrier has precedence.  Understanding that women, regardless of color, have been humanity’s effectual underclass since the dawn of time, may tip the scales in the other direction.   It’s no wonder that Black voters overwhelmingly were for Obama in Nevada, while Clinton captured the lion’s share of women.  So the decision could ultimately come down to a numbers game – which group has more votes.  That would be understandable, yet unfortunate.  As, I’ve said often before, it’s a wrenching choice for many of us, and perhaps in the context of breakthrough ultimately a no-lose one.  Will issues, and our eagerness to change win out?  Only the next weeks will tell.  They will no doubt be exciting and may leave both winners and losers somewhat torn and perplexed.

Gender and Race

There is something truly wondrous about this year’s presidential race.  And yes, it has a fairy tale character, though perhaps not the kind that garnered so much attention and heat last week.  Who would have thought as we marched or lobbied for the rights of two disenfranchised groups of Americans decades ago that a woman and an African American would be duking it out for the Democratic nomination?  One of them will very likely take up residence on Pennsylvania Avenue in a year’s time.  Martin King’s vision notwithstanding, not in our wildest dreams.  That both the gender and race cards might show their ugly heads in such a contest was inevitable, albeit disturbing.  I would argue that it’s better to have them on the table; now rather than later.  There is nothing worse or more damaging than an undercurrent of whispers.  Yes America, Hillary is a woman and Barack is Black.  Now you know the truth.

I believe this will blow over.  Ultimately Senator Clinton won’t win because men have piled on her and Senator Obama won’t prevail because of some racial snub.  Backlash sympathy votes have a short shelf life.  At the same time, the reaction to the perceived offences is revealing.  It tells us something that we already know.  Many of us are terribly conflicted about the choice we have to make.  It’s no big surprise that the same people who have long hoped for the day when we could send a woman to the White House, hope equally that we will send an African American.  Having that opportunity at the same time, having to make that choice, is both exhilarating and gut-wrenching.  To be sure, when it comes to the candidates themselves, we have our preferences.  Nevertheless, we feel almost guilty in not supporting the other.  In watching the campaign’s designated spokespeople discuss the race issue today, I was struck by that obvious and undoubtedly shared inner conflict. 

As you know, I’m, solidly for Obama, but it nonetheless pains me deeply to withhold my support from what might be the first female president.  I have no doubt about my choice, but the idea of holding yet another woman back eats at my stomach.  I guess that’s why we are hearing some of the pundits talking about “a ticket”.  Oh, do they want to control the race.  Of course, it would solve a lot of problems, fulfill both dreams.  And it’s true that anything can happen in politics – remember when Majority Leader Johnson signed on with Jack Kennedy?  But I think it’s really unlikely that Hillary will go for second place.  She and Bill are not seeking to restore the Vice Presidency.  Just kidding, I think dream tickets are often in our minds but very hard to fashion.

There remain those who believe the country is not ready for either a woman or a person of color.  It would be naïve to think that not to be the case for some among us.  Nor, based on the last two elections, is there any reason to believe that voters are necessarily driven by their best instincts.  That said, I do believe that we are collectively suffering divisiveness fatigue.  It’s precisely why the Obama candidacy and message of hope and change is so compelling.  In that context, I believe the good impulses might just win out this time.  In these dark days that would be a spot of very bright light.  As we move past gender and race in the days ahead, let’s focus on getting that done.  Let the best person prevail.  There is a chance to do something important this time around and, in that alone, we even have choice on our side.