Why not Hillary?

I'll be honest, this is a gut thing.  The People of the United States of America are sick and tired of polarization.  No, this is not a Broderesque appeal to the middle.  Far from it, because I believe both Edwards and Obama will be far more effective advocates for progressivism than will Clinton.  Quite simply, they are more liberal than she is.  

Bold change needed

I am afraid that a Clinton Presidency will not lead to the kind of fundamental change required over the next eight years.  The Clintons are incrementalists.  They govern by carving a plurality in support of small programs.  That had its place at the end of the Cold War.  But the disastrous Bush legacy leaves me firmly convinced that the country is at a watershed moment.  This may not be November 1932, but it is damn close, and if Roosevelt had come to power in 1933 with a "bold" plan to tweak the Hoover agenda at the edges, America would have dissolved into chaos.  The same is true today.  More of the same - staying in Iraq, continuing the blustering buffoonery of our foreign policy to "look tough," refusing to accept the reality of climate change, and continuing to wage politics as a game of us versus them - will doom us.

Polarization sucks

The polarization I speak of is the personal polarization that Clinton would bring to the Oval Office.  Like it or not, she is a polarizing figure. As polarizing in every respect as George Bush or her husband.  Some people love her.  Others can't stand her.  And the intensity of feeling at both ends of the spectrum is astounding.  It is also unhealthy - for democracy in this country and, more practically, for Democrats further down the ticket.  

In North Carolina, we stand on the cusp of completely annihilating the Republican Party for a generation on the state level.  We have two outstanding candidates for Governor - who, I hope, will be able to restrain themselves from destroying each other - and the Republicans are about to engage in a primary between Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum, a trial lawyer, and a former judge nobody knows.  We have a chance to put a stranglehold on the State Senate and the State House by reelecting democrats who won surprisingly in 2006.  The right campaign, with the right people at the top of the ticket, will carry those folks to victory and cement the Democratic majority in North Carolina with the power of incumbency.  Moreover, with the right Presidential candidate, even Federal office may be open to us in North Carolina, as we can take out Robin Hayes in NC-8 and (God please let this happen) send Elizabeth Dole back to the Watergate permanently.

Quite honestly, all that is at risk if we nominate Hillary Clinton.  I cannot express to you the depth of the distaste for her in average people who otherwise vote for Democrats.  I can't explain it.  I don't share it. But a good 20% of the Easley coalition would sooner eat mustard-based barbecue than vote for Hillary or anyone associated with her.

She'll write off the border south

This brings up a further point.  I want a nominee I will see in October 2008.  John Kerry promised us he would fight in the South.  He did, in July.  One rally.  Then we didn't see him or Edwards again until after the election.  The Clintons never fought for Virginia.  They never fought for North Carolina.  They abandoned Tennessee, and they wasted the opportunity to beat back the Republican wave in the mid 1990s by completely abandoning even the thought of campaigning here in 1996.  As a result, the barbarians burst through the gate and took over Georgia, Tennessee and Florida.  And we may never get them back.

I am afraid that Hillary Clinton will run the Tom Schaller strategy - abandoning the south to the Republicans again, on the hope that she can thread the needle in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. Tom Schaller is wrong.  And the Clintons were wrong, to abandon us.  I want a candidate who will run the Howard Dean 50 State strategy.  Edwards embodies it.  

She will galvanize the GOP into action

It amuses me that Hillary advances this idea, that only she is prepared for the attacks of the right wing, because of what she endured during her husband's Presidency.  She has a point, but it's not the point she thinks she has.  

The only candidate certain to be on the receiving end of the kind of abuse the Republicans throw at the Clintons is Hillary Clinton.  And she is the only one who will galvanize the Republicans into a fury of hatred so intense they will actually overcome their disillusionment with President Bush and their own failed party and turn out and vote Republican.

Don't believe me?  Exhibit A - 1994.  I don't know about you, but I don't want to relive that experience.  The poison from that time in American politics is still killing our system today.  The hatred that the right wing was able to gin up for the Clintons was certainly not fair to the Clintons, but it was real, and it reinvigorated a party that was essentially dead after the 1992 elections - and gave them the Congress in 1994.

Neither Edwards nor Obama so far generates that kind of hatred on the right.  Sure, there are the hair videos and the hatred of trial lawyers, but those pale in comparison to outright accusations of murder.  There would be the racist attacks on Obama ("intellectually lazy" anyone?)  But the polling shows conclusively that in states like Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Edwards does better as a general election candidate because, despite his astoundingly liberal platform, he conveys a middle-of-the-road sensibility that appeals to wavering Republicans and independents alike.  Clinton is the opposite.  Despite an astoundingly conservative platform and record, the right and much of the middle thinks she's a Communist, and they always will.

I do not support Hillary Clinton in the primary because, alone among our potential nominees, she will draw an intense and large Republican vote to the polls in 2008.  If she is the nominee, I'll certainly vote for her.  But I'll turn my political energies into rescuing my local and state democrats from the effects of the political Armageddon her nomination would ensure.

The Presidency is not a Family Heirloom

There is also my distaste for dynastic succession.  This is the United States of America.  It was bad enough that we elected the son of a former President.  To then turn around and elect the wife of the last President not related to the father-son team would make us, quite frankly, look like idiots.  It has been 27 years since we last had an election without a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot.  After all the high ground we have given up on democracy and human rights in the last 7 years, such a stunt would turn us into a larger, wealthier Philippines.  Healthy democracies do not rely on dynasties.

Why not Obama?

First, let me make it clear that I greatly admire Obama.  Were it not for John Edwards's presence in the race, I could easily support him, and I hope to have the chance to vote for him in the future.  But not this time.  Why?

Because I want a President who has been tested.  Obama has not.  Yes, I know his inspiring life story.  What is inspiring about Obama is the possibility he provides.  With Obama, the not yet seems to outweigh the actual.  In a few years, that might be enough for me.

But not this year.  Because Edwards also provides a healthy dose of that inspiration, that sense of possibility.  The "can you imagine what will happen if we put him in office" is equally strong with Edwards because of where his heart is -- because of what he wants to do with the power of the office.

So, let's call that part of the equation a toss up.  And to differentiate, I return to my original point.  I want a President who has been tested by fire, made stronger in the broken places.  I look at the candidates and I see two who have overcome personal tragedy and struggle to get to where they are: Edwards and Biden.  

I literally cannot imagine going through what either of these guys have gone through.  Biden, at the triumphant moment of his young political life, lost his wife and child in a horrific car accident and then suffered an anyeurism.  But he pulled his life together and has served with great distinction in the Senate (though not always independently of the influence of the credit card industry - his one great drawback in my eyes).

Edwards lost a son, and has seen the specter of death hover over his beloved personal and political partner, Elizabeth.  And he has come out of both experiences compelled to turn his considerable talents to public service.  Faced with the reality of mortality, he has dedicated himself to making this world a better place while he is here and to do so through politics.  

A personally tragic biography is by no means a requirement for public office, but with Edwards, you can look and see how he reacts to adversity, to having his entire world ripped apart.  And he reacts by reaching out to help others.  Wouldn't you have liked to have known how George Bush would react to such an event before he got into office?

Moreover, Edwards is tested politically.  His first Senate race was a war against the entrenched Jesse Helms machine in the person of Lauch Faircloth.  The GOP threw everything it had at him.  All the slurs and slights you see now - the hair, the trial lawyer stuff, the "rich guys can't be for poor people" ridiculousness - all that was thrown at him in 1998.  And he smiled, soldiered on, and won with a populist message that works down South and across the country.

What he will face in November is nothing new to Senator Edwards.  He's been there, beaten that.  He has also been through the searing experience of a national campaign as a member of the ticket.  And I can guarantee you that as the nominee, he will do whatever it takes to avoid reexperiencing the pain of a loss to the GOP.  His greatest strength, it seems to me, is his ability to learn from mistakes and experiences.

Obama?  Not to belittle the accomplishment of becoming the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review - far from it.  Or of getting elected to the State Senate in Illinois.  But I would feel more comfortable with the concept of Obama at the top of the ticket if, in a campaign of national significance, he had beaten someone other than the cartoonish Alan Keyes.  Seriously.  My dog could have beaten Alan Keyes.  The political waters parted for Barack Obama in 2004 in a way that lends plausibility to the notion that he is simply destined for greatness, but lends little to support the notion that he is prepared for the kind of battle to the death that is coming in November 2008.

In short, in a talented field, Edwards best combines hope and possibility with experience and grit.  When I look at the big three, he is the one I most look forward to seeing as President in 2009.  With Hillary, I would swallow hard and gird for the same battle we've been fighting now for 27 years.  With Obama, I would be inspired and hope he doesn't get rolled.  With Edwards, I know exactly what I'll get - a fighter for the things I value, a leader determined to change the world for the better - a great President.

If you agree with me, or even if you don't, but want to see a competitive primary that requires the winner to, you know, actually win some votes, please join me in contributing or volunteering for the John Edwards campaign.

Next week, how he gets there.  (Hint:  it doesn't involve believing the Beltway Pundits).

Poll Thoughtful Analysis Has no place in a primary debate Is irrelevant since my candidate ROCKS! would be nice to see is solely the province of FOX News Votes: 4 Results : Vote Link : Polls