What
You Need To Know: A Summary For You Lazy Asses
·
As a John Edwards supporter, I am really shocked that
Edwards would consider endorsing Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. I for one support Barack Obama for President
because Obama and Edwards have much in common politically and are running on
similar messages of bold, transformational change.
·
Clinton, on the other hand, represents the wishy-washy,
don’t-care-what-I-stand-for-as-long-as-it-wins-elections DLC wing of the
Democratic Party, the kind of Democrats who want to water down the Party’s
message for the sake of political expediency and winning elections, the kind of
Democrats who won’t push for active government because that’s just too much of
a strong, distinct stance, the kind of Democrats who gladly believe that the
Republicans set the rules of politics and Democrats follow, the kind of
Democrats I really cannot stand and wish would get the fuck out of the Party
and go to the Republican Party where they belong.
·
Besides Obama’s own merits as a candidate, he has
to win to stop Clinton and the DLC.
Let’s end this politics of bullshit moderation once and for all.
There are reports afoot that John Edwards is genuinely
“torn” between endorsing either Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary
Clinton. That he is even seriously
undecided, instead of supporting Obama without a second thought, is itself a
shame, because there is nothing for Edwards in Clinton.
Clinton represents a great leap backwards for the Democratic
Party, and is the enemy of everything Edwards campaigned on this primary
season. Edwards called for bold,
transformational change, for government to be an active defender and champion
of ordinary Americans, including those suffering from poverty, and for a
rejection of the timid, politically calculating, wishy-washy, moderate
incrementalist politics that Democrats have been using like a worn dishrag for
the past twenty years. Though there
were significant difference between the campaign messages of Edwards and Obama
– differences that led me to support the former and not the latter – it is
clear that Obama mostly shared these same basic principles in his campaign,
which is why I support him for the nomination now. (For a more detailed
explanation as to why I support Obama, see The
2008 Presidential Election – Part III: The Big Decision.)
I must emphasize, however, that Clinton by contrast
represents the monstrous dark side of the Democratic Party, the Clintonian
plague that has gripped the Party in timidity and weak-minded moderation for
the past two decades. She represents
the opposite of everything that is good in Democrats. She is the candidate of weak, incremental change, of maddening,
mindless, gutless, directionless political calculation, of political expediency
and electoral victories over principle and moral victories, of a government
that is only somewhat better and slightly more proactive than the
kind the Republicans offer (though she tries to mask this now with a slew of
policy proposals that she clearly has no real intention of fighting for once in
office). She has not fought, on policy,
ideological or rhetorical grounds, for the real active federal government that
Democrats are supposed to believe in, and that Edwards and Obama believe
in. Instead, she is from the DLC school
of Democratic politics that says that winning elections is Number One and
forget about anything (i.e. active government) that will jeopardize that. Instead, the DLC handbook says, water down
your message, move to the center, offer the same things that Republicans offer
except make your stuff a little less insane, and most importantly, give
up your ideology, principles and rhetoric and use theirs instead. That’s why President Bill Clinton had to
declare in 1996 that “the era of big government is over” even though it
shouldn’t have been over, and it isn’t over. (Fuck you Bill.)
Senator Clinton is from this same wing of the Democratic
Party, the DLC wing that once controlled the Party but is now feeling its grip
loosening and is desperately trying to maintain control. They first started to go downhill with the
rise of Howard Dean’s explicitly anti-DLC, pro-active government
candidacy. They were able to
temporarily stave off total irrelevance with Dean’s defeat and the nomination
of Senator John Kerry (whose own milquetoast candidacy was very much in line
with DLC gutless-ism), but Kerry’s defeat and the rise of the netroots – vocal
liberal activists who were able to project themselves through the Internet –
meant the beginning of the end for them.
Now, with their candidate Clinton, they’re battling against Obama
because he represents the beginning of a new generation of Democratic politics,
the type that will stand proudly on Democratic principles and say, “This is
what we believe in! And we are not
afraid!”
I do not harshly criticize Clinton out of nowhere. I’m not saying that she is a DLC/Clintonian
type simply because she’s married to her husband. I say this based on her campaign, her record in the Senate, most
of her record as First Lady – basically, everything she’s been since 1994, and
maybe some things she’s been before then.
I’ve laid out my criticism of her in extensive detail in The
2008 Presidential Election – Part II: The Democratic Field. It’s clear based on her record and the campaign she’s
running that she really will be just another President Clinton – a moderate
spineless coward who doesn’t push for active government and doesn’t give the
Party something to stand for. I
believe that Hillary Clinton is really the WRONG, I repeat WRONG, person for
the Democratic Party. Her
nomination would mean the triumph of the DLC and a step in the wrong direction
– the backwards direction – for the Party. Besides Obama’s own merits, he must win to stop her and
the moderate, spineless, DLC wing of the Party that she comes from.
P.S. I REALLY hope that if Edwards does end up endorsing
anyone, he endorses Obama. The
spirits of their respective campaigns are far closer, and endorsing
Clinton would be a total betrayal of everything he worked for and campaigned on
these past three years.