The Obama-Clinton battle gets interesting -- and nasty

Salon, for one, devotes a lot of attention to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton today.

Let's start with endorsements.  John Kerry has endorsed him, according to Tim Grieve:  "CNN says the two senators will appear together today at an event in South Carolina." 

Sen. Dick Durbin said just before the New Hampshire primary that several senators were poised to endorse Obama. To the extent Kerry's endorsement will help him -- and to the extent that it was already in the bag -- he might have been better served by announcing it before New Hampshire voted. Kerry won New Hampshire in the 2004 Democratic primary but lost South Carolina to John Edwards.

Obama received the endorsement of South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson Wednesday. The fact that goes without saying: One Johnson plus one Kerry probably doesn't carry the weight of one Al Gore. The former vice president's endorsement of Howard Dean may not have helped him in 2004, but the Nobel Prize-winning Gore is viewed just a little differently by Democrats now than he was then.

Apparently Gore is holding off to "protect his global brand."  First of all, that's a disgusting piece of corporate buffoonery from Gore's spokesperson if not from Gore himself.  And second, the whole country's reputation -- with or without the increasingly slick Mr. Gore -- could get a boost if the nation itself were to embrace Barack Obama.

Speaking of embracing, here's someone who describes herself as a centrist Democrat and avowed feminist who expresses some doubts about Hillary Clinton.  The doubts revolve around Clinton's position on war.  Here's what Frances Kisslingalso writing in Salon, says:

I do not want a feminism that is part of the status quo, and so I do not want the first woman president to be a Clintonian. Every time Hillary Clinton puts on the mantle of the Bill Clinton presidency and reminds us of how important it is to be practical and work with the other side to get things done, I think of every cowardly practical choice that Bill Clinton (or should I say the Clintons together) made. The "don't ask, don't tell" sellout of gays in the military; the abandonment of Lani Guinier; a failed healthcare reform package that would have sacrificed women's reproductive health to the Catholic Church's demands as moral arbiter; a welfare reform bill that actually hurt poor women and their families; and presidential approval of a permanent ban on Medicaid funds for poor women seeking abortions.

The women's movement, along with other progressive movements, did little to challenge the Clinton administration to live up to its campaign promises. And now it seems that the longtime women's movement is falling into the same trap over Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Just read the feckless and stale defense of Clinton's record on the war posted on the National Organization for Women's Web site to get a sense of how willing some in the feminist establishment are to defend any woman, regardless of her track record.

But some women aren't buying it. We'd like to see a woman president, but more than anything we want to be able to say at the end of the first woman's tenure in the highest political office that it really mattered. That the first woman president did things no man would have done, that feminist values were at the core of her decisions -- and that the country was on the road to further transformation.

It would indeed be awful to hear people say, after a Hillary presidency, "we can't say that it really mattered."  Particularly given that she follows in the wake of the worst president this country has known.

When it comes to endorsements, Camille Paglia's can't be a bad thing and should make some women who have been leaning toward Clinton think twice. 

Hillary herself, with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark ("Cue the tears!"). Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House? Day one will just be more of the same.

I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee of my party, because I want Democrats appointed to the Cabinet and the Supreme Court. But I plan to vote for Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary because he is a rational, centered personality who speaks the language of idealism and national unity. Obama has served longer as an elected official than Hillary. He has had experience as a grass-roots activist, and he is also a highly educated lawyer who will be a quick learner in office. His international parentage and childhood, as well as his knowledge of both Christianity and Islam, would make him the right leader at the right time. And his wife Michelle is a powerhouse.

The Obamas represent the future, not the past.

Amen. 

Comments

[Kate]

Just saw Kerry's announcement on the news. I'm glad he chose to endorse Obama over any of the other candidates, especially Hillary. The only reason Hillary has lasted this long is because of Bill. No wonder her pedigree is considered her strength on www.fittobepres.com. Seems like people have been rating her high for pedigree and low for every other attribute.