A Pilgrim’s Digression

It’s difficult not to feel some measure of disappointment in Hillary Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire last night. As one radio commentator said today, it feels almost like we were set up for disappointment by the pollsters who had Obama with a ten or twelve point lead over Clinton, right up until the end.

On the other hand, I ought to have seen it coming. Both Iowa and New Hampshire are anomalous in Presidential politics, with the winners of those two states often being different people, and the party nomination often going to a third person entirely who lost both Iowa and New Hampshire.

In a way, the real Primary race begins today. Now we find out if Obama is tough as well as eloquent, and whether Clinton really did “find her voice,” as she stated in her victory speech last night.

As I watched the ABC nightly news last night, I had some presentiment that things were not happening just the way the pollsters predicted. Between six and seven, Charlie Gibson was talking to George Stephanopolous, and the former Clinton aide said that turnout was exactly the opposite as in Iowa: young people were staying home, but elderly and retired folks were turning out in droves. I remember thinking at the time that probably was not a good sign.

I began to imagine all these stolid, crotchety geezers riding Hoverounds hurrying out to vote for Clinton out of some misguided prejudice against youth and exuberance.

Still, I thought to myself, Obama seemed to have all the momentum. It seemed unlikely he would lose. And yet he did, though by only two points. Again, it feels almost like a set up. Without the polls that proclaimed he had a wide lead, we would be talking today about how narrowly Clinton won. Instead, she is the next “comeback kid.”

The very fact that the media is comparing her victory with her husband’s fifteen years ago ought to make people reach for the Advil. This isn’t change. This is back to the future, a phrase I think Clinton has even used, at one point.

I have been thinking all morning about what my “problem” is with Hillary Clinton, trying to get to the bottom of it. I still have a lot of left over prejudice against both of them from the nineties. I want to try to set that aside, though it is difficult.

My argument against Hillary Clinton, forgetting everything else I might feel for a moment, basically comes down to my desire for the country to go in a different direction than it has been going for the past eight years or more. Pundits often talk about the “dynastic” implications of another Clinton presidency, and I think that is a valid concern. When I cast my first vote for George H. W. Bush in 1992, I never imagined that my country would become one in which two families share power for over twenty years. That is not healthy for our democracy.

Nor is it healthy to have an ex-President essentially serving three terms in office, whether officially the President or just the “co-President.” The Clinton control of the Democratic party needs to be broken, and the only way it can be broken is for Hillary’s ambitions to be derailed. Otherwise we are going to have another four to eight years of more of the same in Washington: legislative gridlock, unbalanced budgets, and constant, partisan war.

Do people remember how childish and downright insane Republicans acted when the Clintons were in power? Republicans talk about “Bush hatred” and how it makes Democrats crazy. Bush hatred is nothing in comparison with Clinton hatred. We all need to take a moment and remember how the nineties really were, the prosperity and our own nostalgia aside.

Do people remember the investigations that went nowhere, but cost taxpayers millions of dollars? Do people remember how little actually got accomplished? Do people remember how Bill Clinton courted public opinion on all manner of issues–from “don’t ask, don’t tell” to war-mongering against Iraq? And then there are the tin-foil hat theories in right-wing circles about Clinton raping women and murdering Vince Foster. Why would anyone even consider putting the Clinton’s back in office, knowing how Republicans will respond?

Again, a Clinton presidency will not be healthy for the country or the Democratic party. We cannot be stuck in the past, fighting old battles and seeking to revenge ourselves on the Bushes. Yet that is what this feels like, much as Bush’s campaign in 2000 felt like Republican revenge for eight years of Clinton.

We need to move on. Obama is the man to help us bring closure to the era of partisanship. I just hope people see that before it’s too late.

Michigan and South Carolina are now suddenly very important states in this race. I am anxious for Obama to do well, but I don’t know what to expect anymore. Clearly, as in 2000, despite a clear demand for authenticity in our politics, old guard “say what they want to hear” politics can trump genuineness.

I can’t help but recall that after New Hampshire in 2000, I was extremely excited about McCain’s chances against George Bush, and yet in the end, whether legitimately or not, old politics beat new politics. Hillary Clinton is the exemplar of old politics. She said it best herself: she “listened” to voters and “found her voice.” That’s just political double-speak for changing with the shifting wind of public opinion.

All you can expect from a politician like that is the same old disappointment and frustration we have known for decades. Yet for some reason, voters often choose the candidate who promises more of the same, rather than take a chance on someone promising to make a difference.