Obamacans v. Hillarycan’ts

I have a lot of fondness for the Clinton years, and The William J. Clinton Foundation does extraordinary public health work in communities that don’t get a lot of help otherwise. I’ve enjoyed watching Hillary’s dominance in two Senate races, and she has brought attention to New York’s Congressional delegation for the first time in awhile. Furthermore, in all practical terms, Hillary Clinton would make a very good president.

But, as I told my piano teacher Monday night, while he delayed the start of my lesson so that we could listen to Randi Rhodes on Air America, Hillary’s candidacy has begun to offend me personally.

After she loaned her campaign $5 million, reporters asked where the money came from. That was a week ago, and she still has no intention of answering that question. She won’t disclose her tax returns, while Obama has made his public and called on her do do the same. Transparency isn’t too much to ask for on this one.

Trepidations abound. Let’s say we elect her this year. There are sealed documents at the Clinton Library in Little Rock that relate to her time in the Bill Clinton White House. She suppressed them during this year’s campaign, and won’t disclose them until 2011, just in time to derail her re-election campaign.

When he left the White House in September, Karl Rove used his Meet the Press exit interview to talk about Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton is a very intelligent woman. If there’s dirt on her somewhere, it’s safe to assume she knows about it. Whether Rove has scandalous information, or thinks she’ll lose because she’s polarizing, or just wants to fabricate something that will destroy her, this guy is itching to go after her in the general election.

She seems eager for that confrontation as well (she’s already offered a challenge to McCain), and she clearly wants to vindicate herself more than anything. She could be pushing herself right into an embarassing defeat, without any concern for the damage she might do to progressive politics. This seems like the highest level of selfishness. She would put the hopes and future of the Democratic party on her, only to allow it to come crashing down with her.

Of course, Bill Clinton was re-elected despite Whitewater and Paula Jones, so Hillary might finagle two terms anyway, but that seems highly unlikely. And it’s worth noting that those scandals set the stage for the Gingrich-Delay-Santorum “Republican Revolution” of 1994, which effectively neutered the remaining years of the Clinton Presidency, and from which we're only now beginning to escape.

It’s always been a “51%” strategy with the Clinton campaign. She plans on doing just well enough, by winning the Democratic strongholds and the minimum number of swing states, to win the November election.

George W. Bush introduced us to the principle of being the president only of the people who voted for you. Hillary Clinton might push herself all the way to the White House, and while she might have enough connections to get some work done early on, she will never have a mandate. Her supporters lack enthusiasm, and her detractors can’t even bear to look at her. Plenty of presidents have lacked mandates, but of the four major Democratic and Republican candidates remaining, there’s one who already has his mandate: Barack.

I’m tired of being nervous about the Democratic party. I'm tired of waiting around for the next far-right hatchet job, knowing that Republicans play psychological politics much better than Democrats. The Democratic majority in Congress can’t govern because the GOP can make any action (e.g. restoring habeas corpus, protecting citizens against illegal eavesdropping by telecom companies, etc.) seem like capitulating to terrorists.

With his irresistible form of inspiration, Obama might finally have found a solution to the Democrats' rhetorical inadequacy. Hillary offers nothing that can’t be undone by a well-timed Fox News Alert.

The Clinton campaign staff has tried to convince her donors, superdelegates, and would-be voters not to pay any attention to the news (including the firing of most of that staff) for the rest of the month. She feels almost Bushian in her need to ignore facts in order to seem viable. She has not publicly acknowledged the results of a primary since Super Tuesday. At least John McCain congratulated Mike Huckabee over the weekend.

Hillary has gotten to a point where she not only lies, but does it unnecessarily and with chilling calmness. In an interview with CNN last night, Clinton said, “There’s a very big difference, because I’m for universal healthcare...something that Democrats since Harry Truman have been pushing for, and Senator Obama does not.” Wow, so Obama opposes a bedrock Democratic principle, and he’d willingly undo half a century worth of work. Perhaps I was wrong about Barry Obam, so let’s do some research.

Later in the same interview, Clinton said, “My plan is fully paid for, it would open up the Congressional health plan.” Upon checking the Healthcare section of the Obama campaign website, we find this overview:

Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.

So, the Obama and Clinton plans are essentially the same. Neither one, sadly, is ideal, but let’s not pretend as though one is for National Healthcare, and the other against. In terms of preference, it comes down to whom you trust. That’s where Barack wins the argument. In fact, the perceptions of trust and honesty have been emblematic of Hillary’s struggles throughout the primary season.

Republicans have begun coming out for Obama. They call themselves “Obamacans.” They say have united behind Barack because they can sense the possibilities he represents. There are a lot of Republicans who hate Bush 43, and who weren’t that wild about Bush 41 either. They all hated Bill Clinton, so these are people who haven’t been content with a President in 20 years. After two decades, they’re ready for a sea change. So are Democrats. For the first time since the inception of cable news, we might not have to live in constant fear of the next Democratic downfall.

Democratic strategist (and undecided superdelegate) Donna Brazile condensed Hillary’s woes very well last night. She said Hillary made a tactical error in positioning herself as “the anti-hope candidate,” later asking, “where’s the joy?”

Clinton runs a pessimistic, jaded type of politics that make it hard for even the most dedicated Democrats to get behind her. Perhaps we could call this group “Hillarycan’ts.”

After all, Obama can. Hillary can’t.