Opposing the Clintons

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton's "comeback" in New Hampshire and her squeak-by in Nevada, many Obama supporters both on this blog and elsewhere began to express sentiment for a very taboo ideal - not voting for Hillary if she is the nominee. Saying anything remotely close to this has, and will always be, a no-no on Daily Kos nomatter what. But, a little over a week before Super Tuesday, I think it is important to try to understand where these folks are coming from.

In today's LA Times, Jonathan Chait tries to explain where some of these feelings are coming from. He writes:

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

So what was the turning point?

The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.

This might have been the most egregious case, but it wasn't the first. Before the New Hampshire primaries, Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no" on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.") Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama."

And while these false and over-played attacks on Obama's character have disturbed me (and they should disturb you as well), I think that perhaps the most disturbing thing is the manner in which they are slung. Sadly, it seems that the Clinton attack machine has yet to face a backlash. And while the media (and Obama supporters) have been quick to point out how un-presidential Bill Clinton has been in the past few weeks, most Americans seemed unfazed by the Big Dog's attack dog style. It seems as if nostalgia has finally overtaken decorum.

Jeff Zeleny writes in the NY Times today:

If Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton found her voice with a victory in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama often seems to have been searching for the proper pitch in South Carolina, with the weight and scrutiny of the Clinton political machine fully upon him.

This week, some of the challenges and complexities facing Mr. Obama’s candidacy came into sharp view, with racial discord, ideological divides and cutthroat politics testing his candidacy as never before in his yearlong campaign. (Or his political life. )

Obama has had a rough week.

For all of the sunny self-assurance that has propelled him to this juncture in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Obama grappled to find a balance between defending himself against accusations he called distorted and promoting a message of hopeful change in a state that is essential to his bid for the presidency.

And, to give credit where credit is due, the Clinton strategy of attacking Obama so that he can strike back and then say "whatever happened to the politics of hope?" is brilliant political gamesmanship. But that kind of game-playing is unhealthy for the party, unhealthy for America, and is why I don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton. Ever.

But, come November, will I have to? I hope not. But this feeling I am feeling inside is not an isolated case. Countless people who read this and countless people I talk to are proudly Democrats but would feel a little uneasy casting a ballot to send the political tag-team that defeated the Politics of Hope to the Oval Office.

As Chait writes:

If Hillary wins the nomination, most of us will probably vote for her because the alternative is likely to be worse. But what happens if she's embroiled in another scandal? Will liberals rally behind her, or will they remember the Democratic primary?

What is our alternative? Mike Bloomberg? John McCain??? Humph.

A week from Tuesday, I will proudly cast my ballot for Barack Obama in the Connecticut primary. I do so knowing his middle name is Hussein. I do so knowing that he has done cocaine. I do so knowing his ideas for this country are longer than his resume. I do so knowing he is African American. I do so knowing I'm proud to be a Democrat. I do so knowing it is time to change the country.

And if he loses my state, or if he loses every state on Super Tuesday, my opinion of him will not change. He will still inspire me. And, depending on what happens, he will inspire me to cast my vote for a Democrat in November even if he is not on the ballot. Will I be happy about that? Of course not. Do I still hate Hillary and her low-life politics? Yes. But, in the interest of our nation, I gotta do what I gotta do.