Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Essentially Contested America

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Academic

: Essentially Contested America

Who Should Be the Progressives' Choice: Clinton or Obama?

By Robert Justin Lipkin

ADVERTISEMENTS

No authentic progressive remains in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. Senator Clinton is a centrist and Senator Obama is a center-left liberal. Neither are progressives. (Click here for an opposing perspective.) Should progressives sit this race out or wait for bo:

Nader to enter the race? Savvy progressives should eschew Nader, especially after the 2000 election. He is responsible, at least in part, for the war, the nomination and confirmation of two reactionary Justices, and the creation of a soft dictatorship. Senator Clinton clearly should not (and will not) be the progressives' choice. She is clearly character-challenged, specifically in the areas of truth and sincerity. Anyone who can still maintain that there was even a scintilla of evidence for authorizing the invasion of Iraq--as she did in the one-on-one debate with Obama--is supremely dishonest or lacks critical judgment, or both, disqualifying her from holding public office. Moreover, she recently voted to authorize George W. Bush to take military action against Iran. Don't get me wrong! I don't think for a minute she believes in the necessity of these votes in terms of national security; she cast them for craven political purposes. But that's just the problem.

Senator Clinton is reviled by many Americans. Will these individuals vote for Senator Obama if she is the nominee? Well, some backers of Bush-Cheney could never bring themselves to vote for Hillary. But honest Republicans and even some Democrats who revile Hillary will vote for Barack. Some of these Clinton-haters will not vote for Hillary because they cannot stomach the thought of Bill back in the limelight he so fervently craves. Both Hillary and Bill might be extraordinarily bright individuals, but they are both dishonest to the core and opportunistic beyond that of ordinary politicians. Other "Clinton-haters" have more penetrating reasons for not voting for Hillary. First, she cannot be trusted. Second, her centrism is camouflaged in liberal rhetoric as were her husband's. Third, she is connected to just those players--corporations and lobbyists--that are the cause of our democratic malaise. Fourth, the Republican-Rove machine will pillory her before they allow her to defeat Senator McCain.

Is Senator Obama clearly superior to Senator Clinton overall? Perhaps not clearly. But in one respect he, or at least his presidency, will be clearly superior. An Obama presidency will create a totally unique foreign policy face which will stun our enemies, surprise our friends, and mesmerize many third world nations. The good will produced will be incalculable. It will drastically alter, for the good, our position in the world. For example, take the question of negotiating with our enemies. Toward this prospect Clinton has the same view as George W. Bush. It is the conventional wisdom, to be sure, but that does bo: not immunize it from being dead wrong. The fear, of course, is that dictators and tyrants will want to meet with President Obama just to shore up their position in their own countries, regions, or the world. Well, there will be some of that to be sure. And, of course, certain minimal conditions must always be met before we negotiate. But while Senator Clinton is likely to require major substantive concessions before the negotiations even begin, as does George W. Bush, if Obama is true to his word, these concessions will be minor or hopefully nonexistent.

Neither candidate proposes a single payer health plan for all Americans. Although the Right demonizes the health plans in Canada and in Europe, these plans are effective. Indeed, when one looks at the reality of non-single-payer health care, it becomes obvious that "[o]nly a single-payer national plan will work. All the other gimmicks relying on market-based, employer-centered insurance have failed." Of course, the corporations, which will be damaged if a single payer plan is put in place in the United States, will spend fortunes on propagandizing against so-called "socialist" health plans. We will have to suffer through such clever lines as: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free." These are simply marketing tools to prevent the only viable universal health care plan from being discussed seriously. Such marketing tools will help special interests to keep hidden the only universal health plan that will work. Neither candidate's health care plan should impress progressives.

I understand how many feminists want desperately to see a woman in the White House. I think they're right. But it must not be just any woman. Hillary is surely not that person. I implore my progressive sisters hc:

to resist their totally justifiable desire to see a woman in the White House and take a good hard look at Hillary. Whatever else she is, a progressive she is not. She is an extraordinarily bright and knowledgeable person whose experience has taught her distort the truth and harness the traditional power brokers to support her candidacy. Obama is no progressive either. Indeed, their substantive differences on the issues are minimal which means we will be voting for character, judgment, and symbolic expressions. That's not all bad. But those factors point toward Obama. Keep in mind that Hell will suffer an arctic freeze before an authentic progressive occupies the White House.

Which candidate can beat Senator McCain? The challenges for either are legion. In the end, I do not think Hillary has a chance. Obama does and that's why he should be the progressive's choice.

Full post as published by Essentially Contested America on February 11, 2008 (boomark / email).