Clinton/Obama and the Democratic Presidential Nomination

I want to prefix this entry with the fact that I have strong objections with the current structure of the American political system. I think we're stuck in a two party-straight jacket because of a winner take all electoral system which, besides the obvious overwhelming influence of corporate and wealthy interests, limits the range of solutions and voices in the political process. With a country so large and diverse as the United States, its impossible for two political parties to adequately represent the various interests that exist within it. The fact that third political party challenges are viewed as threats that "take away" votes from mainstream candidates demonstrates the narrow options that exist within our political system. Its inherently undemocratic that our electoral system doesn't allow for more than two political parties and especially alienating to voters when in recent years the difference in policies between the Democratic and Republican Party has become increasingly negligent on key issues like the War in Iraq, the economy, trade, and military spending. As a result, its not surprising that America has on average one of the lowest voter turnout rates among Western industrialized democracies. If we really want to break out of a corporate dominated federal government, along with measures like more campaign finance reform ,it has to start with restructuring our electoral system that allow for independent political parties to have a legitimate chance to compete.

That being said and with few viable alternatives in this present Presidential campaign, I lean towards the Democratic Party just because there is no way in hell I'd ever vote for a conservative politician. But watching the progression of this marathon Democratic nomination that just came to an end as the candidates I actually liked were forced to drop out (Kucinich and Edwards), I began to favor Obama over Clinton for the nomination.

Clinton ran a despicably vicious negative campaign that utilized a variety of smear tactics against Obama similar to those George Bush regularly used in 2000 and 2004. This, as Robert Parry calls it, "War on Obama" was planned by the Clinton political strategist far in advance of the Democratic primary and sought to promote guilt-by-association, red-baiting, McCarthyism and racial messaging against Obama through, among other things, his relationship with controversial figures such as Vietnam-era radical Bill Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In doing this, she allied with right-wing media figures and outlets such as media mogul Richard Scaife, Fox News and even Rush Limbaugh.

The Clinton campaign harped regularly on the race issue to brand and marginalize Obama as the "black candidate" to, as Parry puts it, build "animosity toward him by fanning white unease about this little-known black [man] with the exotic name."

Example of this strategy include:
"Clinton supporters have dropped comments about his acknowledged drug use as a young man, sent around photos of him in African garb, and referenced his family ties to Muslims. Most memorably, Bill Clinton likened Obama’s electoral victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s, and more recently, the former President played the role of white victim to reverse discrimination by accusing Obama’s people of playing the race card on him."

She also drew on the politics of fear toting her experience and willingness to be "tough" on foreign policy issues like threatening to "obliterate" Iran in a highly unlikely scenario that it attacked Israel. Such rhetoric reinforces the strong ties she has to the military-industrial complex that was one her main financial backers and as a member of the armed services committee in the Senate. As the Independent (UK) reported, in October of 2007,: "The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party." Her hawkish foreign policy record has been labeled as "Bush lite." When she spoke before the Council of Foreign Relations she called for a "tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy."

Though her campaign was no doubt historic for future potential female presidential candidates and that there was plenty of sexism in the media surrounding her candidacy. But as Barbara Ehrenreich, puts it, Hilary's campaign "revealed that women can be nasty, deceptive politicians too." I personally hope Obama picks a woman to be on his ticket for vice president, just not Hillary Clinton.

Despite his talk of change and hope, Obama's candidacy upon close scrutiny doesn't correlate in some ways with that rhetoric. Despite claims that he relied on Internet "netroots" fundraising instead of "traditional Washington-centric Democratic donors and corporate checkbooks" for his campaign funds, in many areas he's only second to Clinton in corporate donations received. According to opensecrets.org, Obama's one of his biggest donors has been Wall Street securities and investment companies. He's received the most money of any candidate Republican or Democrat with $7.9 million in campaign contributions from these firms as well as from hedge fund managers. Hows that going to reflect on his economic policies if he becomes President to deal with this severe recession, especially the sub prime crisis of which Wall Street had a large part in creating? Whose interests and voices are going to play a predominate role in shaping such solutions? If the money Obama has received from Wall Street is any indicator, I think its quite obvious. Some might make the argument that you can't be a mainstream presidential candidate these days without taking such money which unfortunately may be true. But Obama's self image as a candidate of "change" is extremely disingenuous while he's raising funds from traditional corporate sources.

Besides the obvious financial contributions, Obama has stealthily been building up connections to K Street corporate lobbyists in DC for "campaign support" and "advice" including:
former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young. It seems like Obama is trying to balance a public image of a reform candidate while creating an Washington insider presence.

While Clinton tried to play up the issue of race, Obama has done everything to be a race neutral candidate. He's gone out of his way to claim that race is no longer an issue in America and should be a low priority of the next President. When speaking in Selma, Alabama, Obama declared that blacks "have already come 90 percent of the way" to equality in the US. I find such a statement disturbing and quite out of touch with the reality of institutional racism still quite rampant in the US in a variety of areas. This is especially true in wake of not only the Hurricane Katrina relief debacle, the "War on Drugs" but the sub-prime mortgage crisis as well. "United for a Fair Economy" in its yearly State of the Dream report that documents racial wealth gaps in the United States, stated that the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the foreclosure its created has caused "the greatest loss of wealth for communities and individuals of color in modern US History."

Obama's move to court AIPAC , the Israel lobby that promotes a far right Likkud stance in US foreign policy, doesn't seem like a sign of much change, especially when it comes to creating a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians and, in turn, peace in that region. Moreover, it doesn't suggest a new even handed approach to the situation but rather a similar one-sided Israel stance that blames everything on the Palestinians and other countries in the region which Bush despite his "road map" did quite regularly, especially in terms of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and attempts to isolate the fairly and democratically elected Hamas government in the Palestinian territories.

Obama's claim in his speech to AIPAC that Jerusalem will always be the "undivided" capital of Israel belies any effort to create a two state solution in the region since East Jerusalem, of which Israel has illegally occupied since the 1980s, is crucial to creating a Palestinian state. Moreover, despite the fact that Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it remains, as the Israel human rights group B'tselem describes it, "the biggest prison on Earth" through tight Israeli military control of its borders but at the same time Israel "renounces its responsibility for the lives and welfare of [Gaza's] residents." As of now, Israel is causing a humanitarian crisis and committing a war crime through collective punishment in Gaza Strip in response to mortar fire from the territory by restricting fuel, medicine, water and UN food aid to the whole population. Such a blockade has been especially devastating to pregnant women and newborn babies who lack access to adequate health care supplies. At the same time, Israel has recently expanded illegal settlements in the West Bank, demonstrating a lack of respect for any attempt at creating a Palestinian state. Thus, if Obama ever becomes president, following the AIPAC line in terms of US foreign policy towards that region will not result in peace.

But what makes me hopeful about Obama is his ability to inspire people with his speeches, especially those of my age. His inclusive rhetoric that emphasizes the ability of ordinary people to make change is great to hear from a politician. I hope such rhetoric reinvigorates political engagement not just for this election, but for people to take action on a local level and organize for change. Many people my age talk about Obama as if was the American messiah. Such talk is delusional. No significant change in American politics or public policy in our nation's history came about because of certain individuals. Change comes from grassroots mobilization and the social movements that ferment them. I hope that Obama's candidacy galvanizes such potential for Americans to rise up and take action because we can never rely on politicians alone to bring about a better, more just, democratic world we want to make.