“A Fighter”

Clintonjustinsullivangetty

A reader writes:

One thing that both Hillary Clinton and her supporters say is indisputably true:  she is a fighter.  Clinton and her supporters believe that she will fight her opponents to accomplish her goals.  But what does that mean?

Right now, her opponent is a man with whom she agrees on nearly every issue; a man she says she respects and is honored to campaign against.  Despite the undisputed stature and dignity of her opponent, Clinton "fights" him with the most divisive and negative methods she can find.  Instead of simply convincing the American people that she is the better candidate, she feels compelled to throw every possible negative charge against him and see what sticks.

Now, imagine this "fighter" in the White House, attempting to actually achieve the goals she says she’ll fight for:  universal health care, bringing troops home from Iraq, etc.  If these are the methods she uses to "fight" an honorable opponent with whom she generally agrees, can you imagine what she’ll do as president to opponents with whom she disagrees?

If this is the level of negativity we see when she fights a supporter of universal health care who wants us out of Iraq, just try to envision what she’ll throw at anyone from any party who actually disagrees with her goal, or her method of accomplishing her goal.  If this is how she treats someone with whom she is "honored" to campaign, imagine how she’ll behave with someone she thinks is wrong, or evil?

Nothing meaningful will get accomplished if she gets back to the White House.

(Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty.)

The Wright Stuff

It’s nutty, offensive and paranoid stuff. And it is perfectly legitimate for reporters and voters to ask questions. It is not much nuttier than Falwell and Robertson, however. And I don’t think it’s racist to understand that the black church has a different cultural style in its preaching and activism style that helps add some dimension to Wright’s record. If you read Obama’s books and listen to him speak about his church, it’s clear that he was not drawn by Wright’s more inflammatory and offensive language. His engagement with the Church was an attempt to connect with the life and feelings of a black urban class he had never truly belonged to and whom he intended to represent. We can forget what an outsider Obama was when he first came to Chicago.

Nonetheless, Obama needs to be much more forceful and candid in explaining his relationship with Wright. I’m a little leery of getting in between a man and his minister – it’s not unlike the lawyer-client relationship in some ways. And, goodness knows, I have had many a priest with whom I have disagreed or even found offensive. But like many people, I wouldn’t sit through one of these sermons, let alone come back for more. And it would be helpful, to say the very least, if Obama told us more candidly why he did and does.

This, however, seems to me to be excessive:

Much as most of us would appreciate the symbolism of a black man ascending to the presidency, what we have in Barack Obama is a politician whose closeness to Mr. Wright underscores his radical record.

The media have largely ignored Mr. Obama’s close association with Mr. Wright. This raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama’s fundamental beliefs about his country.

Everything we know about Obama’s racial politics and rhetorical style – and we know a lot about both – reveals the enormous gulf between him and Wright. This notion that somehow Obama harbors some ambivalence about his own country is not borne out by any facts or any record. The total record of Obama shows a very shrewd but compassionate and engaged rejection of identity politics, not a celebration of its most paranoid and bigoted emanations.

More explanation of the relationship is important. But guilt by association – especially uttered in the dark, McCarthyite tones of this op-ed – says more about the paranoia of the writer than the patriotism of his subject.

The Damage Done

A reader writes:

I was in a good mood as I walked to the subway this morning — it was sunny out and I was enjoying my coffee.  As I crossed the street I past a woman wearing a "Hillary" cap, and I became overwhelmed with anger.  I caught myself, and felt stunned and ashamed by what I had just experienced.   This morning I realized my opinions on how much damage would be left in the wake of Hillary’s march to the White House were no longer the product of some abstract political conversation I was having in my head.  No, I too was going to be one of those Americans torn apart by the Clintons’ divisive and dishonest brand of politics.  What other conclusion could I draw when a baseball cap (and not even a Yankees cap) can fill me with irrational rage towards a middle aged woman who looked like everyone’s favorite 1st grade teacher.

One small moment: I was leaving the theater last night and two twentysomething Obama volunteers grabbed me to praise the blog. At the same time, a handsome young man on a date turned around on the sidewalk and told me to go easier on Clinton. Three minutes later, as he drove by in his car, he yelled "Your blog sucks." Emotions are high. They may get higher.