Reactions to a Tough Decision

by: Mike Lux

Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 13:36


Crossposted at HuffingtonPost

Arianna Huffington and I were talking at the Take Back America conference, and she encouraged me to write a follow-up post about the decision I made a couple of weeks ago that I thought I would not end up making in this primary campaign: endorsing Barack Obama. I did so on March 5th, the day after the Ohio and Texas primaries.

It's not that I didn't like Obama. I've actually known him for awhile and liked him very much- certainly I had been inspired by him like so many others. But I had been very much intending to stay neutral in this campaign for a couple of reasons.

The first was that for all my years in Presidential politics (I've been directly involved in five different Presidential campaigns since 1984, and have been involved in a variety of independent expenditure efforts in 2000 and 2004), I haven't been involved in the primaries since the 1988 cycle. I have always been a lot more focused on beating Republicans rather than on Presidential primaries, and on building the broader progressive infrastructure. Because there don't tend to be huge issue or ideological distinctions between the leading candidates, as in this election, it has always seemed more important to me playing a broader building and uniting role in the party and progressive movement than getting into the intense flame wars that always seem to accompany these primary fights (God knows I've been exhausted by the flame war accompanying this one for quite a while).

The second reason was, as I wrote in the March 5th post and in several other posts over the last year, that I have a very high regard for and loyalty to Hillary Clinton. I was a senior staffer in Little Rock in the 1992 campaign, and a Special Assistant to the President in the first term of the Clinton administration, and in that role I had worked very closely with Hillary, especially on the health care fight. I have a great deal of affection and respect for her from those years, and feel a great deal of loyalty to her for all her kindness and friendships for me over the years. I had strongly disagreed with her on the war and on some other issues over the years, but that has not diminished my respect for her.

So I was determined to stay out of this fight. But the fight in Texas and Ohio changed all that for me. Not just because I was appalled at the Republican reinforcing fear thematic that Hillary used to win, but because there is no path for Hillary to the nomination at this point except an ugly, ugly path. Given the delegate math, she can only win this by a combination of fear-mongering attacks and behind the scenes deals with superdelegates. That would be terrible for our party, and for the entire progressive movement.

The reaction since my endorsement post has been really interesting. No surprise at all, I got shots across the bow by people connected to Hillary's campaign about my name being mud, etc. Hey, it's politics, I get that and expected it. But I have been surprised by the number of Hillary supporters who quietly said to me, "I've picked my candidate and I'm with her until the end, but I admire what you wrote, because there is no way to a win without it getting really ugly." And even the most ardent Hillary supporters- the ones who say things like "well, yeah, but Obama's been negative, too" or "hey, politics is a contact sport"- cannot spell out for me a path to the nomination for her, absent a big mistake by Obama, that isn't profoundly divisive.

Because of my personal ties to the Clintons, this was one of the toughest decisions I have ever made. But every day that goes by makes me more convinced that it was the right thing to do.

Mike Lux :: Reactions to a Tough Decision

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Thank you for this (0.00 / 0)
And while I remain deeply skeptical of Obama, concerned with his health care positioning, and worried about his messaging, I'm really hoping that he finds some miraculous way to close the gap in Pennsylvania and win this thing at least semi-cleanly.  Because I don't want to see the disaster this thing will devolve into with a decisive Clinton win in PA.


How was this a tough or useful decision? (0.00 / 0)
If I understand your post, you endorsed Obama as soon as it became apparent to you that Hillary couldn't win.

If Hillary can't win, then endorsements are moot. You're choosing sides after the game is over. That is the opposite of a "difficult" decision - transparently you've simply declared your opportunism.  

A statment that "I endorsed a candidate because his opponent can't win" doesn't represent a tough decision, or a decision at all, but a desire to be associated with the winner rather than the loser, and nothing more.


? (4.00 / 3)
You don't seem to have read either today's post or the one on March 5th. My point is not that she can't win: if that was the case, I would have said nothing and avoided the painful break with the Clintons. My point was that she absolutely does have a chance to win the nomination, but that it is divisive and thoroughly ugly path.

[ Parent ]
Obama's machinations to deny revotes in Florida and Michigan (0.00 / 0)
put a lot of that potential ugliness now at his doorstep as well.  

Revotes in Florida and Michigan would remove all sources of argument and make whatever happened indisputable.. It would be over in June not August

...and hell, what I don't get is...  he has a shot to win Michigan so why is he balking?...He is acting out of political calculation..the Democratic party be damned.

His hands are not clean.  It is not only the right thing to do - to allow the votes of millions of people to matter; it is the politically right thing to do in terms of having a endto  the race earlier than August and without conflict at the convention.  All the standard measures will have been concluded...by not allowing a revote...Obama is making sure it will go to the convention.

So I now think the he has ensured the divisiveness and the ugliness, but he is also the one who can act like a big person and make sure the revotes happen.

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
A distinction without a difference (0.00 / 0)
Nothing is ever a 100% certainty.  Clinton can still win, up until the days she concedes - the scenarios get more and more unlikely, until they are reduced to sudden heart attacks or late revelations of Obama being a client of a high priced call girl operation.

The same dynamic still applies.  If you endorse someone when the chance of victory are 50%, the endorsement makes sense, and is a statement of principle.  If you endorse someone when the chance of victory is 1%, then you can't hide behind principle - you are engaging in an act that is worthless and opportunistic.  At the time of your endorsement, Clinton's chances were probably around 20%. On the principle scale, it rates pretty low.  

As Clinton's chances waned, you decided, in line with a chorus of pundits, that her only path was to be ugly and divisive.  But of course, that has always been a cover - claiming larger principles when you have none.  Recent events bear this out.  Obama has been damaged, for the first time in this campaign, by his own actions in being associated with Wright.  How damaging it will be remains to be seen - but it is the biggest hit Obama has taken, and it can't be blamed on anyone but Obama.

Clinton supporters have been saying this for months - Obama was unvetted, and eventually the gloss will wear off.  Some of us are actually old enough to remember Howard Dean's fall.  The conclusion that Clinton had only "one" path to the nomination was always an invention of the establishment pundits, who have a very poor track record.  If you remember any primary season (and I could discuss and link this in detail), Clinton's campaign has not been particularly hard hitting or divisive.

As a Clinton supporter, I am angry.  But I'm not angry because of because Clinton ran the 3 am ad.  I'm angry about the free ride that Obama's got from the media, which didn't end until it was too late, and we are left with a weak barely vetted candidate.  I'm also angry about Michigan and Florida.  That debacle isn't the fault of either of the candidates.

I have no allegiance to the Democratic party whatsoever.  I have no desire to see the Obama supporters take it over.  You've lost me.   It is best for the party that I have voted with the last twenty years, and for America, for the Democrats to lose the presidency in 2008.  I will not back Obama, under any circumstance.  And there are many, many more like me.  The divisiveness isn't fundamentally a symptom of either Obama or Clinton being divisive, but of the party not being deserving of my vote - beginning with constructing this absurdly undemocratic system for the nomination.

I wouldn't predicate a decision to back either Obama or Clinton on the basis of the odds of them winning.  No matter how you slice it or what spin you put on it, that is cowardice - hunting in packs with the rest of the media and the pundits.  You're welcome to your decision.  But the nature of your decision is apparent.  Don't blame Clinton for the divisiveness, or for the fact that the Democrats will probably lose to McCain.  Blame the entire party - they deserve to lose, they alienated everyone by turns, and it will be a long time before they pull themselves together and learn to win.  IMHO.


[ Parent ]
Courage. (0.00 / 0)
You seem to be obsessed with whether or not my decision was a courageous. I don't care whether my decision was courageous. I didn't endorse earlier because I didn't really care who won, and I had better things to do than get into flame wars with partisans like yourself. When I came to the conclusion that there was true danger to the party, I did what I felt was the right thing to do. If Obama had won Ohio and Texas, and it was all over, I would have happily waited until Hillary got out in her own time, because I respect her and had no desire to dis her by endorsing Obama in the primary. With this thing now dragging on, I thought it was my responsibility to say what I said. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but get over your obsession re my manhood.

[ Parent ]
Not my obsession (0.00 / 0)
You're the one who kept saying it was a tough decision.  I disagreed.  So, if you want to concede that your decision wasn't "tough" then take the word out of the title; but don't pretend it's my obsession with your manhood, as opposed to my perception that the title of your post did not match the facts in the post.

But, now that this race has become divisive - and people like myself will vow not to vote for the Democratic nominee (Florida and Michigan being the absolute last straw), is it your position that Clinton has been the source of the divisiveness?  Or is the source, as I see it, the bad judgment and tolerance and support of hate by Obama over 20 years, combined with the Democratic party's disrespect for the voters by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan?

The second doesn't validate the rationale for your endorsement, certainly.


[ Parent ]
And to make it a little more clear... (0.00 / 0)
You, by your endorsement, perpetuated the myth that Clinton was divisive, no matter what she did.  This is a major reason that the media focused on the manufactured Clinton sins, and not the basic facts of Obama as a person and as a candidate.

By doing so, you continued the media storyline that prevented Obama from being closely examined, which will be a major reason for the much-deserved downfall of the party in November.

Under the guise of avoiding division and "saving" the party, your endorsement promoted division and made loss more likely by elevating the more divisive, unsuitable candidate to the general election.


[ Parent ]
Thank You Kanzeon (0.00 / 0)
for eloquently expressing my thoughts as I was reading this blog.  

[ Parent ]
Tough decision. (0.00 / 0)
It was a tough decision because I like and admire Hillary, and I felt bad about going against her. It's not what I wanted to do on a very personal level.
And I don't think Obama has been purer or run a cleaner campaign than Hillary. What I do think is that Hillary has decided to attack Obama using themes that reinforce GOP talking points, and can't win at this point without things getting ever nastier and more divisive. If Obama was this far behind in the delegate, and his only chance of winning was to destroy party unity, I'd be supporting her instead.

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
I accept that you think you did the right thing, and that your friendship with the Clintons made it personally uncomfortable.

What I object to, as I noted above, is the premise that Clinton was divisive.  

For myself, I've made my choice.  I donated $2K to Clinton this cycle.  I am a small but reliable donor to Democrats.  I'm not donating to Obama.  I have no intention of voting for him.

McCain has a great opportunity to move to the center (Obama has helped him win the base back) and embrace voters like me and get our $$ and votes.  I don't know if he will.  I put my email into his webpage tonight. I realize I'm a minority, but my guess is that people like me reside in battleground states, rather than the pure red and blue states.  We don't post on internet sites as much as Obama supporters do - I think we are older, somewhat more conservative.  We show up mainly in polls, not here or among the Washington establishment opinion.

I don't like joining forces with Sean Hannity; but it isn't any worse than being in the same party with Keith Olberman.  The Democratic party is leaving many of us without a home.


[ Parent ]
that's disgusting (0.00 / 0)
How can you consider voting for McCain in the general election just because your candidate didn't win? On almost all of the issues, Clinton and Obama ran on the exact same platform (one can quibble about this--I do think Clinton has the better of the two 2 pretty bad health care plans, and I like Obama's plan for poverty more than Clinton's nonexistent one, as well as Obama's foreign policy). Hell, Clinton even waited to see how Obama would vote on the Iraq supplemental over the summer. None of your policy goals from a Clinton Presidency would be accomplished with a McCain Presidency and a solidly Democratic Congress, while almost all of them would be with and Obama Presidency and similar Congress.

The only reason you've really articulated for not liking Obama is the preacher thing. I'd suggest you watch his speech and read his disavowals, and take a good hard look at exactly what it is you like about Clinton, then compare that with the Obama and McCain platforms.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I will absolutely 100% vote for Clinton, even if she wins the nomination by coup of superdelegates, because she is light miles past McCain on my policy preferences and honestly within inches or yards of Obama on most issues (besides meeting with hostile leaders and the urban social policy I discussed above). I'm also a college student whose bank account runs to $0 a few days before every paycheck, but I will also donate money to Clinton if she gets in a position where I think it would help. But maybe that's because I'd be in the position of getting drafted for the war with Iran, or having to send my kids to underfunded schools, or seeing my social security dry up because it was privately invested in a fund tied to the next subprime mortgage crisis.

Reality needs to check you into the boards fast and hard


[ Parent ]
Simple (0.00 / 0)
I can consider voting for McCain because I have an open mind.  He will have to earn my vote.  The Democratic party has lost mine.  At this point, even if Clinton managed to win the nomination, my faith in the party is finished.

You have no idea what my policy goals are, but Isuspect they are different than yours.  However, a competent moderate Republican with a Democratic Congress is more appealling than a weak, ineffectual Democratic presidency that will be a disaster for the country, which is the consequence of electing Obama.  My objections to Obama are not just his church - although pastor Wright is the only one who deserves the label "disgusting" in this thread.  I'm a little older than you.  I remember Carter - a much better man than Obama who lacked the competence to guide the country in times that are strangely like ours.  The result was Reagan backlash - just a few years after the party was disgraced by Watergate. Carter did the Democrats and the country no favors.  Obama is Carter II for the party, but he'll never get a Nobel.

I'm far from alone.  Look at the polls.  Nationally McCain is marginally ahead, while other polls reflect historic highs for Democratic affiliation and lows for Republican affiliation.  Democratic participation was double Republican participation in the primaries from the start. Democrats have a huge financial advantage.  They get most of the news coverage.  But still they lag.  They lost in 2000, and in 2004, despite having more popular policies positions and candidates that were better on paper.

We are posting on an echo chamber, not much different anymore than freerepublic.  Most Americans don't think that considering voting for McCain is "disgusting" just like most Americans don't think Hillary murdered Vince Foster.  One way to continue the Democrats slide is take what is said by moveon and kos seriously, because they are far outside the mainstream, and still lack the clout of the Republican machine.

As matters stand, the Democrats will lose votes no matter who gets the nomination, and they're already behind.  Why the Democrats lose is a complex question that is beyond my expertise and the understanding of the highly paid consultants in the party.  Part of the reason seems to be the culture of the party and the nominating process that gives many voters unacceptable choices such as, in my case, Obama.  I think the candidate that was most electable in the pack was Edwards, but the party didn't put the capital behind him (and yes, that was as much Clinton's fault as anyone's - maybe more).  Instead the party started playing identity politics, with both front runners.  But I have no doubt that Clinton would be a success if she got in, just as I have no doubt that Obama will be a dismal failure.


[ Parent ]
Think! (0.00 / 0)
"...How can you consider voting for McCain in the general election just because your candidate didn't win?..."

Many of those crazed Hillary supporters who are ready and willing to vote for McCain (and Lieberman) are Israel-firsters -- that's why they can vote for McCain.  Also ML alluding to the power of the Superdelegates... There appears to be a big fight behind the scenes...  some real hardball...

Connect the dots -- comes up with some real ugly stuff:

March 30, 2007
Howard Dean Bringing In Big Money From Major Donors Once Skeptical Of Him
http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...

March 15, 2008
Clinton Donors Threaten To Withhold Funds From DNC
March 15, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

March 21, 2008
Is the DNC broke?
http://www.politico.com/news/s...

Mar 20, 2008
Dozens of Jewish Super-Delegates May Hold Key to Democratic Race
http://www.forward.com/article...

Why McCain Can Tap into the Jewish Vote
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...


[ Parent ]
When all else fails... (0.00 / 0)
blame the Jews.

Then if you lose, you still have someone to hate.


[ Parent ]
You idiot... (0.00 / 0)
Read the links... you might learn something...

[ Parent ]
BTW... I seemed to have got you pegged. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Moi? (0.00 / 0)
Kanzeon isn't exactly a Biblical name.

One doesn't need to be Jewish to understand the obvious import of writing "pro-Israel," "connect the dots," and "scary" in the space of twenty words.


[ Parent ]
Don't have to be Jewish (0.00 / 0)
You could be one of those Christian zionist nutcases...

Still got you pegged...  yeah ... you are scary...


[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
But some of us are basing our votes on which  candidate has experience. Which for me is  either HRC or McCain. It doesn't mean that one is a Israel -Firster or an idiot as you suggest but rather which candidate I would want answering the phone a 3am and frankly so far I haven't seen anything from Obama that makes me want it to be him. I want someone who is willing to make hard choices, possibly unpopular choices but choices that they will fight for instead of taking the easy way out by voting present.

It also has to do with a choosing a candidate who doesn't try to defend a 20 year friendship/mentorship with someone who says "God Damm America" Sorry but I have a huge issue with that.  


[ Parent ]
For the record (0.00 / 0)
- my response was directed at SandThroughTheEyeGlass not Kanzeon.  

[ Parent ]
experience? == experience lying out of her butt... (0.00 / 0)
and will take money from special interest groups that want to start WWIII in Iran... freakin delusional.

Also, Wright is not running for President, he's so irrelevant....

However, if Wright seems to stick in your claw then you should check out Hillary's 'spirtual advisor(s)' who will be far more closer to the Presidency -- Damn right creepy compared to Wright...

http://www.talk2action.org/sto...


[ Parent ]
And Obama's (0.00 / 0)
experience is what???  

[ Parent ]
Thank You For This Honest Post (0.00 / 0)
Much of what you say here is what I feel and have articulated in bits and chunks throughout the blogosphere. Sadly, it seems to fall on deaf ears and minds.

It is astounding and saddening (maddening, too) to me that liberal "thinkers" and leaders seem to have lost that ability now. I am continually amazed at the arguments put forth by my liberal brothers and sisters to justify their support of Sen. Obama and, by extension, the justification and excuses to marginalize and dismiss Clinton and her supporters.

We are as guilty as right-wing media and pundits, dropping any pretense of critical thinking or truly thoughtful decision-making.

There are many of us -- and our numbers are growing -- who see no way that Sen. Obama can or will win in November, pointedly because of the many factors Clinton and her supporters have raised, over and over again, to no avail.

I have come to accept that once again it is the minority within the minority of the Democratic Party that is all-too-willing to hijack the party, sacrificing the good of the many and the country for the good of the few.


[ Parent ]
Endorsing Obama (0.00 / 0)
I understand that "liberals" (Yeah! We ARE liberals) need to feel as though our Democratic presidential candidate meets the litmus test on liberal goals and values. But the constant drumbeat about Hillary's negativity (the "pro-Republican" accusations) always astounds and saddens me.

I have had to swallow several unhappy realities about Clinton: her "Yea" vote on the authorization and her support of the Kyl/Lieberman resolution, to name two of the most inflammatory. I have also done research into the "context" of these dismaying votes because I believe this is a huge part of decisions our elected leaders are asked to make on issues of concern to all of us.

I, too, know Hillary Clinton and the work she has done over the years to make the world a better place for all of us. I worked in Washington during the Clinton Administration (and prior to that), working on the very issues we support and laud: better policies for workers and their families, union organizing, advancing civil rights in employment and education, and improving the lives of women and children here and abroad.

That so many liberal voices make the mistake of reducing their support for Sen. Obama to a very narrow set of parameters is deeply disturbing to me, as a Hillary Clinton supporter. I also deeply resent the continued characterization of most Clinton supporters as unfeeling and unthinking in their support of Clinton, and a persistent need to marginalize us -- by the very liberal individuals and organizations we also believe in and support.

So long as the narrow black/white, right/wrong, good/bad, evil/good dichotomies are used by liberals in defense of their support for Sen. Obama, the more difficult will be the task of earning OUR support and trust again to address the serious concerns all of us face.


The Republicans and Bizarre Naderites who post here (0.00 / 0)
are not welcome and not helpful. There is no choice between WWIII and Obama, there is no choice between NINE Alitos on the scotus and a good hope to balance it, there is no choice between torture and respect for fundamental human dignity, there is no choice between hopeless sellouts to crazy violent theocrats and a courageous clear-thinking candidate who is willing to not only avoid currying the favor of religious fanatics but denounces the extreme positions of his own pastor.

This is not hard to understand, unless you willfully desire the end of the democratic party, in which case got to hell.

If this is too strong for openleft, Im sorry.

Go ahead and ban me.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


I don't see any Nadarites or Republicans here.... (0.00 / 0)
What I do see is that if the election were held today, 55% of the population would vote McCain.

The left blogosphere is a tiny sliver of the world.  It's the only place where people can talk about "crazy violent theocrats" without everyone pointing and laughing at the deadpan hyperbole.  Like the right wing echo chamber, it is a place where "choice" doesn't exist, because as soon as someone expresses real diversity of opinion (right or wrong, brilliant or dull), there are calls of "troll" or other shouts that the speaker be banished.  


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search