May 1, 2008
Whatever happened to the Democrats being the party of tolerance and diversity?These days, it's gotten so people are afraid to say they still support Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y). They wait till they know if you're a comrade before they say anything at all, and even then, they lower their voice and lean closer, as if confessing to some tell-tale mark of moral depravity, some innate but previously undetected propensity for corruption and vice and -- God forbid -- ambition.
She's shameless she'll stop at nothing to win she's destroying the party Bill has lost it he's playing the race card she should just go away and let Obama win.
All this from fellow Democrats, and I'm standing there thinking, Al Sharpton is threatening marches and demonstrations throughout the country if Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) doesn't get the nomination. African American superdelegates who had pledged support to Hillary months ago and haven't changed their mind are getting threatening messages from anonymous Obama supporters, something like 90 percent of the African American vote is for Obama and we blame Bill and Hillary -- up until recently embraced by the African American community, Bill having been called "our first black president" by Toni Morrison -- for bringing race into the equation?
Something like 14 million Democrats have voted for Hillary, given her their time and money, placed in her candidacy so many of their hopes and aspirations, and yet we blame her for the fact that the primaries have taken as long as they have?
If we have to find someone to blame, why not blame the Democratic Party's proportional system? Michigan and Florida for breaking rules and being made to sit in a corner? Hell, why not blame Obama for getting into the race in the first place? Or the superdelegates who won't declare themselves until they're good and sure which side their bread is buttered on?
The notion that Hillary (or anyone else, for that matter, who still has the resources and the stamina and the faith to stay in the race) should just "go away" so that another candidate can coast to victory smacks of a sense of entitlement that, I dare say, is more suitable to a monarchical system than a democratic one. So does the argument that Obama's record or abilities should not be scrutinized, held to the same high or low standards as those of other candidates throughout history. He's been called a "unifier" and a "post-racial" candidate, and whatever little chink has appeared in his glossy image is being blamed on the fact that Hillary "just won't go away."
Are we electing a candidate based on his or her ability to lead the country, or are we crowning a king who looks good in pictures and who is above criticism, examination and challenge?
But the questions that have been raised about Obama in the past few weeks are ones that would have surfaced with time -- during the primaries or the general elections. The fact that he became a phenomenon as quickly and unexpectedly as he did perhaps delayed the kind of scrutiny that other candidates are subjected to. But it seems to me that Obama supporters are doing exactly what Bush voters did in the last two elections: back him because he's raised the most money; is likable and charming (I cringe when I say that, but there's no accounting for taste); and promises them the world -- No Child Left Behind, democracy in the Middle East, a permanent Republican majority.
True, there is a sense among young Democrats that Obama represents them better than an establishment candidate like Hillary. There's equally a sense within the African American community that "our time has come." Fair enough. They're all entitled to their sentiments and entitled to support Obama as much as they want.
But by the same token, there is a sense among some of us woman folk in our 40s and 50s that our time has come, as well -- that Hillary is the one female candidate with the brawn and the brain and the money and whatever else it takes to have a realistic chance at the presidency. That were she to lose -- and I grant you, that seems more and more likely -- there won't be a female president in our lifetime. This may not seem like a big deal to our daughters' generation, for whom women's rights' issues seem quaint. They're energized by Obama's message and the rock-star rallies. Fair enough. Go ahead and vote for him if you want, I say. Just don't tell me that it's OK to pick your candidate because he's African American or young or a good speaker, but that it's a betrayal of the party and a ruinous choice to pick her because she's a woman who we believe is qualified.
Call me cynical, but I like Hillary in spite of the fact that she's not Florence Nightingale. I think she's as ethical or unethical as anyone else who has managed to navigate the treacherous waters leading to candidacy. On one level, I believe Gore Vidal when he said: "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so." I think that applies as much to Hillary as it does to Obama or Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), that, again in the words of Vidal, "By the time a man gets to be presidential material, he's been bought 10 times over."
Yet, every time she's attacked by the other Democrats in the media, every time a superdelegate previously pledged to her switches sides, every time New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson smirks into the camera and bashes Hillary in order to ride on Obama's coattails (sorry, Bill, we all know the benefits of betting on a winner), anytime she digs her heels in and promises to keep going, I feel a sense of pride.
Here's a woman who fights for what she wants to the bitter end; who doesn't abandon her own dreams and the faith of people who have voted for her; who has the daring and the ambition to do what no other woman has been able to do in this country. And if that inconveniences anyone else -- superdelegates, party bosses or Mr. Obama -- it's nothing that hasn't been done, every election cycle in memory, by men.
Gina Nahai is an author and a professor of creative writing at USC. Her latest novel is "Caspian Rain" (MacAdam Cage, 2007). Her column appears monthly in The Journal.