The Second Black President

Hmmm...I won't deny the media bias against Hillary!

I had a sort of debate with my Hillary Clinton-loving friends—all gay, all in their mid-thirties to mid-forties—to try to explain to them why they should not blame Barack Obama for possibly beating her (we'll know Tuesday night), and why they should not feel afraid of him as the probable Democratic nominee. For me, it's always been quite easy. I've always liked him even as I loved her. I never thought he'd be a lousy choice. Probably my lowest moment with him was when he was adding Donnie McClurkin to his gospel tour of the South—partly because I recoiled from an anti-gay gay being given such legitimacy, but more practically because I thought it showed how green he was not to have known better.

But even as I was coming around to him, I was dealing with a lot of ridiculous negativity toward Hillary from fellow Democrats. Reading the comments on DailyKos were so alienating—they spoke of her as if she, this liberal firebrand in most people's minds, were no better than George W. Bush. She's not perfect, to be sure, but that was a Bush too far. Also, it's been painfully obvious how much the press loathes her—every move she makes is unfavorably spun.

Since then, as Hillary has faltered, Barack has impressed me. But as I've come to know and like him, I've noticed the last bit of fight surfacing from Hillary's supporters. In my mind, at least when it comes to her gay fans, I feel this is an emotional response—we've been attached to her and her husband as the most gay-friendly White House inhabitants ever. She was the first First Lady to walk in a gay pride parade. Sure, Clinton gave us Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but it was an improvement on Don't Even Think About It 15 years ago. And ever since Hillary's amazing popular-opinion comeback, during which she swept into office as the junior senator from New York, we've been counting down to the impossible dream: President Clinton v. 2.0.

Guess what? We're getting a chance at President Clinton v. 2.0. His name is Barack Obama.

The fact of the matter is, for Hillary to have done this well, to have come this far, should be victory enough. Instead, some of her fans are having a hard time dealing with the fact that a younger person, coming out of nowhere, has won over the media, the Kennedys, Oprah and countless high-profile Democrats. Now, Obama has to win over Hillary's dejected supporters. And here's why he should be able to:

Barack's McClurkin snafu should be drowned out by the lengthy, detailed and sincere open letter he's written to the gay community.

When that letter was posted on Towleroad, the first comment was "great, more words!" as if Hillary's or John McCain's or any other politician's words are automatically more likely to lead to action than Obama's. This meme—that Obama is all talk—was forcefully and effectively answered in the last two debates, and is bolstered by this handy list of accomplishments. This is clearly a man who longs to make change in this country. And if he's elected, he'll probably have a Democratic Senate and House behind him.

Actions do speak louder than words.

Furthermore, I think Obama has shown an ability to absorb harsh attacks without undue complaint, and to take racially charged hits (from his own party) without reacting in a way that would turn off white voters. It's as if he thrives on attacks. In the way that he told Hillary Clinton it's not all about fighting, fighting, fighting, he seems to benefit from being fought against.

The other concern I've heard about Obama is regarding his safety. Sad to say, I think this is a misguided attitude—it's maybe excusable in those old enough to have seen the high-profile assassinations of the 1960s, but remember...that was 40-plus years ago. There's no reason to believe he is in any more danger than such despised, divisive figures as the Clintons or any of the Bush administration.

I'm just about fed up with "Defeatocrats" who continually tell me that they think John McCain is somehow unbeatable. Are you serious? He was almost defeated for his own party's nomination, a huge chunk of his party's most reliable voters from 2000 and 2004 can't stand him because he's not conservative enough, he's considered prohibitively old to hold that highest office (and might not even be Constitutionally eligible for it) and he has explicitly made the unpopular war one of his main areas of focus. He's already uttered the words "I won't win" in saying he can't win if America doesn't see the war the way he sees it—and they already don't. On the Democratic side, we have had an unprecedented number of voters at every single contest so far—far outweighing the Republicans who've shown up. Yes, a general election is different, but you can't tell me those people who voted in a primary won't do whatever it takes to vote in the general. Plus, Obama has brought new people into the party—youth and probably a slew of others who have not voted before, or have not voted regularly. All that and the country is trending blue.

Does any of this mean we should be overconfident? Nope! Obama could still lose for any number of reasons. But Democrats simply could not be in a better position than we are right now—we were much, much worse off in 2004 and we almost won with a much less likable candidate.

Any concerns people have had with Barack Obama have been sincerely answered by the candidate. I only hope Hillary's supporters, myself among them, can listen to him with an open mind instead of instinctively lashing out at the person who ended her, and our, long-held dream fair and square.

Comments

[Bears are Fat]

Agreed. I am a huge supporter of BOTH Obama and Hillary, but have had to find myself *siding* with Hillary often in the context of ridiculous attacks on her that are hackneyed and that mostly reproduce the 'Clinton rules' (Krugman) in regard to how she is 'narrated' in the press and in public culture at large. The 'Hillary is an Evil Corporate Hack' argument coming from Democrats is just ridiculous and intellectually lazy; as though anyone who rises to power in US national politics is not well positioned and doesn't have connections. The way the Clintons went from being anti-racist Democrats to being 'race baiters' was really appalling, and see Sean Wilenz's new piece in the New Republic. One thing that will really bother me is if somehow Obama's nomination is read or spun as a repudiation of the Clintons -- a story that would play right into Republican narratives (they want to forget the 90s).

I *hate it* when Democrats get scared of the Republicans and worry about defeat. We are way way way too self-critical and insecure, and the right wing prays on this insecurity. We need to be advocates and stay strong. Kerry was an excellent candidate who almost won. Gore is a brilliant man. Hillary is a truly admirable person. Obama is a rock star of American history who will truly change things for people in the US. Etc.

McCain is extremely vulnerable: pro-war, very very old, no plan to fix what needs fixing in the US (viz., HEALTH CARE). If Obama chooses Edwards as a VP, I think this will be a very clear choice between a new generation of leadership and those old white men who have been running things for a decade and fucking them up.

You know, I have friends who used to run into Obama at Chicago -- didn't he teach there? Was he around when you were there? One thing I look forward to is Obama, instead of running away from or responding limpy to rightwing smear, standing up and saying: Uh, /you/ guys are the ones who are unpatriotic, YOU are the ones who have rescinded basic civil liberties, ruined our image abroad, spent us into oblivion. I think as a black man, he can talk about 'freedom' in the US context and have it not just be a code word for 'authoritarian Republicanism' -- those of us who have traditionally been marginalized can truly appreciate the freedoms of the US.

Anyway... blah blah. Thanks for a nice post.

[Matthew Rettenmund]

Thanks for the nice comment back. I never saw him that I know of...I graduated in January of 1991. I only just recently realized Michelle Obama is connected to my alma mater. I agree with you 100% that Hillary losing the nom WILL be read as a repudiation of the Clintons (which in some ways is fair, but not wholly), and that will be making the Republicans (and a surprisingly self-defeating number of Democrats) very happy. But whatever the hatred is for the Clintons, it's no longer worth my or our party messing around with. Hate her irrationally? Fine! Toss her into your volcano. Then Obama, who's just as good, will be our compromise candidate. I also agree—Obama has not let one attack go unanswered. I'll never measure the drapes, but I have a lot of well-reasoned confidence he's going to kick McCain's ass.