putting the ‘I’ in unity
by Karen Sosa
Published: July 16, 2008
Last week, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Obama Donors Aren’t Rushing to Aid Clinton.” In it, many Obama supporters continue to be the voice of “change” but aren’t as big on the idea of “unity.”
As read in the article, “Why would I help pay off debts that Hillary amassed simply to keep damaging Senator Obama?” and “Not a penny for that woman. Or her husband,” are almost as common a slogan among Obama’s supporters as, “Yes, we can.”
So what happened to the call for party unity? The “unity” that caused us to rally behind Barack Obama? It looks like as soon as it was time for Obama supporters to rally behind someone other than Obama, they changed their tune. If Democrats believed for a second that Obama supporters wanted Clinton supporters to come around for the sake of unity, they were duped. It was about us vs. them all along.
Another Obama donor is quoted as saying, “Gas prices are up, the markets are in turmoil, my kid’s fall tuition bill is coming soon. Writing checks to politicians I don’t like is not at the top of my list.”
Yeah, well, same here, buddy.
Clinton supporters were badgered into supporting a politician many of them didn’t particularly like by a boisterous crowd accusing them of fighting McCain’s fight by fracturing the shatter-prone Democratic party. So Hillary Clinton led her faithful, many of them against their will, into the Obama fold and without qualification encouraged them to embrace a candidate and a group that had been very unkind to her and her ilk.
But in the Obama fold, the welcome has been less than warm.
The Obama camp wanted Clinton supporters to get behind him so badly, but has done little to thank them, to welcome them or to work toward any real sense of “unity,” seemingly content with a disgruntled and dejected “Yeah, I’ll vote for him, but I’m not happy about it,” as long as the first words are, “Yeah, I’ll vote for him.”
While Hillary Clinton gives more of herself to the Obama cause than anyone could have expected her to give, Barack Obama struggles to say anything positive about her beyond a pithy and nearly insulting, “She rocks.” While she, for so long the presumed nominee, now gets up and introduces him as the main act, he “forgets” to ask a gathering of NYC donors to assist in paying her loans and tacks it on at the end, a footnote nobody will read. Most offensively of all, he has failed to extend the vice president candidacy to her. Though it would surprise the world to see a Clinton willingly sit in chair #2, the offer should have been extended to her immediately. Not as a favor or gesture to her, but as a gesture to that half of the Democratic electorate that wanted her for their nominee.
Forgiveness of Hillary Clinton’s loans should be viewed in the same way; not as a favor or a gesture to her (a proposition that would understandably generate indignance) but as a gesture to her supporters. It has been a long, emotional and, in many cases, deeply wounding road for Clinton and her supporters. They have had to swallow a tremendous amount of pride, as well as passion. But by and large they have done it, betraying a commitment to Democratic values that transcends the politics of personality
Unity between two halves requires give and take from both. Perhaps Obama supporters should take a lesson from Hillary Clinton and see how it’s done.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
July 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The political race is in full swing, and donors of any Democratic sentiment know their money will be put to best use helping the presumptive nominee win the White House. Spending campaign time and money nursing the self-inflicted wounds of Senator Clinton will help no one.
As for “embracing” disgruntled Clinton supporters, they have distanced themselves from Obama through their vitriolic attacks and poor-loser attitudes. Maybe they aren’t being welcomed in as warmly as you’d like, but they’re certainly not being pushed away. Many of her supporters continue to launch attacks and cling to some sort of fairy-tale hope that Hillary’s campaign will rise from the dead, as evidenced by sites like hillaryis44.com.
“Perhaps Obama supporters should take a lesson from Hillary Clinton and see how it’s done.”
See how what is done? Throwing away an election through hubris and a poorly run campaign? I have certainly never seen anything resembling unity from her, only self-serving politics.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Hi Brett :)
I do agree that our dollars will be more influential if they are given to Obama, rather than to aid Clinton. My only response would be that most of the folks who are being asked to help her can probably afford to give to both. There is, after all, a limit to how much one can donate to him.
I do not agree, however, that Clinton supporters have been vitriolic since her exit, nor do I think they have been poor losers. I think the worst you can say is that they have been silent, not yet backing him with the same vivaciousness with which they backed her. That’s just a matter of licking their wounds, and Obama supporters need to stop and think how they would have responded to the same situation. Nearly identically, I suspect.
Of course they’re not being pushed away - they are votes. But if the Obama campaign wants them to be more than votes, if they want them to be donors and canvassers and outspoken supporters, all of which are going to be key to his success, then the campaign DOES need to welcome them warmly.
I don’t disagree that many of Hillary’s supporters are still, for lack of a more apt word, pissed off. Many of them don’t like Obama, and some are still attacking him. But that cannot justifiably be said of Hillary Clinton herself. Say what you will about her campaign and her politics, she has shown an incredible willingness to work for Barack Obama since June 7. And if you haven’t seen anything resembling unity from her, then you haven’t been looking.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
The problem with extending the offer of the Vice-Presidency to her is that there is the dangerous possibility that she might actually accept. I’m not trying to say that she is on the face of it a terrible candidate for the office. In fact she might even turn out to be very good (although she could equally prove a thorn in the side of any candidate, who I suspect she would try to upstage). However, she would be a hopelessly inappropriate candidate alongside Obama. Sad as it may be to admit, he should go for a white male, from the center of the party, and preferably from the South. Sure, having the 1st African-American President at the same time as the 1st female Vice-President might be wonderfully groundbreaking, but more likely it will just ensure that two stodgy old white men from the GOP are in the White House again.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Lest we forget, the Republican party is going through the same process right now. “I will vote for McCain, but. . .” this election will be won by the party that can convince the disenfranchised to side with the nominee. . . whether they like it or not.