An Open Letter to PUMA Democrats.

Dear PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) Democrats,

Grow up. Seriously. Before I get into detail about the reasons why I believe that Hillary supporters planning to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama are making a juvenile decision, it’s time for some disclosures.

1. I supported Obama in the primaries. I volunteered for the campaign during the Texas primaries. My roommate was a county and state convention level delegate for Obama.

2. Had Obama lost the primary, even by a sudden, massive defection of superdelegates to Clinton (what others at the time described as a potential “coup”) I would have given Hillary Clinton my volunteer time in the fall, my campaign donation dollars, and my vote. Period.

3. Just for the sake of thoroughness, had Hillary Clinton somehow managed to so alienate me that I could not in good conscience support her (and I cannot actually imagine a realistic scenario in which this could have happened) I would have sat out the election rather than vote for John McCain.

The extended primary season had many effects, including rather predictably an exaggeration of the differences between the two lead candidates and an obfuscation of their much greater similarities. The most obvious example here is on health care: Obama’s planning clearly lacks in comparison to what Hillary had proposed, but both clearly extend and improve coverage  broadly. McCain’s obsession with health savings accounts would have the perverse effect of increasing the quality of coverage available to those who can already afford it while decreasing the level of coverage available to precisely those who most need it and can least afford it.

On the issue of healthcare, we need to also remember that whatever form of healthcare reform eventually passes, the House and Senate will have played a major role in shaping it. None of the candidate’s current plans will ever be enacted as is. However, we do know that a President McCain would happily veto any plan even vaguely resembling Hillary Clinton’s if it came across his desk.

Similarly, a number of commenters on the PUMA websites have expressed a belief that Obama is a homophobe. I do not share that belief, but intend to argue that even if he is personally homophobic that this does not provide a reason to vote FOR John McCain. The Obama’s campaign’s official positions include supporting a repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, he also supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and supports federal civil unions with full rights. Neither Obama nor Clinton were willing to go all the way in favor of marriage equality, but both offered policy proposals that would lead to specific, measurable improvement in LGBT rights. McCain, predictably, supports the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He has tried desperately to avoid clearly supporting or opposing civil unions.

This list could go on and on. On every substantive issue, a vote for John McCain constitutes a betrayal of the principles and policy goals espoused by Hillary Clinton. The PUMA Democrats, supposedly Hillary’s most ardent supporters, insult her life’s work and her campaign’s legacy by now John McCain.

A last point to consider is federal courts. I do not only mean the Supreme Court, although it stands as the most obvious case. The president’s authority to appoint federal judges gives him/her (someday soon, I hope) immense power to shape the political landscape long after leaving office. Even if you believe that Obama would happily sell out progressive goals once in office, you can be confident that he would appoint better judges up and down the entire federal court system than McCain would. McCain has pledged to pick judges on the model of Roberts and Alito; Obama opposed both Alito and Roberts (as did Clinton). Once again, Hillary supporters that vote for McCain would betray her judicial philosophy and would help empower its opponents for potentially decades.

So PUMA Democrats, seriously, grow the fuck up.

Thank you,

Alex Stone-Tharp

A Polite Suggestion.

Perhap, when your presidential campaign is reduced to claiming that losses  are actually victories because you increased your share of the white vote, you really ought to consider getting out of any Democratic primaries you may be involved in.

Just saying.

Dreaming a Nice Dream

With last night’s Clinton victories keeping her campaign alive at least until Pennsylvania, and Obama’s still strong pledged delegate lead making it virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination without extremely destructive hardball maneuvering, it’s time to propose something that could help prevent the nomination process from descending into the worst sort of mudslinging: Clinton and Obama should offer a joint pledge to choose the other as their running mate should they win the nomination. This would allow both to continue running for the top spot while making it easier to win over activist supporters of the opposing candidate during the general election. It would also provide a powerful incentive for both candidates to focus on their own individual strengths and on attacking McCain, rather than on fighting each other tooth and nail. With each passing primary that does not prove decisive, the probability of needing a joint ticket ticks upwards slightly but so too does the vitriol between the two campaigns; a joint pledge in the near future would prevent the latter from undermining the former.

Of course, the likelihood of the campaigns even proposing, much less agreeing to, a pledge like this is small; activists and volunteers for each candidate clearly have developed widespread animosity towards each other, the recent negative turn in advertising makes reconciliation harder, and it’s clear that neither candidate desires the vice presidency. Plus, who would want to be the one to make the initial offer? If turned down, the opposing camp would leak the offer immediately in an attempt to portray their opponent as weak and ready to throw in the towel (or as too condescending by virtue of front runner status). The DNC could try to broker a deal like this, but the Clintons have not shown much consideration for the DNC during Howard Dean’s chairmanship and I don’t see why they would decide to play ball now.

Clinton has started talking about the possibility of a joint ticket, but in the absence of some sort of commitment, which we will certainly not see except in the case of a joint commitment, I doubt that particularly many primary voters or superdelegates will be swayed over to her aside and away from Obama.

Therefore, those of us who care more about a unified Democratic party that can take office with majorities in both houses of Congress, are forced to dream a nice dream about a world in which the candidates can privilege the good of the party and the good of the country slightly (and under this scenario, it truly is only slightly) more than their own ambitions. Instead we get things like Clinton likening herself to McCain as an argument against Obama, thus strengthening McCain against both Obama and herself in the general.

The Best Analysis of the Democratic Nomination

Poblano at Daily Kos has written a diary with the best and most detailed scenario for Super Tuesday that I’ve seen yet. It is a truly stunning amount of information and I largely agree with his assessment. Short version: The race is much closer than the media or polls initially make it out to be and it very likely to go well past February 5, even though Clinton will likely emerge from then with a slight delegate lead.

But seriously, read the thing.

The Problem With Hillary Clinton

A friend at NYU Law School sent me a link to this New York Sun article about Hillary Clinton and immigration yesterday. He was shocked by her apparent disregard for due process in statements like this:

Anybody who committed a crime in this country or in the country they came from has to be deported immediately, with no legal process. They are immediately gone.

Even worse:

While Mrs. Clinton’s campaign stressed that she was referring to illegal aliens who commit crimes, it did not reply to a query about whether she favors automatic deportation of legal immigrants who run afoul of the law.

My friend expressed profound disbelief that somebody who graduate from Yale Law School could possibly think that automatic deportation was either legal or desirable. I would agree entirely, if I believed that Hillary meant any of it. It is far more likely that Clinton chose to resort to hyperbolic anti-immigrant rhetoric simply because she assumed it would help her to earn votes in the primary. In all likelihood, she would happily attempt to implement an automatic deportation policy as well, if it would help her win a second term and that is why I actually believe this to be far worse than if she were simply so incompetent as to believe that immigrants deserve no due process whatsoever. Instead, since I find it just as unbelievable that she misunderstands the law that badly as I find it unbelievable that Obama is naive, I must assume that she, like Bush, would have no problem arguing against (and potentially enacting policies) that explicitly and knowingly violate fundamental rights.

I can only hope that this sort of nonsense, especially her refusal to openly condemn mandatory deportation for legal immigrants convicted of crimes, will end up costing Hillary votes in California. Previously, she has held an impressively large lead there and Obama needs an opening with Latino voters (who overwhelmingly broke for Clinton in Nevada) if he hopes to take the state. In world where voters primarily relied upon candidates’ stated positions and voting history, rather than nebulous and often factually inaccurate impressions of their character or likely positions, I have no doubt that Clinton’s willingness to conflate undocumented and documented immigrants alike, as well as her clear disdain for the principle of due process for all would certainly cost her votes. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world.