Barack Obama - Our Next President

John Nichols Thu Mar 20, 1:59 PM ET The Nation — What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination — made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) — that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement? Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary’s heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that “her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA” and that “there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;” now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton’s campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?As she campaigns now, Clinton says, “I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.”But the White House records confirm that this is not true.Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar — a put-in-boldface-type “L-I-A-R” liar.Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady’s recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion–promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House–that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.

There is something stomach-turning about the Clintonian strategy for winning the nomination. Underneath that which is so disgusting, however, there are little passion plays playing out — about the state of the nation, and the state of its soul-sick psyche. While there is no overt reason to conclude that they are racists, (if that sentence seems luke-warm, take a look at Hillary’s own concession that Obama is not a Muslim), there is every possible reason to label the Clintons opportunists of the very first order. Bill Clinton was not a racist when he mouthed off in South Carolina; he was a desperate power-monger, flailing. Bob Johnson from BET doesn’t really think Obama is a drug fiend — it was just “an opportunity”. Albeit a rather disgusting one. Howard Wolfson doesn’t really think that Obama is like Ken Starr; it was just the sort of blind ad hominem news-cycle nonsense likely to distract from the actual, the real, the true; in other words — it was opportunism. That is their true, true heartfelt religion. “Campaign” in Florida and then deny it? Fine: It’s all fair game. Or the cynical suggestion by Senator Clinton that Obama would be a fine VP while at the same time declaring how unready he is seems to me precisely the sort of cynical paranoid post-modern solipsism of people who will say anything whatsoever to get what they want and then act stung when called on it. It borders on sociopathy. And like all opportunists, those in Camp Clinton have reached the conclusion that even a scorched earth campaign which devastates the party, vulgarizes the discourse even more than it already is vulgarized, and alienates millions of people who actually have come to hope for real change in this country, is worth the cost of a possible win. Personally, I find it far more likely that the only beneficiary of the Clintonian ugliness will of course be none other than that half-mad proponent of hundred-year wars, John McCain of Arizona, swooping in to the circular firing squad after the smoke and blood have cleared, so as to snatch a victory because the Dems cleverly snatched defeat.

Speaking of half-mad, speaking of snatching defeat — the Clinton surrogacy of Geraldine Ferraro devolved in to an angry whine on the Today Show this morning. Ms Ferraro seems to think that Senator Obama has been the beneficiary of some sort of post-radical-chic “free-ride”, a notion so laughable that it flies in the face of every last bit of information we have about what it means to not be white in America. Every single bit. She doesn’t seem like a racist either, actually; merely an embittered ex-candidate and an old school feminist warrior whose legitimate passion has hardened into blindness and bile. (How did the Obama camp play “the race card” when it was she who launched into a dismissal of Senator Obama as “lucky” to be African-American.) I found myself telling the TV that Obama is where he is today in spite of being African-American. Still, Hillary Clinton’s campaign seems to tap into something very real in this country — the anger that many women carry over the costs incurred in the fight for gender equality for the last forty years.

Every day, one is struck by the (one-sided) viciousness in this fight. Six bloody weeks of it to go? Six weeks of coarsening opportunistic soulless nastiness. And the effect? Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating amongst Obama supporters continues to rise according to the Wall Street Journal/MSNBC poll released tonight. The reverse is not true. And her coalition of white women and white blue-collar workers is unlikely to surge the way that young people and African-Americans are surging towards Obama. Those Americans — the African-Americans who have been turned off by politics as usual and by total exclusion, the young who have been so disgusted by war-mongering and corruption so evident in the smug faces of those in power — finally see in Obama something of the best in themselves, and something to aspire to: Idealism, dignity, hope, matched by strength and stoicism. Matched by a very keen sense of how to work the system.

In the meantime, the country itself needs to be repaired from inside out. Anti-intellectual, increasingly amoral, broke, and self-obsessed, a land of crumbling roads, crumbling dreams, and crumbling visions of how to care for the needy. A nation filled with invective and rudeness. (Have you ever seen how unmannerly the comments on HuffPost can be? If that is a reflection of how people are brought up today, then what is the point?) At the heart of how to repair a nation — there is one essential ingredient to examine; and that, of course, is character. Over the next six weeks until Pennsylvania, we must think about that; the character of our leaders, of our nation. Because as Heraclites stated with total clarity — character IS destiny.