Why Clinton won’t win the primary

Tiny speak. I dunno, but here’s Lessig on Clinton:

But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. I don’t get this in Democrats generally. I never have, but I especially don’t get it after two defeats to the likes of George Bush (ok, one defeat, but let’s put that aside for the moment). Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech. Say as little as possible. Be as uncontroversial as you can. Embrace the chameleon as the mascot. Fear only that someone would clearly understand what you believe. (Think of Kerry denying he supported gay marriage — and recognize that the same sort of people who thought that would win him support are now inside the control room at ClintonHQ).

All politicians of course do this to some degree. And about some issues, I even get it. But what put me over the line with Senator Clinton was the refusal to join the bipartisan call that presidential debates be free. Not because this is a big issue. But because even on this (relatively) small issue, she couldn’t muster the strength to do the right thing.

Her failure here was not because her campaign didn’t know of the issue. I spoke directly to leading figures (or so they said) in the campaign. The issue was discussed, and a decision was made. And the decision was to say nothing about the issue. You can almost see the kind of tiny speak that was battered around inside HQ. “Calling for free debates might be seen as opposing copyright.” “It might weaken our support among IP lawyers and Hollywood.” “What would Disney think?” Better to say nothing about the issue. Better to let it simply go away.

and here’s why he supports Obama:

First, and again, I know him, which means I know something of his character. “He is the real deal” has become my favorite new phrase. Everything about him, personally, is what you would dream a candidate should be. Integrity, brilliance, warmth, humor and most importantly, commitment. They all say they’re all this. But for me, this part is easy, because about this one at least, I know.

Second, I believe in the policies…. You’ll read he’s a supporter of Net Neutrality… Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency — the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

4 thoughts on “Why Clinton won’t win the primary”

  1. I like Obama. He comes off as principled, intelligent, and forward-looking.

    He’d have a hell of a time winning a national election. His name is too much like “Brick Hussein Osama Bin Islam Mahmoud” for the flyover states. Something like 50% of people polled are utterly convinced that he’s Muslim. If anything will mobilize angry seniors, religious fanatics, and angry white people to flood the polls in record numbers, this is it.

    //looking forward to a “Giuliani Fries” headline when that guy eventually loses.

  2. America isn’t ready for a non-WASP president exactly because we have all these people with a 1963 mindset turning out to vote. That’s it. That’s the extent of it. If Edwards worked as a mouthpiece for either (Milli Vanilli style), they wouldn’t have to climb their respective mountains.

    That said, I think there’s tremendous potential value for race and gender relations in this country with an “exotic*” president. That’s even if either one is a case of “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Nightly proof that a woman won’t suddenly PMS out and nuke Dallas, or that a black man won’t suddenly start speaking jive at press conferences or ban Jesus and surrender the Carolinas to the terrists.

    *Exotic compared to… every previous president. Like cheddar mac & cheese instead of yellow. To shake things up a bit, maybe get up on the side of the rut for a while instead of rolling down the middle.

Comments are closed.