Obama lost me during a Democratic debate in 2007, when Stephen Sixta asked: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”
Obama drove the crowd wild with a simple yes. Hillary’s response was more nuanced, as she explained: "I think it is wrong for any president to say he or she will not talk to people because they’re bad or evil," she said. “But the question was very specific, asking whether either of us would talk to a list of leaders of five countries with which the United States has serious difficulties within the first year of becoming president, and I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive to say he would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro and others within the first year. As I said last night, there has to be a lot of diplomatic effort.”
The difference in their answers is the same we see in today’s presidential election: an imaginary world where American presidents call up Kim Jong Un to shoot the shit, and the reality where national diplomacy always carries baggage. Just look at the attempt by the Obama Administration to “reset” relations with Russia: Led by Hillary Clinton, the Americans mistranslated the word “reset” to “overload”—and overload it did. Issues over the Arab Spring, Ukraine, and Europe kept the Cold War foes at odds more often than not—a dynamic unlikely to change in either a Trump or Clinton administration.
For any observer of the 2008 election, Obama came in with amazing promises of a fresh perspective, and a solution to the entrenched establishmentarianism which many saw as the crux of political deadlock (he was only a Senator for a single term! He barely voted in the Senate!). Those promises included the closing of Guantanamo within his first year and support for LGBT civil unions. When he won the election, I was still living in Berkeley. Police cordoned off Telegraph Ave because people were dancing in the streets. Then Day 1 of the Obama presidency came.
President George W. Bush famously said after winning his second election that he had earned “political capital”, and he intended to use it. Obama came in with a friendly Democratic Congress and incredible public support. Most people assumed that with such capital, Democrats would ramrod as much progressive legislation as they could into law. Then reality struck: Obama did not meet with Iran, Venezuela, or Cuba. His plans to close Guantanamo failed. Single Payer Health Care did not pass, and instead the United States suffered a downgrade in bond rating. Obama lost many of his supporters. His promises of change were empty and unrealistic. He spent most of his administration wrangling with a Republican-held congress over defaulting on government debt. Today, American troops are still involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If one examines Obama’s legacy in terms of what he couldn’t accomplish, than it’s easy to see his presidency as a failure. To those ardent supporters who desired an American Messiah, Obama proved to be all too human. Those were the supporters who turned on him, who joined the ranks of Republicans during the mid-terms and voted away Democratic control of Congress. Their cynicism was self-fulfilling. By Obama’s second election, there was great hope for comprehensive immigration reform, all to be stymied again by a Republican-held congress.
Such a view of Obama’s legacy has no memory of the bickering on Capitol Hill during Obama’s first term. Take Guantanamo: Wanting to shutter the American torture facility, Obama signed Executive Order after Executive Order to move prisoners. But he was forced to sign a bill restricting the use of federal funds to transfer prisoners to state facilities within a larger bill for national security. States paled at the idea of accepting terrorists within state penitentiaries and rejected any transfer, effectively nixing the President’s plan. Who is to blame for the President’s failed promise?
It’s easy to believe that the President of the United States vetoes every bill that isn’t perfect and only signs bills that are. It’s easy to believe that a President names their agenda during the election year, gets elected, and then proceeds to enact that agenda within 4-8 years of office. It’s easy to believe that the President controls the economy, climate change, gas prices, and the thread-count in your cotton sheets. Those are infantile ideas of government. ANY form of government: despotic, communist, fascist, or republic.
The reality of President Obama’s campaign promises are brighter than they appear: Today, Iran is well on the way to de-nuclearization, thanks to the hard work of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The United States has normalized relations with Cuba after more than 50 years. The inmate population at Guantanamo is finally below 100. Most importantly, our economy is returning to normal after the Great Recession and almost imminent collapse. Let’s not forget that under the Obama administration, marriage equality passed the Supreme Court, and gay and lesbian soldiers were allowed to serve openly in the military, and net neutrality is enforced by the FCC. These are all wonderful things to celebrate, but not all of them were legislative. You would only appreciate these victories if you learned the lesson that Obama learned.
Obama’s Presidency was marred by unprecedented levels of obstructionism by a Republican party more interested in playing the blame game than nation building. In the face of that opposition, Obama realized that he would need to score victories not through legislative power, but through executive power. He realized that he needed to be more like Hillary Clinton. He realized that government must continue to govern even when government is divided. That is what Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign was all about: A person who understood the political environment we live in and what it takes to be successful in that environment. Today our President is able to admit: “one of the things that I’ve consistently tried to remind myself during the course of my presidency is that the economy is not an abstraction. It’s not something that you can just redesign and break up and put back together again without consequences.” Those are words you could expect to come out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth verbatim.
Real progress looks less glamorous than a televised debate. Diplomacy the slow, old-fashioned way can still de-nuclearize a hostile Islamic power. “Gitmo” may be forced to stay open, but the President can administratively reduce the number of inmates so that fewer human rights are transgressed. American troops may still be in Afghanistan and Iraq, but their use can be restricted to non-combat roles. Do we get to unfurl a large flag that says “Mission Accomplished”? No. But we don’t have to lie to ourselves about what we’ve accomplished either.
I am proud to have lived under the Obama administration, and I know he does not get credit for all that he’s accomplished. I also believe he takes credit for things he’s not responsible for. He’s a politician. But I also believe he earnestly tried to accomplish every one of those far-fetched fantasy promises he made to the electorate. He learned that to achieve them, he needed to be pragmatic, and use all the tools available to Presidency.
We as the electorate get to practice the lesson we learned from the Obama administration. Yes, we want our leaders to inspire us. Yes, we want principled leaders who don’t pander to the whims of the crowd, the rich, and the power-greedy. And yes, we want a real solution, not the same-old broken politics that have dominated so much of the past, going as far back as the Mason-Dixie line. But the solution is counter-intuitive: as Obama understood, you cannot dismantle the political institutions of the United States without consequence. Broad declarations of change and high-minded ideals must be tried and reformulated to have real impact. That is how real change happens. It’s the Hillary Clinton method.
Hillary Clinton spoke at a Democratic debate earlier this year: “I am a progressive who gets things done.” People bicker over progressive, but most will agree she is a shrewd politician who executes. She is a leader who is willing to get her hands dirty in the political arena to make things happen. It includes the time when she went undercover to study racial inequality. It includes her time helping to negotiate as First Lady for Healthcare reform. No, the endeavor did not pass, but it was her spotlight, which moved it as far as it did. The failure of Universal Healthcare was followed by a true Hillary victory: The State Children’s Health Insurance Program. As noted, her role was a dual political/administrative one: “While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady’s pressure was crucial...Clymer wrote that Kennedy "worked with" Hillary Clinton to get White House support for a Senate measure to grant $24 billion for the new program, rather than the $16 billion approved by the House. "With strong administration support, the $24 billion stayed in." Even her critics agree: in policy and bureaucratic know-how, Hillary is hard to beat.
The maturation of our political savvy should leads us to pursue leaders who we not only want to “share a beer” with, but can get the job done. Isn’t that what we really wanted anyways? The President is a public figure, but publicity and action are not the same thing. In the face of an election where Democrats are unlikely to regain both houses of Congress, we deserve a President who knows how to navigate the corridors of Capitol Hill. This isn’t about corruption: it’s about know-how. Know-how isn’t mastered from the outside: it’s mastered by practice and expertise.
I believe we need an advocate that can work across the aisle, but also knows how to play the political game. That’s Hillary Clinton.
I believe we need an expert who understands the complexities of international relations and the dangers America faces at home and abroad. That’s Hillary Clinton.
I believe we need a leader with the humility to serve under their competitor for a position they wanted. That’s Hillary Clinton.
And yes, as an idealist, I want somebody who believes we need more Love and Kindness in America. That’s Hillary Clinton.