Katha Pollitt endorses Obama

Despite her earlier defense of Hillary Clinton against a rather obnoxious remark from John Edwards about her crying episode, Katha Pollitt has come out in favor of Barack Obama.

From her column in the Nation:

Hillary Clinton is smart, energetic, immensely knowledgeable, and, as she likes to say, hard-working. I've been appalled by the misogynous vitriol (and mean-girl snark) aimed against her. If she is the nominee I will work my heart out for her.

But right now, I'm supporting Barack Obama. On domestic politics, their differences are small-- I'm with her on health care mandates, and with him on driver's licences for undocumented immigrants; both would probably be equally good on women's rights, abortion rights and judicial appointments. But on foreign policy Obama seems more enlightened, as in less bellicose. Maybe Hillary Clinton's refusal to say her Iraq vote was wrong shows that she has neo-con sympathies; maybe she simply believes that any admission of error would tar her as weak. But we already have a warlike president who refuses to admit making mistakes, and look how that's turned out. The election of Barack Obama would send a signal to the world that the United States is taking a different tack.

....

But Obama is a candidate in a different mold. He's a natural politician who connects with people as Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, just doesn't, and appeals to the better angels of their nature. He sparks an enthusiasm in people--independents, the young, the previously disengaged. An Obama victory could have big positive repercussions for progressive politics.

....

Plenty of feminists support Obama, by the way. for example Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL, and Ellen Bravo of Nine to Five. I signed a letter from " New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama." Other signers include the historians Linda Gordon, Alice Kessler Harris and Ros Baxandall; the sociologist Judith Stacey; the political scientist Ros Petchesky,and writers Margo Jefferson and Meredith Tax. You can read it and, if you are a New York feminist, sign it,  here.

Another brick in the wall.



Display:


Re: Katha Pollitt endorses Obama (none / 0)

So Obama is the insider and Hillary is the agent for change...

Opps was that suppost to stay a secret until after the nomination?


I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:39:44 AM EST

Why? Pollitt is a progressive activist. (none / 0)


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:42:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? Pollitt is a progressive activist. (none / 0)

no, she's just another insider joining the bandwagon.  Her reasons don't make any sense and she is smarter than her reasons.  Nope, another one wants to be part of the kool kidz media insiders voting for the insider candidate.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:14:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How can you try to project (none / 0)

Clinton as not being an insider when:

  1. the DLC and the establishment were setting the go along to get along neocon agenda for the Democratic party when people like Dean and Gore were wrestling it year after year?
  2. they did everything to keep Gore from running and then to down Dean?
  3. HRC was talking "vital dynamic center" after the midterms
  4. HRC has more super delegates than Obama and would have an overwhelming support from among super delegates should she emerge ahead of Obama

Maybe Obama managed to isolate and marginalize the Clinton wing of the establishment, but there no way anyone can say with a straight face, imo, that Clintons aren't insiders.

"Her reasons don't make any sense"

She's spot on:


But on foreign policy Obama seems more enlightened, as in less bellicose. Maybe Hillary Clinton's refusal to say her Iraq vote was wrong shows that she has neo-con sympathies; maybe she simply believes that any admission of error would tar her as weak. But we already have a warlike president who refuses to admit making mistakes, and look how that's turned out.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:50:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you can attack her all you want (none / 0)

she is more progressive and more honest than Obama.  And she is more experienced.  He would have voted for the IWR had he been in the senate and you know it.

And ps.. she is not responsible for the DLC's actions.  Politics demand pragmatism, what the DLC did to either Gore or Dean has nothing to do with now.  Now we are nominating the next nominee and Clinton is so vastly superior to Obama it is not funny.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:29:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can attack her all you want (none / 0)

"He would have voted for the IWR had he been in the senate and you know it."

No, I don't think he would have given that Saddam was not an imminent threat. Neither would Gore have, for the same reason.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can attack her all you want (none / 0)

And the DLC is and always was Clintons' backyard. You know it.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? Pollitt is a progressive activist. (none / 0)

The "insider candidate?"  I think you're going to have to do a little better than that.


by Drummond on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:08:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Katha Pollitt endorses Obama (none / 0)

I wish I could agree that the health mandate issues is a "small" difference, but I think it could end up being the difference between national health insurance and a watered down subsitute that pleases no one.


by alexmhogan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:50:45 AM EST

Re: Katha Pollitt endorses Obama (none / 0)

I actually agree, and I prefer Clinton's plan to Obama's.  But either proposal's going to undergo massive changes before it's actually signed - if it gets that far.  If there's a mandate to pay for universal coverage, it will be brought to him and he will sign it.  Same with her.  If there's no mandate because voters don't want to pay more taxes in a recessionary cycle, it won't pass anyway.  You're not locked into any particular plan just because you vote for a certain candidate.


by Drummond on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:11:40 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.