I've never felt entirely comfortable with Rebecca Traister portrayed as a "pro-Hillary" commentator (as Melissa Harris Perry cast her). My instinct was correct according to her New York Magazine article.
She once was, she admits in this article a "young Hillary-hater." But a
few days with Hillary on the primary trail have elicited an article
well worth a read.
There’s nothing simple about this candidacy—or candidate.
Photographs by Brigitte Lacombe
Clinton speaking at the Louisville Slugger Hall of Fame on May 10.In
a locker room at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut, people
are waiting in line to get their pictures taken with Hillary Clinton
before a rally in the school’s gym. It’s a kid-heavy crowd, and Clinton
has been chatting easily with them.
But soon there’s only one
family left and the mood shifts. Francine and David Wheeler are there
with their 13-year-old son, Nate, and his 17-month-old brother, Matty,
who’s scrambling around on the floor. They carry a stack of photographs
of their other son, Benjamin, who was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary
School in 2012, when he was 6. David presses the photos of his dead son
on Clinton with the urgency of a parent desperate to keep other parents
from having to show politicians pictures of their dead 6-year-olds.
Leaning
in toward Wheeler as if they are colleagues mapping out a strategy,
Clinton speaks in a voice that is low and serious. “We have to be as
organized and focused as they are to beat them and undermine them,” she
says. “We are going to be relentless and determined and focused … They
are experts at scaring people, telling them, ‘They’re going to take your
guns’ … We need the same level of intensity. Intensity is more
important than numbers.” Clinton tells Wheeler that she has already
discussed gun control with Chuck Schumer, who will likely be leading the
Senate Democrats in 2017; she talks about the differences between state
and federal law and between regulatory and legislative fixes, and
describes the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which
extended the protections of the Second Amendment, as “a terrible
decision.” She is practically swelling, Hulk-like, with her desire to
describe to this family how she’s going to solve the problem of gun
violence, even though it is clear that their real problem — the absence
of their middle child — is unsolvable. When Matty grabs the front of his
diaper, Clinton laughs, suggesting that he either needs a change or is
pretending to be a baseball player. She is warm, present, engaged, but
not sappy. For Clinton, the highest act of emotional respect is perhaps
to find something to do, not just something to say. “I’m going to do
everything I can,” she tells Wheeler. “Everything I can.”
Unlike
Traister, Aaron Loeb is not a famous author or commentator. But he was,
for a long stretch of the primary season a fence-sitter. His article
in Medium
is an Odyssey with some good healthy helpings of the history of
Republican strategies against prior good, solid Democratic candidates.
Less than 100 years ago…There
are women alive today in the United States who were born without the
right to vote. We are on the verge of nominating the first woman in our
history to be a major-party candidate. On the other side, we are on the
verge of nominating the first major-party candidate to have never held
political office since Eisenhower. Eisenhower beat Hitler. Donald Trump
thinks Hitler had a lot of good ideas.
On
one hand, we have a potential to yet again move our country forward,
past its darkest histories of prejudice, exclusion, and failing to live
up to its own ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for
all its people. On the other hand, we have a man who has expressly
stated that America needs to move backwards to the “good old days.”
Personally,
I began this long, bruising, ugly primary feeling thrilled at the
prospect of a Sanders or Clinton candidacy. It seemed like the
Republicans were going to throw up all over themselves, while lighting
themselves on fire, while tripping on a garbage can. And they certainly
did that! But meanwhile, the Democratic primary has descended into
hyperbole, lies and nonsense — mostly targeted at Hillary Clinton — and
driven a harsh wedge between friends. Support for either candidate has
now become a kind of moral litmus test: if you support Clinton, you are
no true liberal and you don’t care about working people; if you support
Sanders, you are a privileged white male and you don’t care about
women’s reproductive rights, or the rights of minorities. And while it’s
categorically obvious that there are true liberals who support Clinton
and there are women and minorities supporting Sanders, these simplistic
shibboleths have taken hold: Clinton is “conservative”; Sanders is
“progressive.”
I’ve found
the growing divide confounding and depressing and remained undecided
until recently. I’ve leaned Sanders (after Michigan); I’ve leaned
Clinton (early on and after New York). When it became clear Clinton had
locked the primary, I thought of splitting my vote: Sanders in the June 7
primary; Clinton in the general. But now, I’m firmly for Clinton and
will vote for her on June 7 with conviction.
Regulars
here know that I am not in the habit of recommending articles. Most of
us have loved Hillary so hard and so long that we may be a little blind
to sources of criticism. For different reasons, both of these articles
that I happened upon on the same day convey a message that we
Still4Hillers do not really need to hear - - - but as we enter the
general election season may want to pack in a back pocket as we
encounter the #NeverHillary troops. Traister's "now I know her" moment
and Loeb's analysis are two gems to bury in the palm of your hand for
the mud-slinging that is to come in just a week. Ready? We are ready.
Have been for a very long time. Let's go do this!
If you can, please donate a few dollars before tonight's midnight deadline.
