WWHHD?

Finally, the question appears in writing in today's New York Times Magazine (Aug 21): "What Would Hillary Have Done?"

Author Rebecca Traister identifies herself as a Hillary supporter in 2008, who nevertheless was tempted to vote for Obama, but didn't. Amid the increasing wistfulness of many Hillarites, as well as former Obama supporters, the question plays in the background, if not spoken. Would a Clinton presidency have been preferable after all?

Traister says no, and I tend to agree with her -- despite my ambivalence about Obama's performance. Agreed, he leaves much to be desired -- especially what seems to be a deep-seated aversion to bare-knuckled political fighting, that goes deeper than just an idealization of the opposite.

Given that, this makes Obama not what we need as a tough negotiator with opponents who are determined to see him fail, no matter what it does to the country. He's playing by one set of rules and expectations, while Republicans have a different rule: do what it takes to win.

This boiled over last Sunday, when the New York Times gave unprecedented coverage to a long opinion piece written by my Emory colleague Drew Westen (author of The Political Brain), in which he attacks Obama for his failings, even referring to negotiating timidity as his "character defect."

Drew has been deluged by TV interviews since then, including Charlie Rose, in which he was joined by Fareed Zakaria (editor of Time) and Jonathan Chait (editor of The New Republic). Zakaria mostly defended Obama and attacked Drew for not considering Obama's real achievements and pointing out Drew's position as "a professor who has never held elected office, even as dog catcher." Meaning that he was politically naive about what can be accomplished in the tough world of politics.

So -- all of this has raised my own ambivalence about Obama. Could he have done better? Could Hillary have done better?

Rebecca Traister cautions against this second guessing. Yes, Hillary might have been a tougher negotiator about the debt ceiling; but she also would not have gotten health care reform passed, or she might have taken us to war with Iran. This "what if?" game has infinite possibilities.

In the end, she concludes, as I do, that regardless of who won, our expectations and hopes were going to be disappointed; given the circumstances, the possibilities of enacting the progressive agenda were limited. Either Hillary or Barack would disappoint us in some way -- maybe a different way, but in some important way. Here is Traister's final paragraph:

There simply was never going to be a liberal messiah whose powers could transcend the limits set by a democracy this packed with regressive obstructionists. That doesn’t mean we can’t hope for, seek and demand better from politicians and presidents. But we can’t spend our time focused on alternate realities in which our country, its systems and its climate are not what they are. With advance apologies for returning to one of 2008’s most infelicitous phrases, it’s time to let go of the fairy tales.

Am I just settling for this argument to avoid finally saying Obama was a poor choice? No, I readily admit that I am disappointed in what he has been able to accomplish; and I do wish he could be tougher with the Republicans. If, in addition to the skills he does have, he also had LBJ's tough negotiating skill, or Harry Truman's blunt, pugilistic rhetoric -- he might have gotten a better deal from the Republicans. I admit all that. But we are comparing him with our ideals. No one is going to live up to that.

Ralph