Last April, I penned a column attacking Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy that appeared in The Daily Gamecock just before she launched her campaign. Titled “I’m not ready for Hillary,” it was a blistering indictment of Clinton’s political record and personal motives.
I began with this sentence: “I cannot understand why anyone in our generation supports Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination.”
I have watched as, so far in this campaign, most of the same criticisms I leveled at Clinton last April have been voiced against her. I’ve seen my prediction of a rising alternative to Clinton manifest itself in Sen. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy. Indeed, the vast majority of “our generation” is supporting Sanders.
Take this week’s candidate forum in Iowa, where a young voter gave voice to that truth with the first question of the night. “I just don’t see the same enthusiasm from younger people for you,” he said. “I’ve heard from quite a few people my age that they think you’re dishonest.” Ouch.
Much of the youth support for Bernie has to do with his strongly held beliefs, long history of social activism and championing of progressive causes, and the same political revolution ideology that saw Barack Obama capture the youth vote so effectively in 2008.
But some support seems to stem from the belief that Clinton is the consummate “insider” and politician and is unlikely to deliver on her promises.
It’s a tough sell for Clinton. Aside from the obvious historic implications of a female president, what emotional argument could she make to the younger generation that she has their best interests in mind now that Sanders has taken the mantle of freedom fighter for himself?
That question gets to the heart of the decision Democratic voters are faced with, just as they are on the Republican side. Do you vote with your head or your heart?
The Iowa voter's premise is right. Hillary does not stoke the passions of the average politically aware college student. Bernie’s promise of a utopian society where healthcare and college are free and Robin Hood can take from the rich and give to the poor appeals to the optimistic natures of young voters. I get his appeal — everything he supports sounds great.
But we as a country went down this road in 2008. For all the good that President Obama has done in office, he was hampered by a belief that his election alone signaled a tectonic shift in the political discourse — “change.” Now Sanders promises he can work towards such a seismic shift, while Clinton labors under a much less dramatic rubric. In an interview this week, Obama himself, with the benefit of political hindsight, rejected attempts to favorably compare Sanders’ idealistic campaign with his own.
Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate — I wasn’t wrong about that last April. It’s entirely possible she wins the Democratic nomination and loses a general election where voters have made up their minds about her well before election day. After all, she has been battered by 25 years on the national political stage.
But I have discovered why people of our generation are supporting Hillary. Since her campaign began last April, she has shown contrition, backbone, humanity, leadership and a clear vision for her prospective presidency. “I’m a progressive,” she says, “but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”
When push comes to shove, as it always does in the contact sport of politics, I can see why people would choose Hillary to fight their battles.
It’s easy to be an idealist. It’s much harder to follow through and persevere through the hailstorm that is the American political landscape.
I’m not working or volunteering for either Clinton or Sanders — but the dichotomy seems clear to me.
Clinton (who has moved from being a liberal Republican in her college days to a moderate Democrat today) once described herself as a “mind conservative and a heart liberal.” It is that choice — mind or heart — that now lies before Democratic voters.
I can respect those options.