If Americans selected their president on the same basis they choose candidates for most important jobs, based on tangibles such as competence and experience, then there would be no controversy surrounding the 2016 presidential election.
Only one candidate on the ballot has served in the U.S. Senate and as a member of the U.S. president’s cabinet. Only one candidate has negotiated complex bipartisan legislation in the Congress as well as sensitive international agreements with potentially belligerent foreign nations. Only one candidate has gone through two terms in the White House as the president’s closest and most trusted advisor. Hillary Clinton is, by objective and tangible measures, undoubtedly one of the most competent and experienced individuals who ever sought a first term as U.S. president. Without hesitation she has our endorsement, as well as the endorsement of nearly every African-American elected official in the state of Missouri and countless black clergy and civic leaders.
But, in fact, we do not select our presidents based on their competence and experience. We speak from experience. Hillary Clinton also was the most competent and experienced candidate in the 2008 presidential election, but we endorsed Barack Obama in the Democratic primary and, of course, he won the nomination and the general election. Like a majority of Americans, we were energized by Obama’s message of change and overwhelmed by his brilliance as a thinker and his eloquence as a public speaker. We were motivated, too, by the innovative ways he engaged new Americans and brought so many new people, especially so many African Americans, into our partisan political process for the first time. Needless to say, we also could not resist helping to elect our nation’s first black head of state.
In 2016, Americans are weighing their presidential options in the face of a bitterly divided federal government – owing mostly to the Republican Party’s racially tinged opposition to anything Obama proposes – and an economy in a changing world whose recovery continues to leave so many Americans burdened with debt and either out of work or working harder than ever with stagnant wages. It is a fearful and corrosive time in our public life, and Americans are reacting in spectacular ways. The Republican Party seems poised to nominate the openly racist, xenophobic and belligerent Donald Trump to lead our country and command the world’s most powerful military, a prospect we would have considered the purview of reality TV, rather than reality, six months ago. And so many Democrats are motivated by Bernie Sanders’ economic populism that an independent socialist (who also happens to be Jewish) continues to challenge Hillary Clinton, most recently delivering a startling upset in the Michigan primary (she had a 17-point lead in most polls leading to the election) – another development that was unthinkable half a year ago.
While our personal feelings about the unequal distribution of wealth and the unhealthy concentration of largely unbridled power in banks, corporations and the super-wealthy are very closely aligned with Sanders’ thinking, we do not believe in the ultimate viability of his candidacy or the practical fulfillment of his most compelling policy positions. It would be exciting to see Sanders elected as governor of a liberal state and push his positions in an environment where he is likely to find a sympathetic legislature. However, even if a majority of Americans were to elect him over a Republican rival – which we find much more doubtful than Clinton’s chances in the general election – a Republican-dominated Congress, as well as many Democrats, would stonewall and scorn him and his efforts, perhaps even more than they have obstructed and ridiculed Obama.
While we believe any of the Republican contenders, and especially Trump, could force a drastically worse future on this country, we do not believe the Democrats have the power or leverage to effect a major redistribution of wealth, opportunity and influence as Sanders promises to do. In 2016, we think the only positive change that is possible is incremental change, and to effect that we need a supremely competent and experienced inside player who knows our government and economy intimately. There is only one such candidate on the ballot, and it is African Americans who will elect her. Clinton’s timely and critical success in Nevada and South Carolina (after a sound defeat in New Hampshire), followed by victories in the deep and upper South, came from the loyalty – by huge margins – of black voters. After her shocking upset loss in Michigan on Tuesday, she needs to win in Missouri and Illinois. That means she will need a strong showing from black voters to win these two important Midwest states. We strongly endorse and encourage you to vote for HILLARY CLINTON FOR U.S. PRESIDENT on Tuesday, March 15
