Today's polite rant: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the politics of destruction
Posted 38 weeks 6 days ago byI got stuck on babysitting duty, of sorts, when Bill Clinton came to Lawrence a few years ago. Following an appearance with former Sen. Bob Dole, extolling the virtues of public service, he headed to a local hotel for a fund-raiser for the Kansas Democratic Party. I ended up stuck in the hotel lobby with other thumb-twiddling reporters, not allowed into the gathering, and it was there I ran into a woman I knew -- a smart middle-aged college professor who was a well-known activist in the party. And she was almost literally swooning.
She let her body fall into mine a little, as if she were faint. "He's so wonderful," she said.
To be honest, I never quite got that.
Don't get me wrong: I never quite got Republican antipathy to Clinton, either. He governed about as conservatively as a Democrat could; you can argue that this is because of the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, but Matt Bai has made the case (persuasively I think) that a lot of it was because of profound philosophical conviction. So the Republican drive to hound him out of office never made sense to me.
But there was that little matter of the GOP takeover. And the inability to help his party retain the presidency -- though there were surely complicating factors. But one of those complicating factors was Clinton himself: He'd governed so conservatively that a lot of liberals felt that voting for Ralph Nader was the only way to make their voices heard.
So in the end, all of Clinton's political gifts ended up serving ... Bill Clinton, and pretty much only Bill Clinton. He had no coattails, no coalition to leave behind.
This is relevant now because it's more apparent than ever that Bill Clinton is the animating force behind Hillary Clinton's campaign. I don't say that to be sexist. But part of the rationale for her candidacy is that she brings experience -- including eight years in the White House with her husband -- to the table. And when the campaign turned ever-more negative following New Hampshire, who was the attack-dog-in-chief? The former president.
I've been following Andrew Sullivan's rants about the Clintons as power-hungry maniacs with a large degree of skepticism. But the events of the last few days -- culminating in Robert Johnson's race-baiting innuendos, which followed Bill Shaheen's comments about Obama's drug use -- have made the thesis more plausible to me.
Why?
There are two ways -- more, probably, but stick with me -- to gain power. One is to concentrate on knocking off the other guy, a brand of politics that Karl Rove has perfected over the last decade or so. The other (and less-proven in recent years) is to build a broad coalition.
Barack Obama is trying the latter approach. But given the nature of recent potshots at Obama, it's clear that the Clinton campaign has settled on the former.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not against "negative campaigning" as such. When it's about a person's record -- and some of it surely has been -- then everything is in bounds. But it seems the Clinton campaign has reached beyond the record, trying to paint Obama's admitted youthful indiscretions as something uglier than they are.
It's interesting to me that Republicans were able to govern much of the last three decades because of their coalition: Social conservatives plus business conservatives, whatever you thought about it, added up to real strength. I'd argue that the current frailty of that coalition (which has a variety of causes) is at least partly a result of Rovian politics. When the focus is on knocking down the other guy instead of building and maintaining the coalition, well, this is what happens.
It's a cautionary tale. Hillary Clinton's current approach might put her in a position of power. But that might be all it does.
Thoughts
Get out the GPS! :)
Submitted on January 14th, 2008 by Jill Miller ZimonBUT...laughing, just because it's not inaccurate doesn't mean it isn't loaded and needing to be unpacked, as in, why - why was she swooning exactly. Thanks for doing that and clarifying the political nature of it - I just had this silent movie era image, partly, I'm sure, because I can't remember ever swooning over someone's politics - not sure if that's me or the politics though.:)
Ok - your questions, with the opening disclaimer that Clinton has always been my last choice, excluding Gravel and Kucinich. I'm still getting over the fact that there's no more Biden, Dodd or Richardson.
1. Do you like the turn the campaign has taken?
I disagree with the premise of it turning ever-more negative, though I agree that we've seen ever more bizarre loose cannon behavior on the part of Bill Clinton, who isn't running for prez.
Me? I write it off, I ignore the behavior, and him, much like I ignored Hillary when he ran. I'm not suggesting that this is normal, but it's me.
Story: I was at this thing called RootsCamp yesterday and some folks there (all self-Id'd Dems or Progressives) will ONLY vote for Hillary and others will NEVER vote for Hillary. The ones who will only vote for her: they love seeing her stop Russert in his tracks. The ones who will never vote for her? They see her as doing nothing but bashing.
For example, check out this post from some liberal Ohio bloggers I know who are big Obama supporters.
But on the other hand, my 72 year old father has been supporting Edwards and just as recently as early last week, was still doing so. Then, yesterday, I spoke to him on the way back from RootsCamp and he tells me that he is absolutely voting for Clinton after seeing her on Meet the Press. Likewise, in the BlogHer.com community, there are numerous posts that indicate that women see Clinton's anger as a positive. Morra Aarons, a fairly well-known political commentator and BlogHer editor, feels like many women who support Clinton: she needs to get angrier.
This is all to say that how you see that turn depends on what starting point you put into the GPS.
This is politics. I live in Ohio. I feel as though we're ground zero for negative campaigning, though who wants to be #1 in that? I watch almost no television and stick to the papers and Internet and public radio for news, and try to minimize the spin I witness.
Do you think it will lead to a win in November for the Democratic nominee?
I would hate to see Bill Clinton's unique combination of character traits (which is putting it nicely) sink Hillary but I don't think we can predict his impact. If someone was pointing a gun at me and said, Decide: Help or hurt? I'd lean toward help, because it seems that for many Americans who liked Bill, they still and always will like him. I also think the worse he behaves? The more people empathize with her - seriously.
Do you think it will ultimately help or hinder the agenda you hope for in a Democratic president?
Negligible impact.
I imagine Hillary shutting Bill the expletive up if she becomes the candidate, and she and her handlers telling him in no uncertain terms what his role is.
I will say that I think he is an enormous drag on energy and I'm sure that they often wonder about that help or hindrance thing when it comes to him being around.
Remember how tough it was for Gore in 2000? And they weren't married to each other. :)
Thanks for the debate.
Jill Miller Zimon
Writes Like She Talks
Ugga ugga?
Submitted on January 14th, 2008 by JoelHi Jill:
The woman I spoke of is not an "Ugga ugga man in power!" kind of woman. But she definitely swooned -- and I'm sorry if that imagery seems loaded, but that doesn't make it inaccurate. Indeed, it was striking, because I'd never seen anybody react quite that viscerally (in a positive way) to a politician before. And she did so because A) she liked Bill Clinton's politics and B) for some people, including this woman, he is a compelling speaker. The swooning was entirely political in nature, and perhaps I should've conveyed that more clearly.
And let's be very clear: Barring disaster, I'll vote for Hillary Clinton before I vote for anybody on the Republican side of this particular race. But I don't like the way it seems that she is running this race.
That said, let me ask you a question, Jill: Do you like the turn the campaign has taken? Do you think it will lead to a win in November for the Democratic nominee? Do you think it will ultimately help or hinder the agenda you hope for in a Democratic president?
Because my answer to those questions all ends up on the negative side. That's the case I was trying to make!
Re: Politics of destruction
Submitted on January 14th, 2008 by Jim LakelyAnother interesting post, Joel. I've been wondering when we'd get to the racial politics game that is being played on the Democratic side.
I must say that I'm experiencing a little schadenfreude on this one. Democrats, and especially the Clintons, have long engaged in divisive and repugnant racial politics -- such as when Hillary chose MLK Day in 2006 to say the GOP was running Congress like a "plantation." And the Clintons have remained mum when their political allies absurdly call the first President Bush a racist at the National Press Club, and grin from the sidelines while the NAACP runs the abhorrent James Byrd ad against Dubya in 2000.
Now the Clintons, as Victor Davis Hanson points out, are finding out that being dubbed the "First Black President" by Toni Morrison doesn't mean much when an actual black man is running for president.
There should not be anything offensive in Hillary's inartful, but accurate, statement that the federal government -- not the unelected MLK -- passed civil rights legislation. It is patently absurd to suggest that Hillary was in any way slighting the importance of MLK's contributions to the civil rights movement. And Obama's campaign should be ashamed to suggest it.
I'm weary of the game of "take phony offense" and "demand prostrate apology." But here is where the schaudenfreude comes in. For my entire adult life, I've watched Democrats paint as racists any Republican who opposes affirmative action or hate-crimes legislation -- all while raining laurels on former Klansman Sen. Robert C. Byrd. Maybe now that Democrats are getting a taste of how destructive racial politics is, we'll see less of it.
Hands on hips with raised eyebrow smile and glance
Submitted on January 14th, 2008 by Jill Miller Zimon**One-dimensional disclaimer: I'm VERY sorry that you cannot see or hear me and have never spoken with me because the "zootzing" tone of this comment is lost without the benefit of voice and facial expressions so please inject some sarcasm (not ALL sarcasm) into this:
1) Didn't the journalist in you kick in? You know, where you ask that woman friend, "Why is he so wonderful? I don't get it - help me understand what that's all about" instead of just accepting the stereotype of "Ugga Ugga Man in power! Woman near! Woman swoon!" :)
Your "don't get me wrongs" - those wouldn't be a little expression of guilt over giving in to that stereotype, now would they?
2) Did you notice that the four links you provide to support your reaction/feelings are all from men? The thesis you say those links make plausible (at least three of them) would be more persuasive, to me anyway, if at least one if not more of them were written by women who don't like the Clintons (to counteract the swooning friend). Otherwise, as a reader, I feel left with a very lopsided albeit already flagged as a "rant" rant. And those (rants that is) are not persuasive (maybe you're not trying to be persuasive? rants do have their value, but persuasion isn't necessarily part of the value).
Jill Miller Zimon
Writes Like She Talks