I was prompted to write this after reading an article by Michael Blim at 3quarksdaily, but I will come back to it later. Unless you are living under a rock, you may be getting some news of the Democratic primaries. It has started swinging in ways few expected it to, making it fraught with more drama than it needs. It is a complicated choice between candidates with essentially similar agendas, but starkly different personalities. That is why the choice for a Democrat is not so much about “issues” or “experience”, as some keep on parroting, but about who can win a general election against any of the Republican candidates, and who possesses the personality for leading and inspiring the country. And even by those measures it is very hard to say who is the right candidate – if there ever is any.
But what is troubling, without doubt, is the strategy adopted by the Clinton camp. Make no mistake, this is not an upset husband lashing out in his wife’s defense – the Clintons are way too sophisticated for that – but a well-calculated gambit, even though Senator Clinton’s supporters would like to believe otherwise. It is simply wishful thinking that President Clinton acted without the tacit or explicit approval from his wife, and her well-oiled campaign machinery – the dirt is on her hands too.
First, there were the lies – a comment from Obama about the transformative nature of Ronald Reagan’s presidency was spun as a sign of his love and support for Reagan’s ideologies. In his book “Dreams from My Father”, Obama writes:
In 1983, I decided to become a community organizer. There wasn’t much detail to the idea; I didn’t know anyone making a living that way. When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer then directly. Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed.
Remember that this was written in 1995, well before he ever run for a public office. At what point does it sound like that this man loves Reagan’s ideals?
Then came the sleazy racial onslaught, for which it is best to quote Michael Blim (he is rather vitriolic, but rightly captures the repugnance felt by many):
Bill Clinton, self-proclaimed and rather foolishly acclaimed by some who shall go nameless as the first “Black” president has played the race card with a finesse that even Wallace might have admired. He has niggered Barack Obama. After he and Mrs. Clinton began to see that African-Americans were turning to Obama [...] this most ruthless and cunning couple, the Macbeths of our time, played the race card.
[...] “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in 1984 and 1988. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama’s run a good campaign here, he’s run a good campaign everywhere.” (Financial Times, January 28, page 4) The Financial Times [...] concluded: “Mr. Clinton’s bleary-eyed implication was clear: Mr. Obama is a black candidate whom blacks disproportionately support.”
[...] Clinton seeks to take out not only the black vote (if Senator Clinton can’t get enough of it), but to pick up both whites and Latinos – a kind of multi-culti racism without a ready precedent as I see it, at least now.
[...] Watch out, they are saying to whites and Latinos, those old black block voters are going to get their way. And God knows, you both will find yourselves on the outside looking in. Think of what would happen if they escape the plantation? Given what’s been done to them, their revenge could be frightful.
Read the full article here.
Nobody knows how the primaries or the general elections will turn out to be, or for that matter the next presidency itself. But one thing for certain, the true colors of the Clintons were briefly flashed before us, and it looked every bit as repulsive as Rudy Giuliani. It is just plain sad when a former president of the stature of Bill Clinton tries to ape Karl Rove in campaign tactics. They may yet again get a free pass, riding on the collective amnesia of the American electorate, but my guess is that many will remember, and the country will suffer more fractures as a result. But who cares about collateral damages when the prize is a stay at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
PS: Finally came across a well-balanced article on this issue at Spiegel Online, which is a part of a tangible shift from the “too-happy-to-dismiss-Obama” articles they were publishing a little while back.
A long response, at Arnab’s request.
Wow, the 3quarksdaily article is pretty conspiracy-theory-heavy. Not that there aren’t a few decent points under the bitter rant. Absolutely I agree that the Clintons are panicking with the recent changes in political tide, so they’re aiming to divide the primary voters — and differentiate the candidates — as much as they can. I don’t believe that it’s really about Obama’s race from their standpoint; that’s just his “weak” point. Politically it makes sense, but they’re going the easy and cheap route and subtly playing on people’s prejudices and fears.
I’m not certain I agree that the Democratic race is “about who can win a general election against any of the Republican candidates”, or at least I’m not hearing much about it, and I’m not so certain that either Clinton or Obama are such easy wins, esp. against McCain. I absolutely agree that “personality for leading and inspiring the country”, as well as relief that the Clinton’s aren’t the only feasible option (for some), and of course “demographic pride” (yay fellow woman! yay non-Hispanic minority!)
– quick pause: can I mention how much it annoys me that the professionalism of the media has dropped to the point that calling longtime public servants and U.S. senators and potential future presidents “Hillary” and “Barack”? It does. If Sn Clinton is elected president, will we still call her “Hillary” to differentiate her from “President Clinton”? –
But honestly, it’s a political campaign. Getting ugly is just what happens here. People would like to believe that just because Clinton and Obama agree on most fundamental issues that everyone will play nice. Wish it would happen. It would be the best possible thing for the party, to be sure, as we would enter the general election season united and proud. If one of them would just have a terrible defeat and drop out gracefully, it would make things so much easier. Then again, we might not have had this opportunity to truly hear voices and concerns from so many sections of the country.
Anyway, the Reagan mess: political play. The “fairy tale” and Jesse Jackson comments: cooling the enthusiasm of people who might just vote for Obama to move beyond the white establishment. Not that it excuses the Clinton’s for it, and I admit I advised my South Carolina resident sister to vote for Obama in good part due to my annoyance with Bill Clinton. No one can be surprised with the ugliness though, unless it’s for both Bill and Hillary’s lack of political savvy for not realizing that personality and inspiration and experience and whatever else aren’t the complete picture. The electorate is tired, exhausted of hearing the partisan bickering and seeing how it’s hindering political progress of any sorts. There are a lot of real problems to be solved, and it’s no surprise that people are starting to flock to Obama and McCain. They’re not only reaching across the aisle, but they don’t make people who disagree on some points out to be traitors either. In the end, we just want to feel like a community and make our country and the world a better place.
Erin, thanks for taking the time to write a thoughtful comment.
I surely understand the argument about politics being ugly. But what I am not sure is that Democrats can beat the Republican machinery by playing ugly, that is, playing to the Republican strength. As for electability, I don’t think that the Clintons’ strategy of touting “experience” is going to work against McCain – of course, they will probably be campaigning on a different note for the general elections (depending on who they are running against), but that will just make them seem more opaque, which is precisely what makes many uncomfortable with them.
I am personally not happy with all the bickering – in fact, I called the 3QD article “vitriolic”, and I also disagree with Paul Krugman when he writes article after article stressing that hyper-partisanship is the way to go. But I can understand the deep frustration which can cause someone to reply back “in kind” when told that hoping for a break from the past is a “fairy tale”, or when someone tries to subtly play on people’s racial prejudices while publicly proclaiming to abstain from making race or gender an issue in the election.
Oh, and don’t get me started on professionalism and many other things about American media
I’m with you, I’m with you.
My response was mainly to the “shock” expressed by 3QD, as well as the accusations of racism. I truly don’t believe that the Clinton’s are racist, just opportunistic. I also think the media is giving what starts as subtle or even unintentional comments undue spin. Something about having a writer’s strike (I assume no effects are felt there, but here TV has an even more extreme reality focus, and the realities of the campaign are just more interesting, especially with conflict and race in the game. Really, we’re just lucky we haven’t had to deal with any sexual accusations yet) or just not enough new Natalee Hollpway leads to discuss.
Did you see any clips of last night’s Democratic debate bw Obama and Clinton? The grown-ups returned… civil and inspiring, though I’ve heard comments that Obama needed to be slightly meaner to get more of an edge as the “challenger”. Whatever. I was happy to be a Democrat, and, yes, even an American.