The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future
It is certain that the Clintons' thousands of friends are cringing, turning away their attention out of sheer shame, grimacing, as they read the former President's derogatory dismissal of Obama's landslide victory as no different than Jesse Jackson's win there. But it's important to scrutinize what the Clintons are doing and how it might work out.
Most notable about the South Carolina results was that Hillary did not get a majority (based on exits) of any racial or gender-based demographic. She is famous; obviously she has a great deal of money and support from the old guard of the party, such as it is; and she is very well-prepared on policy. But she is not tremendously popular. She was wrong on Iraq; she has little personal record of fighting for a cause; she offers a management-style Presidency as opposed to visionary change.
Most of Hillary's votes appear to come from women, seniors, and lower income voters. These demographic groups could turn to Obama. She has not aroused passionate commitment by them.
Hillary has a tenuous status as the alleged front-runner. This is of course the reason she and her husband are taking the low road in terms of tactics. (Not for a second should anyone think she has not approved her husband's tactics, or that he has run amok.)
The former President's repeated injections of racial references are unacceptable in modern politics, or even modern society. If he were a commentator on the Golf Channel, he would be asked to resign. We know he is doing this because he believes that there is a racist strain in the groups that Hillary is counting on. In particular he believes he can encourage Latinos in California, New York, and New Jersey to come out to vote against Barack, simply because Barack is African-American. He does not believe he can persuade them to want to vote for Hillary, but hopes they will either not vote, or will vote for anyone but Barack.
Yet the Clintons cannot make the case against Barack based on any policy. This frustrates them. There is not one aspect of Barack's policy arguments that can arouse much desire among any Democrats to vote against him. He was right on Iraq; he is progressive on virtually everything, despite Paul Krugman's irritation that not every economic policy prescription fits Dr. Krugman's preferences.
In effect, the Clintons want people to dislike Obama the same way that some dislike the Clintons: irrationally, with groundless preconceptions, passionately. They both feel stigmatized for no good reason. To them it probably seems fair, or at least simply part of the process, if Barack is also unfairly hated.
Pehaps too the Clintons feel that the Republicans would attack Barack on racial grounds, so it makes no difference if they beat McCain or Romney to this tactic. In any case, the Clintons are going negative because they do not believe they can with a positive message attract more voters to Hillary. They want to drive voters away from Barack; they want his negatives to be as high as theirs.
The Clintons are thus running their own version of the Republican Southern Strategy that worked so well to elect conservatives from Nixon through to the current Bush. Ironically, the Clintons themselves spent their political careers battling against that strategy. Defeating it in the border states in 1992 was central to Bill Clinton's election.
There's no crying in baseball or politics, so let's not shed a tear over the completely unprincipled use of race-baiting language by the former President. He knows his Presidency was marred terribly by the impeachment, and that his record of accomplishment was much less than he hoped it would be. He wants this return to the White House to give him, and Hillary, a chance to rewrite the history book entry on the Clintons. He does not believe his repugnant tactic will be part of that history; he is sure that if and when they get back in power they will accomplish so much that the way they got elected again won't matter.
Indeed, they suppose that in the general election all will be forgotten. Barack will be campaigning with them. Everyone will have a good laugh about the tricks they all pulled to win the primaries. If such amity does not come to exist, still the Clintons believe they can count on blacks to vote for them in the fall no matter what. After all, Bill Clinton has the chutzpah to think of himself as the "black President" so taking that demographic's votes for granted is no stretch of the imagination for him.
But the Clintons' use of the tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove inevitably contributes to the perception that Hillary Clinton is running a campaign that is trapped in the past, where race has always mattered much in elections. That was true in the 80's and 90's. But in the 00's it may not be so. Harold Ford barely lost the Tennessee general election; affirmative action is not one of the big issues of this election cycle; nor is welfare; while race has been the history of America it may not be the future. In any event, even if Obama defeats the Clintons, it is possible that the Clintons' use of the race tactic now will inoculate Obama in the fall. It is possible that the public will see him, may indeed already see him, they way people see Oprah or Denzel Washington or Tiger Woods -- public figures whose race and personal history is certainly well-known, but is not a reason for disapproval, hostility, or even disagreement. (Exit polls in South Carolina reported that about 70% of white voters said they would be satisfied if Obama were the nominee.) If by surviving the Clintons' tactics Obama became that sort of public figure, then he would give Democrats at the top of the ticket a candidate who could produce a landslide not only in the South Carolina primary but also across the country in the general.
This is not a reason to applaud the Clintons' tactic. The Clintons' admirers, of whom I have long been one, still should be consumed with regret that the election has brought Bill and Hillary to make this choice. Howard Dean and others who have been silent should still speak out against what they are doing. The New York Times editorial page should have inveighed against this tactic instead of endorsing Hillary. The Los Angeles Times should speak up. But if Obama overcomes what the Clintons are doing, he may have turned a page in American history and he will certainly be the dream candidate for Democrats this fall.
Comments (204)
January 27, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Have you noticed that you are being ignored in this thread by the majority of civil members here?
Now tuck your shirt in. Your Southern Strategy shorts are showing.
It's very clear why you're here.
On Friday, in your very first post under your newest screenname here at the cafe, just a short 2 days ago, included this divisive, hostility-tinged remark:
You are a rabble rouser. You are a trouble-maker.
You are not a nice person.
Go away!
~OGD~
January 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that M.J Rosenberg and LeftAhead wrote divisive, hostility-tinged remarks. I bet that Obama would never publicly agree that “Gaza: the 21st century Warsaw” or that Obama would ever use the following language “Jews are too smart to fall for such obvious lies. Or so I thought”, but I want to know for sure.
Yes I wrote the following:
MJ, a stong supporter of Obama, wrote:
Just imagine if somebody wroteor
or
There would be a hell to pay for such remarks.
Another Obama supporter leftAhead said
For huge majority of American Jews, Rosenbergs and leftAheads are enemies of Jewish people. If senator Obama wants to get votes of American Jews, he needs to make absolutely clear that he denounces views and language of Rosenbergs and leftAheads. M.J. Rosenberg is trying to bully American Jews in voting for Obama. It’s not going to work.
January 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Boris,' please try to keep your anti-semitic rants confined to MJ's posts.
More to the point here, I've never said anywhere at TPM cafe who I am 'for' in this election, so basically, you are trying to use my name in a lie to smear Obama.
Just another example of your lowliness.
It's not going to work, because, to paraphrase the Bard:
January 27, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you are admitting that your view are so reprehensible so by surmising that Obama might share your views I smear him. Thank you for straight talk.
January 27, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's more acceptable for MJ to say it, it's far more acceptable in discourse to bash your own people-group. Frankly I'm confused, what has Obama done to make himself unacceptable or an enemy of American Jews? Not denouncing a columnist and blog commenter?
Are you for real?
Anyhow, seeing as you properly quoted someone and I guess contributed minimally to the discussion, I decline to troll rate you and frankly stick around if you want.
January 28, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't not say that Obama is unacceptable to American Jews. Notice that Bill Kristol and Marty Peretz (tnr) and M.J. Rosenber support Obama. However, I'm saying that views of some of Obama's biggests supporters in tmpcafe are unacceptable to American Jews and I want to know if Obama share such views or not.
January 28, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Care to offer the poll data that support that contention?
Or are you extracting a small subset of hotheads?
Suggest writing his campaign office and asking your question.
January 28, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no way to know what majority of Obama supporters think and I make no claims about their views. I can only make claims about views of posters here in tpmcafe.
January 28, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Claims about posters not backed up with evidence = lies.
I don't think my views on Gaza are all that controversial amongst the human race in general, but as I said, save your anti-semitic rants for MJs forum.
Face it, 'Boris,' you lied about me in a weak effort to smear Obama. If you think this is in error, please produce some evidence.
You also plagiarized one of Josh's posts.
Why should we have to put up with a stinky troll who is alying plagiarist?
January 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 28, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make this claim, further down this page:
This includes the press outside of this site. It is also unfounded, since you have no controlled survey, only your memory of the ones that stuck out.
January 28, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I express my unscientific opnion.
January 28, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then you should say "It seems to me..." or "I get the impression...". And if you are serious about wanting to know about Obama's sympathy to the hotheads, write to his campaign. Ask them about his policy and views.
I get the impression you are not serious, just prefer phrases that reverse someone's statement into an absurd version. Make your case, don't depend on cheap tricks like that.
January 28, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
You are a rabble rouser. You are a trouble-maker.
You are not a nice person.
Go away!
~OGD~
January 27, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not helping.
January 28, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
And Obama is correct. If you look at the enormous racial (racist?) difference between whites and blacks in the ACTUAL SOUTH CAROLINA VOTE, with 80 percent of blacks going for Obama and fewer than half the whites, Bill Clinton's remarks about Jackson vs. Obama were perfectly valid and 100 percent relevant.
.
This is just like that brouhaha over Bill's "fairy tale" remark. He was talking about Obama's record on the Iraq war--not Obama's entire campaign. Still, that's the story that got out. The fact that Bill said and meant nothing of the sort is simply immaterial for those who want to believe otherwise.
.
And who are those people? For a while I thought it was a good little story line for the media--kind of like all that nonsense about Al Gore supposedly saying he invented the Internet. Of course, he said nothing of the sort, but he has been saddled with this garbage for years.
.
In Bill Clinton's case, however, I think something else may be at work. It does seem that the Dem establishment (including the Kennedy clan) now see an opportunity to chuck off these Arkansans that they were never terribly comfortable with from the start. They've been lying in the bushes till now, but now that they and/or the media have successfully gouged a chink in the Clinton armor, they're piling on, going for the kill.
.
I don't like the Clintons, not one little bit. But as a Chicagoan, I dislike Obama even more. Those who support him should, for instance, maybe look into how he managed to purchase a mansion on the south side, and who helped him buy it, as well as his long record of endorsements for some of the filthiest pols in Illinois--and that's saying a helluva lot, even though it only scratches the surface. Then there's the actual substance of his campaign, which is timid, half-hearted and overly eager to reach out to the damned Republicans--in short, the least changeful of all the Dems--but then no one's paying any attention to that. Maybe it's even somehow "racist" in the eyes of Obama partisans to bring it up. Who knows?
.
In all, this campaign is a very sorry, sordid little spectacle. But the very sorriest and most sordid corner of it right now is this vicious, cowardly, fact-free rounding on the Clintons by the media and the Dem establishment. Have they no shame?
January 28, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
obama's acceptance speech was brilliant last night. He's getting stronger by the day.
January 27, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The SF Chronicle enmdorsed Obama for largely the reasons Reed sets forth, also that he will be a unifier and gives hope for the future not an endless cycle of retribution and vengeance. There are far more Latinos in SF now than blacks. Obama is very popular in Northern CA.
Plus, Caroline and Ted Kennedy have both endorsed Obama.
I do think the Clintons overplayed their hand, and Bill's presence has the effect of diminishing Hillary.
January 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem Bill is giving Hillary, in my opinion, is that Hillary is running on her vast experience as a co-equal member of the Clinton team during his presidency. But, she has to have Bill on hand to smear Obama, and draw crowds for her, raise funds for her, etc., which should make people wonder just how much of an equal partner was she during Bill's presidency. Of course, the answer is that she wasn't anywhere near an equal partner - she was just a first lady with an interest in what was going on (unlike the current first lady, for example). But, that means she really doesn't have all of that experience she claims.
Her campaign would have done far better to keep Bill in the back room doing whatever he could do to help her, but saying nothing on the campaign trail. Then she could possibly get by claiming such vast experience.
I think as the election cycle goes on, this is going to occur to many voters, and if she is our candidate, this could be a fatal blow to our chances.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 27, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the difference between the Health Care Plan Obama offers and the one Hillary is offering?
January 27, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
They have a different approach to getting everyone covered. Hillary wants to penalize people if they don't buy insurance similar to the Massachusetts plan. Obama argues that penalizing people who can't afford insurance is wrong and won't work. I can't say I'm satisfied with either because neither seems to guarantee everyone is covered and once you concede that point, the Republicans will chip away at who does get covered as they have with SCHIP.
January 27, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no penalty in Clinton's health care plan. There is no penalty in Obama's plan, there is no penalty in Edwards' plan. Clinton and Edwards have mandates for employers, employees and insurance companies. Obama's plan has a mandate for the employers and the insurance companies.
January 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's health care plan is certainly better than George Bush's, yet I do hope for a more radical plan. The problem with our medical industry, as I see it, has at least 3 major elements. 1. The pharmaceutical companies are in it for one reason: money. They need to be nationalized. Yes, I still believe an industry can accomplish great things even when profit is not the driving force. 2. Kick the lawyers completely out of the health care business. They, too, are in it only for the money. Our method of controlling doctors in this country is to sue them. Nonesense. We need boards that can discipline them, when needed, rather than sue them (actually, we sue only their insurance companies.) 3. Kick the insurance companies out of the health care business. What is their real purpose? They are only middlemen. And, of course, they are in it only for the money. Everyone has heard what Willie Sutton said when he was asked why he robbed banks, he said "because that's where the money is." He was saying, in effect, that money corrupts. (That's in the Bible somewhere, isn't it?) Willie was right. Money has corrupted our health care industry. We need to take the money out of the industry, the pursuit of it does more harm than good. This morning, I read Obama's lengthy plan that he has posted on his web site. I sure like what I read. I hope he becomes our next president. However, I am cynical. I am very leary that the powers that be will not let it be.
January 27, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kick the insurance companies out of the health care business.
Indeed.
Without that, nothing else matters.
All health care plans will still remain mired in paperwork, huge costs and poor care unless that is done.
Obama at least acknowledges one-payer is the way to go. Hillary is on the take.
Best, Terry
January 27, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Terry. In my view John Edwards would be a perfect opponent to the insurance industry in fighting for universal single payer healthcare. And I'd love to see Obama put him there.
January 27, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am convinced that putting all-out profit-making entities, responsible for shareholder value, cannot work in healthcare. I am not convinced, based on the German and to a lesser extent Japanese systems, that multi-payer, either with nonprofits or extremely regulated insurers, cannot work fairly.
Germany, in particular, has some quite good alternatives to micromanagement and preapproval, which they've turned into continuous process improvement, with a minimum of punitive quality and a maximum of finding ways to do better. Overall, they have less paperwork, but they actually pay providers for the work involved in generating the quality improvement statistics.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 27, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kick the insurance companies out of the health care business.
The goalposts have already been moved, so to speak, as the HMO concept has been institutionalized--despite the facts on the ground, which counter every one of the efficiency arguments that the pundits and lobbyists broke out during the late 80s to rationalize their radical 'for profit' plans in the health care industry.
January 27, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Texas installed a $250,000 cap on tort recoveries for pain and suffering, and I know of several people who have been injured on the job, their Workman's comp has run out, their companies then ired them when they could not work, and they have no way to get a lawyer to take a case because there is not enough potential recovery to pay for the lawyer.
If you think any medical board is going to discipline doctors, you are dreaming. They don't do it now, and that won't change. It's just like the current utility boards who work for the utility companies rather than the rate payers.
Lawyers in the medical system save money by forcing the medical providers to offer better medicine. There is no substitute for lawyers doing that job for injured patients.
3. What do you want? Single payer?
Me too. Insurance companies contribute nothing to medicine and health care.
But single payer is also a private/public partnership in most industrial countries. Health care providers themselves should be left free to operate as private individuals, partnerships and small corporations. I'd question the value of chains of hospitals, though.
==================================
My physician graduated from med school with 30 years of repayments due on his student loans. Cuba, however, will provide free medical education to individuals who promise to return the the U.S. and work in underserved areas after passing the U.S. licensing exams. We'd get much better health care at lower costs by subsidizing medical education and providing public health care in poor areas that can't afford rich doctors.
January 27, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's another element that has to do with lawyers and health care:
Which scenario (both horrible) would you prefer?
1. You slip on an ice-cube in your kitchen, crack your head on a counter and end up as a quadriplegic --> no movement below the neck and unable to do anything for yourself for the rest of your life.
or
2. You slip on an ice cube in a Doubletree Hotel, crack your head on a counter and end up as a quadriplegic --> no movement below the neck and unable to do anything for yourself for the rest of your life.
With #1, you and your family will probably have to sell all your assets so that you can eventually qualify for Medicaid so that you can get cared for. Your family will go through hell to even get to that point, and the money that you hoped you would be able to give them to help them all get launched will be gone.
With #2, you will get (after a trial or a settlement), care for the rest of your life, and your family will get far more money than you would have been able to give them as you had planned.
What is wrong with this picture? People who need care need care. In Europe, where care for all citizens is a way of life, there are no million-dollar settlements for injuries. People don't have to sue to keep their families from suffering in order to get their medical care. In fact suits for things like this are very rare.
Yes, educating doctors, teachers, and others who serve the public should be subsidized, but then doctors' incomes should reflect that change.
Jan
January 27, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason for not suing in the first case is if you negligently put the ice cube there yourself. Then you are not likely to recover by suing yourself. (Depending, of course, on how your homeowner's policy is written.)
In the second case, the Doubletree was negligent, and should be required to pay the cost of their negligence. An alternative system would be for the government to fine them, while providing the needed health care and disability support. Do you trust the government that much? I am both ex-military and an ex-civil servant, and I can guarantee that I do not trust the government. Like all organizations, it takes on the attitudes of those at the top.
The advantage of a purely government system is that things become standardized, so that two people who suffer the same medical problems get the same care regardless of fault. That's good. But that is also accompanied by being dependent on the government rules and personnel for any benefits, which if the rules fit the reality and the administrators do their jobs honestly, is OK. But there is no room in such a system for redress when the politicians and bureaucrats decide to not act fairly. Without lawyers involved, most individuals have to take what the government offers and get nothing else. Only the Rule fo Law protects us from the arbitrary actions of bureaucrats, and the lawyers and courts are the enforcers of the Rule of Law. A law not applied by the administrators might as well not have been passed, because it does not direct the administrator's actions. (See Bush's signing statements as an example. They are an institutional flouting of the Rule of Law by the President who is merely an administrator, not a lawmaker himself.)
I worked for Social Security before Reagan, and I saw a good, generally effective and well-meaning bureaucracy that did most things right, if sometimes slowly. Then Reagan came in and gutted the disability system so that now two-thirds of all appeals of denials are ultimately reversed and approved - two or more years after the initial denial. The initial denials are intended to discourage expensive cases from being paid. Lawyers have been a godsend since the Reagan Revolution, one reason Republicans have demonized tort lawyers so badly.
Americans need lawyers in part because we cannot trust our government.
Granted also, the Europeans are much more civilized than America. America is, you must remember, the wild frontier, and we make a fetish of the frontier myth here. That's why John Wayne, who never played anyone except himself in the movies, is so often acclaimed as a good actor. It's that frontier myth that sets up the idea that everyone has the right to enact his own get-rich scheme. If you have no respect for your own society, then the only alternative is to become a "superman" in some manner and transcend the sad society in which you live. Since most people will not succeed at that get-rich scheme, and since most get-rich schemes exploit other people, we need lawyers very badly.
Europe has generally accepted that the dog-eat-dog society is not the best way to live, an attitude that angers the American conservatives. Canada is about the only place in the Americas that seems to have learned the European civilized attitudes. Of course, Canadian doctors are not paid as well as ours are.
Nor are the Cuban-trained doctors that Castro sends out as part of his foreign aid paid well. We, of course, send guns, tanks and planes and provide training in military arts as our foreign aid.
January 27, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really sad, Rick, but right on the money.
January 27, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compared to simpler systems that existed in the past (anarchy, monarchy, totalitarianism, etc.) this is better because it gives the individuals involved some say in what society does to and for them. That's what Churchill meant when he said that Democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others.
So I'll disagree with your characterization of it as "Really sad." Reality is really, really complicated, and any attempt to impress a rational, understandable, clear and just template over it is doomed to failure. No possible overall system exists that makes reliable predictions of what will happen in the future given today's events, that is fair and comprehensive and at the same time is something we could understand.
The best we can do is pick out little segments of reality, try to understand each of them, and then agree among ourselves to set up social systems that deal with them in generally predictable ways.
Anthropologists call that "culture." It's an artifact of the apparently unique human ability to model reality in shared language, accompanied with an also apparently unique human ability to recognize time as past, present and future. That ability to recognize time permits us to model possible future scenarios (using another human characteristic - an apparent need and ability to recognize deep patterns, true or false, in large collections of facts), develop a social consensus of what those future scenarios are and which are good and which are not, and then take actions today to change future events to match those preferred imagined future scenarios.
All that was described by Robert Parsig in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" when he stated that before there was ever a motorcycle in reality, first there was a dream of a motorcycle.
I actually find it rather exciting that there is any species capable of attempting such a unique and apparently impossible feat, that has had some degree of success as a species in such attempts, and that I belong to that species. The fact that it is so difficult to establish a consensus set of future possible scenarios that all of us can work towards should not detract from the fact that no other (known) existing species can even try to do it.
Jesus! Am I making any sense at all? Obviously I have too much free time on my hands and shouldn't be allowed near an active keyboard!
January 28, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a very good idea is to start a not-for-profit" corporation solely owned by the taxpayers, funded through employment taxes, workers' compensation and state contributions. The excess revenue could be used to invest in public owned hospitals, emergency care centers and health clinics.
All healthcare provider statistics would be made public and released yearly as "report cards" in regions with bonuses paid to those hospitals/care centers, etc., with the best records.
Governments can also continue to subsidize research and development in pharmacuticals, but instead of turning the patent over to the drug companies, the patents would be retained by the government, royalties paid on the manufacturing and the royalties be used to subsidize prescriptions. Universities would be paid for research and development if the patents are to be retained by the taxpayers.
January 27, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's one possibility and ought to be considered carefully.
That not-for-profit, public-private, corporate or government, organizational structure is not unique, of course. That's essentially the same form of structure that the Federal Reserve uses, as well as the Student Loan Marketing Association (SLMA) ["Sally Mae") and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). There's probably others. So there is precedent for such an organizational structure.
To evaluate it properly, the detailed functions that organization would perform need to be laid out, and then the advantages and disadvantages of that not-for-profit corporation as a way to perform those functions should be considered and compared to alternative organizational structures.
I wonder if anyone has attempted such an effort yet?
January 28, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goodbye, Billary!
January 27, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or is that Hillbilly . . . now that Hillary is in the forefront . . .
January 27, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason this is happening is not because the Clintons are racist (they are not, of course) it's because Hillary is such a bad candidate. She spent a year bleating about how important experience is instead of establishing a rationale for her candidacy. She still doesn't have one. She expected to be essentially unopposed. The "experience" meme is absurd, prima facie. If she's nominated, she'll have less experience in government than any major party candidate in at least a hundred years, and her most likely opponent will have FAR more experience; will she then vote for McCain?
On top of that, her candidacy is based purely on celebrity and nepotism. Not to say she wouldn't be good at the job, but there's no rationale other than her marriage to the ex-president for offering it to her. The Republicans will eat her lunch on this basis alone.
She's unpopular, uncompelling, and ineloquent on the stump. her husband may yet muscle her into this nomination, but if the Dems nominate her, they deserve the thrashing they'll get in November, and the dissolution of the party that will occur afterwards.
January 27, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this fascinating analysis. Coming from a longtime supporter, your cautionary words and consideration of the positive outcome with regard to Obama carry even more weight.
I would like to underscore and enlarge one point you made, because I think there is a deeper reason:
In my view it is not just bill's race baiting that would lead to his resignation, but the conflict of interest going on here. You have outlined how bill wants to set the record straight, to have another chance at history. We all know that hillary is, in effect, standing on her husband's shoulders by claiming "35 years of experience" - many of which were years as presidential or gubernatorial spouse. Frank Rich in today's NY Times points to other issues which could be subsumed under the category of conflict of interest. And we have, as well, the issue related to bill's "role" as former president and how that role plays out from the point of view of an "authority figure" injecting himself into a contest, which he can no longer contest on his own and so is contesting vicariously through his wife.
Where else in American life do we permit former chief executive to publicly trash a contender for next chief executive in order to help a spouse? Would it not be considered a conflict of interest for a former CEO to do this? Or a former judge? A former college president? Do lawyers who are married do this with regard to cases a spouse is representing? What about a former police chief doing the same thing? In business or academia such behavior would be deemed a danger to the institution itself. Why should we not take this into account in terms of damage to the republic?
I think the Golf Channel would not hire someone where there was such a conflict in interest. And to me the conflict of interest issue is paramount here. As well as the behavior that should be expected from a former holder of high office.... whether spouse of not... to get down into the gutter and try to regain that office through a surrogate.
January 27, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for thinking this through in this way; it is an excellent analysis of something that never occurred to me.
South by Southwest
January 27, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your kind words, Carol Gee.
January 28, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Reed.
Mrs. Bill wants liberals to vote for her and Mr. Bill because they are white, right and will extend the Reagan-Clinton-Bush policies as far as the eye can see.
Give us a break, Barack.
Best, Terry
January 27, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amusing typo here:
While Bill is surely not running amok, he has gone rather a-mucking.
January 27, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Tom. And I think there is a strong psychological connection between this "muck" and his former intern "muck." bill is apparently a man who does not master his passions. He's gone from sexual passion to hostile aggression. It is just as unseemly.
Past behavior being the best predictor of future behavior, we can expect no less should bill become co-president. He'll insert himself into everything... not just into an intern. To our detriment.
It is clear he cannot stop himself. We must do it for him.
January 27, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a typo. "Amuck" is just an alternate spelling. Check your dictionary if you don't believe me.
January 27, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Preferred, or primary, spelling is without the "c". I find "amok, amuck, amuk". (2 out of 3.) I've only seen the first spelling in print.
January 28, 2008 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the outset, I felt vaguely sick of the Clintons and they've done nothing but remind me why. They are not team players. They're too busy saving the party from itself to build the party or forge lasting coalitions. As a result, they've failed at both.
If the attacks against Obama have the intended effect, they will only serve to increase his negative rating. They will do nothing to increase HRC's positives or lower her negatives, which are already in the 40's. Either way, the Democratic nominee will enter the general election with a higher negative rating than necessary.
Bill Clinton could be tremendously effective as a positive force, if they so chose. Without diminishing Obama in the slightest, Bill could easily talk about how great Hillary is, and how she never gave up on him, and she won't give up on the American people either, and how busy he is studying cookie recipes to prepare for a challenging new career as First Husband.
Or failing that, Bill could go attack the Republicans. He could easily call out individual Congressmen and Senators who opposed this or that good idea and supported this or that dumb idea. Drive up their negatives instead.
Bill Clinton has often uttered the truism that if you don't get elected, you have no power and therefore achieve nothing. The Clintons appear to believe this a little too strongly.
January 27, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ironic that Ralph Nader's greatest accomplishments were not from an elected position, and his greatest mistake may have been trying to get elected, or at least gain some party-style power.
January 27, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone else hear Senator Clinton say,this morning on one of the morning shows that she intends to work to reverse some of the wrong headed policies "of the last fifteen years"? A period which includes here husband's presidency.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 27, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't care who they elect(yes, there is a 'they', and they have a damn sight more money than I do, if you're not into 7 figures, you're an honorary participant in this whole farce), as LONG as they have some straight talk and an actionable plan to go after run-amok federal spending. Get that budget business taken care of, and stop trying to use B.S. eco-poltix to box people in economically. We need exports.
For that, you need some type of fabrication facility, typically referred to as 'a factory',
and 'employees'. I mean, given the time, and someone to consult with on construction and fabrication, I think I could conceptualize an automated facility to make things, but the idea is to get people trained, and employed. People that have jobs have no need of 'government doughnuts'. Less government doughnuts=less national debt. I think the candidates' answers on some questions ABOUT the whole debt would be pretty revealing as far as their future plans for policy go. Taking the country 'condo' would generally fit with a real estate mentality, but that's kind of been a problem in this country for oh, about 20 years, now, all the realtors parceling the country off to the highest bidder,
and sure, business, but also the kind of business that'll see people doing things that will keep the domestic economy afloat without being on perpetual federal life support. Exports. Tools. Equipment. Things that don't eject bullets when you pull the little lever
but instead are useful for actual work somehow.
Sundries. Finished goods. Cars that get good mileage. The kind of things we're importing now because they outsourced all that icky work stuff to China so they could turn some states into parks for rich people to frolic in. Industry.
Industry that hasn't been hollowed out financially by unionists. Industry that makes things 'made in the USA' that are worth buying.
I saw a little bit of 'do it yourself' initiative, guy with a weedeater engine on the back of a bicycle. Getting all Harley-Davidson there (before they went public and got fat).
Indeed, going back to the basic wheel, the blank sheet of paper, the bare drawing board in an empty shop building. RE-creating. It'll be fun!
January 27, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It couldn't be that some of the pundits are implementing a smear themselves, could it? Jesse Jackson, Jr. pushed the Clinton = race-baiting meme across S.C. They won S.C. by virtue of the black vote and the reverse smear on the Clinton camp was a large part of that. Obama waited until the narrative had taken hold before he began calling for his above-it-all politics. Consider HRC’s position. A concerted effort is pursued to label them as race-baiters and it works. So, they can’t even allude to race because it gives their opponents (even here) more ammunition.
Clinton’s remarks were cringe-inducing? Jesse Jackson-ewww! It sounds more like Clinton-hating pundits are now making coded racist attacks on Jesse Jackson. How can Obama have Jesse Jackson, Jr. as his national co-chair? Like astrology believers reading confirmation into their own personal horoscopes, some absorb this pundits’ spin on any remark that even indirectly touches on race. After all, this is something those corrupt calculating Clintons would do, so it must be their intention.
Obama is campaigning nationally as a conciliator who will bring everyone together. That is great, and it’s a powerful message. But he was running as a black man in the black community in S.C. C’mon, the gospel tour, the beauty/barbershop campaign, Oprah and civil rights leaders stumping (“He’s the one”)? That is just what he should have done to win but any mention of it is labeled racist as it conflicts with his message. Many African-Americans voted for him because he is African-American just as women favored Hillary as potentially the first woman president. I didn’t see those black voters disgusted by the Hillary “racism” swinging towards Edwards who more directly addresses needs of the working people of S.C.
Both campaigns were actively courting racial (and other) groups in S.C. though both denied it because it’s such a hot potato. I’m sure Obama does not want to be typed generally with any segment of voters, which counters his universal message. But I also doubt any candidate would turn down any votes, anywhere and he had to have S.C. in this year of cascading caucuses. Of course, Clinton was relating Obama’s win to Jackson’s win by virtue of the black vote. But how is that racist?
January 27, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not racist but it still stinks.
I have up to now favored Clinton slightly over Obama. I haven't minded Bill "working the refs" of the media because they HAVE given Obama an easier time than Hillary. Hillary-hatred is still alive and well in the press corps and that stinks too.
But this is over-the-line. It's borderline racially-offensive, and more importantly it somehow seems like Bill still saying, "it's all about me. Nothing to see here, folks, move on along, those in the know know that South Carolina is not that important, how much good did it do Jesse Jackson, hint hint wink wink."
He should have graciously congratulated Obama and said, "On to Super Tuesday" and gotten the hell off the stage. This is not how you behave when you get your ass kicked and it's driving people to Obama and I know it's true because it's driving me that way and I don't want to go that way.
Hillary now needs to get him to disappear for awhile. If she's running to be the first woman president, she's not going to get there if she lets it appear that she needs this kind of crap. She's got to win this on her own or it won't be worth having.
January 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your assessment, except that I hope she keeps him doing exactly what he has been doing. :-)
January 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you about Bill Clinton. He is cocky and condescending and probably hurting their campaign more than helping, at least in the short term. But if their camp is not portrayed as race-baiting in the first place, his remarks would not be perceived as offensive rather than typical politics. His remark and that of others have been misconstrued as racial slights.
I don’t support Clinton but don’t despise her or him as much as some seem to. I think it’s because I never considered Bill Clinton as anything other than what he was: a skilled and ambitious politician who veered to the center and spoke of hope and reconciliation to attract a broad support. I voted for him twice but didn’t buy into Clinton as progressive savior. I think some of the backlash and buying into the Republican smears against the Clintons has to do with elevated expectations of them originally.
Obama is, in many ways, running just as Clinton did. He’s still playing politics very skillfully but doesn’t get his hands dirty. Clinton accommodated corporate interests at times much the same as Obama has in his political rise. I should have made clearer above that I think Obama is in a catch-22 on this, just as Hillary is. He naturally wants to actively pursue a constituency that would love to see an African-American president but that would expose his color-blind message.
So, all of this takes place behind the scenes and through coded messages and innuendo. But ambiguity and distortion doesn’t call for more distortion and all of the candidates have to be given the benefit of the doubt. We can’t accuse people race-baiting when they are not. A quick look at real smear campaigns- ah, I miss Karl Rove- and it becomes apparent how so much of this is playing one of those cards everyone talks about.
All this hand-wringing over supposed racially-tinged remarks and –gasp- directly appealing to black voters is part of the political pandering and horse-race, scandal-mongering coverage of our media elections. I don't care who is appealing to what group and who is the best orator or poll-driven strategist or mudslinger. I want to know who is going to stop the new FISA travesty next week. I want to know who is going to bring down the criminal autocracy that has cemented its power.
January 27, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't despise the Clintons, I never liked them all that much either, but I supported her over Obama because she wasn't giving ground to the Republicans that she needn't have and because they're fighters. (I'll still vote for Edwards on Super Tuesday.)
And I agree with you that a lot of the earlier supposed race-baiting stuff wasn't. It wasn't particularly effective - why compare yourself to the immensely popular LBJ, but the point behind it was true. However, I can't take Bill Clinton's remarks about Jesse Jackson in South Carolina as saying anything other than "a black man can't win", and even if he thinks that, and even if that's right, he should never, ever say it. Leave that to the media pundits. It comes damn close to crossing over a line that stands between a nomination worth having and a nomination that's worth nothing.
January 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is perhaps a bit too labored. You may have missed Al Gore's campaign manager, Donna Brazille, on ABC this morning. On the point of whether Obama ran on race:
Paraphrasing slightly: "I've been organizing black people since I was nine years old," she said. "What strikes me as I've listened to Obama very carefully, is this: He uses the same language with everyone."
He doesn't use coded racial wink-and-nod dog whistle stuff, which Bill Clinton did in SC. His language, and his actions corroborate his claim that his is not running as a black man or as a white man but as an American.
I never thought I'd see the day when this could happen in my country. All I can say is: Thank God it happened when I could still see it. I hope the rest of us can finally appreciate what is happening. This candidate is giving us an enormous gift, to finally find a way past the awful legacy of slavery, by reconciling and loving both the part of himself that come from a white mother and from a black father. He's made peace with that, and gives us a gift of forgiveness and reconciliation that is of enormous importance.
What makes it difficult in this race is that a woman is also running. It is long past time for a woman president. But two things drive me to Obama. One is the above sense that the issue of a shameful and divisive racial past may be about to end, and that that is of trancendent importance. The other is that this woman candidate is flawed in some important ways, and I just can't feel that she is the right one for the job.
It's too bad. But on the other hand, we are blessed with the choice between administrative competence and greatness. Not a bad choice to have to make, actually.
January 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides in the last two weeks it's become clear that you can't tell if a woman is even running. Seems like the The Big Dog can't make room for the little woman on the big stage.
January 27, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do people feel free to make sexist remarks but pretend to outrage at racist remarks?
January 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey now, we all know that bluebell doesn't make sexist remarks.
I know it's frustrating that bluebell is supporting the wrong candidate (kidding!) but sheesh!
It really is odd that here of all places we're accusing each other of racism and sexism. Nobody here is anything like that.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 27, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The little woman?" When's the last time you heard that phrase?
I don't think bluebell is supporting the wrong candidate, I think that she's making stereotypical remarks.
You know, these "billary" and "hillbilly" and "little woman" and all the other slurs are offensive - it sounds just like the wackjob crap on the lucianne.com board or the freeper board.
January 27, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. But Bev, you've been around here awhile, as has bluebell. And we all know that despite the words she might be using that bluebell, of all people, isn't out to make sexist comments. Consider the source and the people you know.
I know I'm being a hypocrite because I called Reed a concern troll but us TPMers should take care of each other as the primaries heat up. We're all going to need each other later.
Not saying no fighting, of course. But I think we can agree that we're all not racists and sexists.
Sorry for interfering. This post of mine seems really preachy.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 27, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what the problem is here, destor? People aren't even aware that they're making sexist comments. I'm not only disgusted with the sexist comments, I'm disgusted with the freeper/lucianne crappy remarks about the Clintons. It's a shame anyone has to read that here.
January 27, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's got nothing to do with sexism. I'd never say the same thing about Nancy Pelosi who also has an extremely successful spouse. The difference is she isn't trying to simply replace her spouse to do his job while he stands in the wings. Nope, she went off and had an entirely separate career and earned her own way. If you don't think that's the case with Hillary have her send Bill off on an 8 year mission to some 3rd world outpost and let her be seen as her own person.
January 28, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read Frank Rich's Billary column? He's about as liberal as you can find in the MSM these days.
How can you take Hillary seriously when Bill speaks BEFORE she does after the SC primary? How would Obama look if his wife was behaving like Bill? He'd be portrayed as a henpecked wimp.
January 28, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be sensitive to nepotism is not being sexist.
January 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But to call someone "hillbilly" or "billary" or "the little woman" is being sexist.
January 27, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
A 2, Jan?
January 27, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A zero, BevD?
January 28, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Minstrel shows, black face, amoral politician? This is the second time I've given a 0 on this board - what you wrote is especially disgusting directed at a democrat.
These are the kind of remarks you read on lucianne.com.
January 28, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Hillary is running on Bill's coat-tails. The "experience" that she claims is not backed by facts. Claiming experience as a First Lady when she didn't have clearance to see documents that would have made her a part of the decision-making process is fatuous.
The only thing I am aware of that she did as First Lady was to try (in a hugely unsuccessful way) to reform Health Care. Why did it fail? She was secretive and exclusionary, and she kept medical experts out of the loop. It was doomed by her approach.
If she has truly had 35 years of experience (which from a chronological point of view included her time as a law student) where is the list of personal accomplishments? I know she has been on tons of committees, but what has she accomplished Herself? What has her mark on it? There should be a huge list and I haven't seen it.
What has she gone to the mat over? What has she done? The Flag Burning Ammendment? No Thanks. The Iraq War? No Thanks.
She is tied to Bill because she wants to take credit for his 8 years; unfortunately, he is tarnishing his own name to make up to his wife.
I agree with another poster, who said that as a former President, he shoul