Nicely written essay Michael. It is heartening to see English professors putting their skills to good use once in a while.

I have to agree with your sentiments that the Clintons primary goal in politics is to promote the Clintons and woe to any party's (i.e. Democrat's) interests that stand in the way. However, this time I am not worried that they can bring down the whole party. If the Obama storm continues into Wisconsin next week and then into Texas and Ohio, super delegates would vote their own political self interest and that would be to join a winner not a loser. For the insiders to defy the poplar vote in the August convention would make the 1968 Chicago convention seem like a unity and love fest. No way that Democrats not named Clinton would allow that to happen.

Poor Hillary. She is just going to have go out there and win Texas and Ohio the old fashioned way.

Nicely put Mr. Bérubé.

I wonder how Penn's remark about "significant states" will go down with the roughly 580, or so, automatic delegates from, and those running down the ticket in, the 44, or so, insignificant states.

It seems that the Clinton campaign is reinforcing the worst that many folks already believe of it.

Let me get this straight you are willing to gamble on a guy who has not been tested as to whether he can stand up to pressure over a candidate who has proven she can?
You call yourself a responsible voter?

Michael Bérubé himself has said that Hillary has been tested and anyone who witnessed the past year must be dumb deaf and blind not to have seen the assaults she has withstood not only from Republican wingnuts but from ga ga-for-Obama people such as yourself.

Well said, Ellen. Hillary's claim is that she can lead from day one. There have been a number of issues before Congress this session, a number of tough votes, a number of times the Congress could have but did not to go to the mat for an issue, and pick your issue - war, SCHIP, civil liberties, ..... Hillary has not lead on any issue. Neither has Obama for that matter, but he's not making the experience, tested, ready with solutions now, argument. I'm judging her on her own argument and she fails the test.

What do you mean no pony?

NO PONY!!!!

(sob) Iz too much 2 bear.

Seriously though, I'm one of the folks who really like Clinton, but have chosen to support Obama. I have to say this new tack of hers is starting to piss me off.

One theory is that the most important issue to Obama's upscale supporters is the war. It's too controversial to discuss openly, but Obama's talk of "change" and "hope" sends an indirect message that he'd try to end it. Hillary's message is that despite the stereotype of her gender, she's "tough". Not the battle-ax (can I use that word?) that Margaret Thatcher was in her day, but comfortable with using force.

You can know the canon of political philosophy inside and out, and it won't tell you what they really think. The best guess seems to be that Obama would be inclined to use diplomacy and put a higher priority on getting us out. That's a fairly nebulous basis for deciding to support him, but it's the best we've got.

When this campaign is over, there is a good critical book to be written about the Clinton Campaign. They have made so many boneheaded mistakes -- not just the recent indications of a lost campaign in press reports, but assumptions that probably date back two or more years. For instance, we know that Hillary (and Bill) don't like caucuses -- but in the states where they are traditional, party members generally like them. You would think they would have realized they had to learn how to mount a campaign in a caucus state. It isn't rocket science, but it would be smart to hire some consultants with a track record doing it and winning. Apparently they didn't -- National Clinton Staff were sent to states lacking that competence.

Presidential Historians probably could point to the pattern -- when you have a failed presidency, a very unpopular presidency, voters look for something different. So Why in the Heck did they decide to mount a compaign so much like an incumbant's campaign. At least since the Social Security push by Bush in early 2005, and most especially since Katrina -- "more of the same" has not been the voter mood. What were the early assumptions behind this aspect of Campaign Design?

I suspect all too many Clinton Consultants are in awe of Karl Rove, and his devotion to microtargeting -- and that such techniques useful in driving up numbers in a General Election, played too strongly in thinking about the Primary-Caucus season. I'd like to know a great deal about how "technique" drove Campaign Design early on.

There is much more -- but what a string of mistakes.

I mostly agree with what you say. Many things that the Clinton campaign did or failed to do did indeed play a role in the pickle they find themselves in now.

But you have to agree that the rabid anti Clinton media did play a part.
1) Bash Hillary
2) Boost Obama

There is definitely an agenda here.

Michael,

Thanks for the open letter. First, I do respect your opinion on the dynamic of the race at this point and the fact that you have serious issues with the tactics of the Clinton campaign and their shortcomings. Fair enough. Reasonable arguments can be made that the campaign trying to seat the FL and MI delegates and accumulating Superdelegates can lead to a perception of "Clintons looking out for themselves". At the same time I would argue we have not been in this position before given that neither candidate will have the required delegates by the time the contests are over, so both campaigns are employing strategies outside of the normal selection process. It certainly hasn't stopped Obama from wooing superdelegates to pledge to him, while decrying their potential role at the same time. And it certainly hasn't stopped him or his surrogates from arguing against seating all of the delegates from MI and FL, while arguing about the will of the people. (please don't argue those are the rules, DNC bylaws call for any state that violates the timing procedures to be stripped of 50% of their delegates. Dean and Brazille just wanted to go further and"send a message". It was a needlessly punitive action.) The fact is that this is unprecedented. So as unseemly as the Clinton's tactics seem to you (as an Obama supporter), it is in fact exactly what they should be doing, arguing their case, and it is negligibly different from what Obama is doing right now. If the situations were different, could you honestly say Obama wouldn't be doing the same thing? Also your letter seems to critique the Clinton's not necessarily on their substance, but their style. Also fair game. Penn is probably the worst person they could put on TV right now and frankly, all of us Dems need to be reminded on how we come across sometimes.

But issues of style aside, what I do not respect and what I do really take issue with is your characterization of the Clinton Administration as simply an endless series of the Clintons "throwing people under the bus". This does irritate me to no end, as does Obama's recent tack to tell voters that the Clinton years were just plan bad and a series of petty partisan fights with both sides, especially the Clintons, guilty. It's not so much the Obama folks' rainbows/gumdrops/and pony thing that bothers me, it's the buying of the hook, line and sinker of the Obama suggestions that the Clintons hurt our party, working folks, and nation that bug me.

Let us not forget what the Clintons found upon entering office. A rather feckless Democratic majority in Congress that was well on its way to defeat due to their all too comfortable addiction to the trappings of being the majority. You had a much more radical Republican party under new leader Newt Gingrich that was determined to utilize advanced and disciplined Republican messaging to demonize and vilify all things Democrat and exploit a not filibuster proof Dem majority in the Senate to block, harass and impede the legislative agenda of the President from Day 1. Bill Clinton was the first Democratic President in 12 years, and they were determined to make him go the way of Jimmy Carter. Read the history about health care reform. It didn't fail because Hillary worked behind closed doors, it failed because the R's intimidated every other Republican, even moderates like John Chaffee from even giving Hillary the time of day and sending out orders to oppose any White House health plan "sight unseen". Despite the fact that the knives were out for him, Clinton still took the risk of passing the 93 budget balancing, economic recovery tax plan that was absolutely the right thing to do policy wise, but ironically was great fodder for the Republican takeover in 94. Bill Clinton manned up, and you know what, he had to fight for the next six years against a regressive and awful Republican agenda. And despite those petty partisan fights and an impeachment, and a Republican majority out to crush him, the Clinton years gave us, the biggest anti poverty program since LBJ (EITC) resulting in tax relief for 15 million working poor, the largest expansion of Medicaid and health care for 6.6 million kids (SCHIP), the Family Medical Leave Act, doubling pell grants and creating HOPE and Lifetime Learning Credits helping 15 million kids afford college, etc. etc. and of course virtually every economic indicator of prosperity at or near historic highs, all while having "partisan fights" over horrible regressive tax policies, assaults on reproductive rights, the dismantling of the entitlement system etc. Not to mention our first two elected term Prez since FDR.

So as much as I'd love to turn the page and as much that it pains me that you and other good Democrats hate to be reminded of those awful selfish Clinton years, and the malign effect they've had on our party, I still must insist that before you leave the past behind for good, you take a close examination of what actually happened, not just the Obama Director's cut version of the 90's and I hope it would give you a bit better perspective of the current lay of the land.

Finally, I must ask, why are Clinton's actions worse for our party than Obama's actions. Are her attacks that much more mean spirited? Has she demonstrated the Clinton ability to say or do anything to win while Obama has pulled his punches for the sake of Dem unity? Just curious.

Best

Well Michael I’m going to try again with you

First, I think it is highly unfair to hold Hillary responsible for the actions that her husband took when he was president
.

Secondly, when I mentioned Obama and his supporters social/political philosophical roots you said something to the effect: yeah social/political philosophy, they know all that stuff.

Well, that's not quite satisfactory.

Hillary has laid her cards on the table a long time ago. She is a communitarian.
And some people do not like her for that because they think it is a quasi fascistic doctrine (e.g. Ellen).

Obama on the other hand has no discernible political philosophy other than perhaps a utopian unitarianism. (I made that term up and might refer you to Marx's theory of the endpoint of history being some such utopia thus suggesting that Obama is casting himself as the messiah who will usher us into this end point of history)

What unifies Obama's rhetoric is this idea that HE can reinvent politics as it has been practiced since time immemorial. He is the Messiah.
"Yes we can!!" drone on his followers. He says he is going to break with the future and venture into a New Beginning. No more politics as usual. Does that mean he's promising unusual politics and if so what on earth does that mean? His slogan is the all embracing phrase fundamental "change". Change to what? He has not said because he has not enunciated his political philosophy.

There is a dearth of specifics on this all important topic (for us beer swilling democrats at least).

I think Bill was being generous when he said that we would be throwing the dice with Obama. We are throwing away what is most important: a framework from which to discern what Obama will actually do.

That does not seem to be a concern to you. You have a handful of grievances against her husband, whatever relevancy that might have to any serious discussion and you use that as a cogent reason for supporting Obama.

Communitarianism--as in "It Takes a Village" does give me an indication how she would govern.

Also you totally overlook Obama's disingenuous conflating the Bush tyranny with her husband's eight years in office. He is in fact surreptitiously implying that the right wing conspiracy against her husband that resulted in his impeachment has some merit. It is all part of the Wicked PAST. Give me a break!

The plain fact is we have no clue what Obama will do because he has no philosophical anchor, only dangerously infectious rhetoric about stark contrasts: Past and Future, Change and more of the same ,(as if Hillary would give us more of the same as Bush has), Politics as usual versus Obama Politics whatever.

It is because of this irrational exuberance that I was forced to psychoanalyze the Obama phenomenon amongst people such as yourself. Despite the fact that Krauthammer psychoanalyzes social phenomena it is not verboten you know. Another one of your logical non seqitours.

So what I'm left with is that you yourself do not have a coherent reason for 1) supporting Obama and 2) heaping scorn on Hillary. So my grade for you is C+ with the comment "entertaining but not very cogent"

Professor,

I look forward to your memoirs, I Cover the Facetious Commentary Beat. It’s not quite as illustrious as covering the waterfront or the war, but it’s honest work and there is a built in job security. In regards to FLA/MI, isn’t it true that at the time the DNC threatened its sanctions against, many Dem leaders and pundits were saying that the FLA and MI votes would have to be counted somehow in the end?

Of course, it’s all political. In Nevada we had to let the major casinos hold their own private primaries in the name of democracy or we would be disenfranchising voters. OTOH, in Florida, we must disenfranchise all Democratic voters because the Republican legislature and governor moved their primary up over state Dem’s objections. Yes, let the famous Florida Republican Party (and Donna Brazile) decide who our nominee will be. Clinton was against the sanctions to begin with but abided by the agreement all candidates had to consent to not to campaign there. And the Obama camp has lobbied mightily to have new caucuses in those states, which someone more cynical than I might say is also an attempt to change the rules mid-game.

Besides, isn’t the Obaman fight to have the super-duper-delegates correspond to the “will of the people” a case of changing the rules mid-game? If the role of the SD is to reflect the voters’ delegations, why have them? (Though I agree- why have them?) Obama and Clinton are both centrist establishment compromising politicians either of which would be “springtime fresh” compared to the dank stink that we currently have. But both campaigns are playing to win, politically, with whatever it takes. Obama has been better at playing the game but both camps are bags of political gas playing at the edges of identity politics with faux outrage and concern trolling of the media. What gets old is the “your side is dirty but we’re squeaky clean” and “I’m shocked, there’s gambling going on…” kind of crass politicking in the guise of righteous indignation.

Here is Jake Tapper on Obama the saint:

Is Obama Using Sexist Language? February 16, 2008 11:30 AM

Earlier this month, speaking at Tulane University, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said this about the attacks coming his way from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY:

"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out," Obama said.

The CLAWS come out? Really?

Then yesterday Obama told reporters who had asked about Clinton's latest attack ad, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

That prompted some female TV reporters to question the language he was using.

According to this unofficial transcript, over at MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell seemed to suggest Obama may have been -- if not playing the gender card, then using language women voters might find offensive.

Language such as "when she's feeling down" "periodically" she "launches attacks."

Nora O'Donnell: "He said, 'I understand when she's down, that she makes these kinds of attacks.' It's getting a little personal."

Andrea Mitchell: "It's getting a little personal and, very frankly, you know how deeply we interpreted every comment to look for some sort of racial motivation before South Carolina. A lot of people said it was there. But, you know, when you start describing a female candidate as being 'down' and 'striking back,' I don't know, that's a little edgy, don't you think?"

Nora O'Donnell: "Yeah. And I think there's gonna be a lot more comments about that."*

Pro-Clinton blogger Taylor Marsh writes that words like this, in her view, indicate "a way of thinking about women. A way of demeaning women in power; even saying we're not up to the job. Seriously, Senator Hillary Clinton is a woman running for president. Not some emotional menopausal diva popping pills because she's depressed she broke a nail."

"Claws"…"feeling down"...I find it hard to envision Obama using the same language if he were facing, say, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC

Michigan delegates should not be seated because only Hillary was on the ballot, but in Florida it is another story. All candidates were listed. And here is the kicker; Obama ran ads in Florida on Comcast in the two weeks prior to the vote.

Now he is whining about Hillary wanting to seat those delegates.

Who is engaged in bad politics here? Who is being disingenuous?