A Divisive Way to Divide the Delegates
So Harold Ickes, wooing superdelegates for Clinton, has admitted to our TPM colleague that he tries to gain superdelegate votes for his candidate by explaining that Republicans will use unfair and factually groundless linkages between Obama and Reverend Wright to defeat Obama in the fall. Therefore, he says to the superdelegates, they should pick Clinton not Obama.
All's fair in love, war, and campaigns, which are of course about love and war. But I know Harold Ickes. I've supported Harold's causes. The Harold Ickes I know helped Jesse Jackson, tirelessly fought for civil rights again and again, constructs the proverbial big tent and gathers all Democrats under it ever four years, is a monumentally tolerant person. He is a tough and brilliant fighter; anyone would want him on their side.
But let's take a look at what this Harold Ickes is saying without automatically excusing him as just being a kitchen sink-tossing advocate.
Let's try a reversal as a way to gain perspective on what Ickes is doing. If Ickes were on the Obama team and as such he were trying to win delegates to Obama by explaining that Republicans would attack Clinton for being a woman and as such not suitable for the Presidency, Barack would fire him, the media would explode in ire against him, and he would be shunned by Democratic stalwarts.
It is a given that the Republican campaign professionals will run a morally dubious campaign this fall: they have done that every cycle since Lee Atwater. Ickes doesn't need to explain that to anyone; we get it. But Obama is not now effectively engaging in a first run of a gender-based Republican attack against the hypothetically nominated Clinton. He isn't doing that because it is just as morally repugnant for a person to repeat someone else's bigoted slander as to engage in that slander himself or herself. He wouldn't do it because the attribution of gender or race bias to others causes everyone to believe the worst of everyone else. The more people believe others are bigots, the more hate and fear they feel themselves, and the less able any President is to bring about real system-changing reform.
Yet Ickes and presumably others on the Clinton side are talking freely, we are told, about the inherent bigotry of the American people. Ickes is describing, presumably in pungent detail, the racist advertising he imagines that the Republicans will run this fall. By doing so, Ickes is in effect doing that advertising now, to his carefully selected and critically important audience. He is stepping from prediction to performance -- from outlining what the Republicans will do to actually doing it himself now. It makes little practical difference that he puts the slander in someone else's mouth; indeed, he is the first to say it, since McCain has not yet authorized such campaigning.
Ickes' words about race are not the conversation about the topic that Obama asked us to engage in. We are meant to try to understand the hatred of others, not stipulate to its existence and then flee from its fearful power into the ranks of another candidate. We should talk about bigotry as something we can collectively talk ourselves out of. That at least is the definition of being Democratic that we Democrats want to espouse. It is that definition, we hope, that is drawing more and more Americans to call themselves Democrats. It's a mug's game to assume we Americans cannot change for the better. It's a loser's Democratic Party that assumes that November will be a referendum on bigotry or that if it were, tolerance would lose. If that is Ickes' assumption, then he needs a dose of hope for the future. And he needs to remember that his own candidate too deserves to be defined by deeds and character, and not by the stereotypes of haters.
Comments (22)
Has the entire country (and Team Clinton) forgotten that if there's one thing that Republicans of nearly every stripe hate more than Democrats (and now apparently Lesbians) it is the Clintons?
So if I'm to understand this, the Republicans "will use unfair and factually groundless linkages between Obama and Reverend Wright to defeat Obama in the fall" right? As you say Reed - no shocker there. But this tactic for me does raise the proverbial double edge sword. Hmm, so that's a single front war to be fought by Team Obama vs. the shameless Republican machine. I personally feel he could weather that inane little storm. On the other hand there's an entire arsenal of tried and true linkages to all sorts of scandal and conspiracy on the Clinton camp that the Republicans have spent years acquiring. Hillary Clinton (and Bill) will be fighting a war on more fronts than Bush/Cheney (and McCain) could wish for in their wildest terrorist war-orgy dreams.
Which candidate stands a better chance of fighting the Republican war of innuendo and faux muck? I'd say the answer is fairly obvious and I wish someone who's voice is louder and perhaps wiser than mine would come out and finally say it. If for no other reason than to shut is gangrenous kind of inner party tactic down as soon as possible.
April 2, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with you on this and honestly don't see how its not coming up.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I don't think "It's none of your business" is going to defuse a reprise of all of the nasty things that Republicans are going to be throwing at her. And, yeah, to be blunt, they're going to be talking travel office files, Rose Law Firm, Lewinsky, pork futures, and geez that's not even the fringe stuff. I know there's a sense for Democrats that all of that is (White)water under the bridge but that doesn't mean the Republicans won't bring it up. They'll just bring it up in a "Do you really want to go through all of that again?" kind of way.
I'd almost like to see Obama say, "Okay, here's the deal, for one week we're going to go completely negative against Clinton just to show everyone what's possible. Yeah it's gonna be ugly and we don't want to do it, but for just one week here it comes. And then we'll go back to the high road." It'd be a hell of a week.
April 2, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which candidate stands a better chance of fighting the Republican war of innuendo and faux muck?
You've got to be kidding. Which candidate? Clinton, of course. They already did it 4 times. Obama ran once...against Alan Keyes.
Nuff sed?
April 3, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"They" did it 4 times? I know Hillary has won in that Republican stronghold called New York twice and only won convincingly as the incumbent which isn't exactly a spectacular achievement. Are there some other elections where she's beaten a Republican that I'm unaware of?
Surely you're not including Bill's political successes as hers too. They may certainly contribute and support each other but it's been my understanding that Hillary's political career was her own and Bill's was his. The Republicans may like to attack them both and will likely continue to do so but I'm far from convinced that she's proven herself as a candidate vs. the Republican party in an election.
April 3, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If that is the nature of his conversations, then there is no functional difference between the Republicans and this lifelong Democrat."
You said it, and we have seen that in the Clinton's statements favoring McCain over Obama, snuggling up to Richard Scaife and encouraging the bogus "Limbaugh votes". It seems she will do anything to win - including misrepresentations that could stick with voters beyond the primary and follow Obama into the general like suggestions that he is somehow to blame for the mishaps in FL and MI. Does she even care whether Democrats will win the general or does she only care whether she will be the one with the shot?
April 2, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed, Not to parse the words too much but Harold was talking to the Supers about the Wright effect. Is that race bating? How many times have we heard Obama surrogates speak of the "Clinton Years"? Are the two that different?
April 2, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the Ickes approach seems to rely on assuming that Americans are racist and easily manipulated, and reminding people about the scandals of the Clinton years merely assumes that Americans have memories. Yes, the two are different.
April 2, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of what Republicans can use against Democrats in GE, I think the following post could be da bomb for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm
April 2, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sad tale that the Senator Clinton campaign is degenerating into should serve as a reminder to all of us - nothing is worth selling your soul for. After the Democratic Convention finally selects Senator Obama as the Democratic candidate what will Senator Clinton have left of her soul? I would have to say, give me a couple of weeks and I might think of something.
April 2, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even a Snickers bar? Now....I think I might for one of those. :)
April 3, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reminding me why I'm a Democrat, Mr. Hundt. It can be easy to forget these days.
April 2, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so let's look at the two statements that you are claiming are mirror images of one another:
and the (supposed) mirror image:
Really? So you're saying "Reverend Wright" is the equivalent of "being a woman"?
You're saying that tying a pastor who said "God damn America" to Obama is as bad as saying that a woman can't be president. The first is an attempt to show that one particular person has very bad judgment and the second is an ugly stereotype directed at women in general.
I'm not saying the Reverend Wright attack is fair, but you're so far off base here it's ridiculous.
April 2, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between the two quotes is that only one of the Democratic campaigns is using one of them.
April 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes' argument is ridiculous, and here's why: when the Republicans and their 527s start running the "Don't vote for the N***ER ads" (as we know they will - don't kid yourself, they can't help themselves, this is a habit and they won't be able to break it), they will be handing Obama and us a gift. Because first off, though there are a lot of people who have some racist thoughts and ideas, the vast majority are not comfortable with the blatant racism that was common 40 or 50 years ago. And again, don't kid yourself - the Republicans will be dialing it back to those days before it's over and done with. And secondly, as Obama has shown over and over again, he is more than up to the challenge of pointing out the obvious, that sure, if you'd prefer 4 more years of expanding warfare, economic ruin, environmental malfeasance, etc, etc, etc, etc, just because he has dark skin, then you should vote for McCain. Because that's the choice - indulge your racism or vote to improve your lot.
And then also, I think before it's all over and done with, the election is more likely to break on generational lines than on racial ones. Sure, the "don't vote for the N***ER" ads will win some over - mostly older whites who actually remember life before desegregation and have never gotten over it. Plus, McCain is one of them, an old fart. But I don't see where this will help them much with the under-55 or 60 crowd.
(BTW, that "one of us" line reminds me of an idea I had for an online anti-McCain commercial...with zombie Bush and Cheney following him wherever he goes, chanting "one of US! one of US!" as the narrator ticks off every issue where "maverick" McCain has embraced an extreme Bush position or policy. It's funny when I see it in my mind, but who knows...)
April 3, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
By doing so, Ickes is in effect doing that advertising now, to his carefully selected and critically important audience. He is stepping from prediction to performance -- from outlining what the Republicans will do to actually doing it himself now.
Precisely. And by keeping it alive now, instead of just letting the issue fall away, he's hampering Obama's ability to dismiss it as "old news" in the General Election with that Reaganesque "There you go again" move.
It's a sad day when Newt Gingrich is responding to Obama in better faith than Ickes is.
April 3, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't like this is a first for a Clinton campaign. Does the name Sister Souljah ring a bell?
~
April 3, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes' argument to superdelegates that the Reverend Wright controversy will make it harder for Senator Obama to win in the general election campaign might be wrong, might be misguided, but it is only something more sinister if we choose to view it through the prism of rank partisanship. Moreover, to argue, as Mr. Hundt does, that raising an obvious issue about the effects of the controversy surrounding Reverend Wright with making the argument that Americans are ignorant racists is cheap and unfortunate, and when the dust settles I speculate that what I posit here will become clear even to people as partisan as Mr. Hundt.
Lobbying superdelegates on the issue of electability is what candidates do (Senator Obama included), and superdelegates, all of whom with the exception of the 21-year old kid from Marquette, are grown boys and girls. They can handle political reality, and they should be able to discern genuine and educated speculation from baseless fear-mongering.
In short, lobbying superdelegates about electability is hardly the same as telling voters that Senator Obama is a bad man or worse because of where he went to church and what his pastor said on occasion there. Anyone, including the loftiest pundits in the center-left blogosphere and MSM, who chooses to see something else in such lobbying, right on up to racism, is engaged in campaigning for one Democratic candidate over the other.
Another non-story with partisan bite in the guise of something loftier.
Postscript: Look, if someone wants to make the argument that we shouldn't care about the effects of the Reverend Wright story on the general electorate, that we should ignore that it could have sway on a significant swath of the electorate because standing up for Obama on this issue is, in the longrun, in the national interest, then let's just have that argument. That argument resonates with me. But if electability is an issue, and this is an election, then I submit that electability is an issue that superdelegates can and should explore.
April 3, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes is using the material he has to work with. I too wish that Clinton would go back to making a positive case for herself, which she seems to be doing on the campaign trail, but the reality is that she has her own electability issues. What's missing here, obviously, is that Obama is not (at least publicly) making the same kind of case against her and for that he does deserve credit. The Tuzla episode was really damaging -- it was her own doing, ALL her own doing -- and will have a long election shelf life. As with so many of these episodes, I always ask myself -- "why?" Why do the Clintons engage in this kind of needless self-sabotage? It just seemed to reprise the worst of the Clinton years, and I think that this undercurrent will inform GE voters.
April 3, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Screw voting. It's way over rated and divisive. Let's just take a public opinion poll in November. Winner take all.
April 3, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw voting. Way to divisive. Public opinionpolls are so much easier.
April 3, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ickes' words about race are not the conversation about the topic that Obama asked us to engage in. We are meant to try to understand the hatred of others, not stipulate to its existence and then flee from its fearful power into the ranks of another candidate... It's a mug's game to assume we Americans cannot change for the better."
Thank you! Thank you thank you thank you. What I've been squirming and trying to fit words around, you just said beautifully.
April 3, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And, as Jenn of Ark said,
though there are a lot of people who have some racist thoughts and ideas, the vast majority are not comfortable with the blatant racism that was common 40 or 50 years ago.
Exactly. Racism isn't dead, and all of us still struggle with ingrained prejudices (or just embrace them, take your pick). But for the Clinton campaign's "he's unelectable because [whites/Latinos/others] won't vote for a black man" strategy to work, Americans as a whole have to vote according to our worst prejudices, rather than working toward our noblest aspirations.
That, I think, has a lot to do with why Obama is ahead. Do we want to be the fearful, narrowminded fatalists the Clinton campaign would have us be, or do we want to be optimistic, open-minded people who believe that America can do better, and be better, than it has been in the past eight years? Obama and Clinton offer voters a choice about how they see themselves and each other. I think the results -- vote totals, delegates, states won, volunteers, turnout, and fundraising -- tell us a lot about which of these images fits better with the ideals of this country, and of the Democratic Party.
April 3, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink