Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary's attacks are bad for the party, but Obama needs it.
I often have good debates with, of all people, my wife. She is a staunch Hillary supporter, and I have no problem with it. I don't call her names, I refuse to say she's following the sheep, etc. But at a moment's notice, she said something to me that I hear often about Obama supporters: "You're one of those Obama people that just follow him no matter what, thinking he can do no wrong."
Interesting. Sound familiar Obama fans?
It comes with the territory. The Clinton policy is a divisive one. They adopt the "you're either with me or against me" tone. They may not say it, but the myriad of articles detailing their political execution doesn't suppress it. It is, on the whole, poor policy for the Democratic Party. Why turn negative against your own? Especially when, as of now, more than half of them support the person you're trying to derail? I'm only one, but I actually liked Clinton more when she was debating Barack in Nevada - calm, collected, and in command of the specifics of running a nation.
But with the sudden onslaught of negative ads, outright inaccurate statements, and attempts to change the rules midway, its hard for me to feel anything but cynical about her style of politics which would dominate our nation if she wins.
That said, I think its important that she does it. I'm selfish in this. While I've read the website, researched both sides' policies, and actually have read fact check websites religiously, I don't represent the majority of the public.
What Obama needs to do better is to dig in and show the public exactly how his policies are better. He needs to be more upfront about why he has the policies to effect change. He needs to counter Hillary's every negative point with his own data that shows he knows exactly what's going on. He needs to substantiate hope.
I've noticed a trend in the articles and commentary on blogs recently, and if Obama reads them, they're not all good. There are plenty of questions about his experience, policies, and substance, albeit laced with false accusations of Muslim tendenciesa and terrorist associations. While I still think he'll pull out the nomination, it is an ominous sign in light of the Republican fear mongering machine that is to come.
Hillary's attacks should be seen as an opportunity by Obama and his supporters. A way for him to refine his defense and offense. A way to show the public that not only can he elevate the national discussion of our future, but that he can also fight for the policies that will define our present. He needs to take on those debates and make straightforward simple points that Americans can understand that rebuke Clinton's accusations. Like martial artists, he needs to want to spar with the best to get better.
In the end, it will make him a better candidate. Because like him as I may, I do believe hope can only produce change if hope is substantiated.
Comments (13)
Hmm... NOTE: I did not mean to say that every question about his policies/experiences/etc is laced with questions about his Muslim associations and terrorist bedfellows, but that once in awhile in those questions, you hear it - as outlandish and ridiculous as it is. Sorry.
February 18, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you say "questions about his Muslim associations and terrorist bedfellows" you make it sound as if these were established facts. I don't think you really meant that, but if not a clarification from you would be very helpful.
February 18, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What political executions?
February 18, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a rule, I'm not much of a fighter. I won't start a fight, but back me into a corner and offer me the option of being a doormat or fighting and there is no choice.
It seems to me that Hillary blew her first opportunity to prove it's more than rhetoric when she claims she's 'ready from day one'. It seems like Day One should have been when she first started running for the nomination. Everytime something has gone wrong in her campaign, it's never her fault and she 'didn't know about it.' For a woman who continually claims to have such a breadth of knowledge, within her own organization, she sure has been in the dark a lot.
Obama's organization has run circles around hers. Obama didn't change staffs mid-stream. How did Hillary's EXPERIENCE aid her in that decision?
Was it her EXPERIENCE that has changed her message time and time again in reaction to the singular message Obama offers that is connecting? Obama is such a candidate of action that Hillary has been forced into being the candidate of reaction. Not very convincing where all that rhetoric of 'Ready from Day One' or 'Business of solutions' is concerned.
And now with this newest 'strategy' of stealing what she can't win, well I could agree with the pundits and tag it her new 'insult 40 states' strategy (as long as they amend it to add Russia), but to me, it seems more appropriate to simply tag it for what it is, "Either you agree with me or you don't count and I will make sure of that."
Obama's message has been an invitation to participate, to belong. Obama's message is 'We.' Hillary's messages has been the same ole, same ole 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' full of 'I, I, I' and 'You, you, you.'
Up until now, I have been for Obama, not against Hillary. But this new gauntlet changes everything. That she would 'begin' to put together a strategy to steal the nomination in spite of what the people want...That the well being of the American people or the Democratic Party would appear to be completely secondary to one woman's agenda should come as no surprise. All one has to do is look back at the history of how she 'crushed' Jim Cooper's health plan, the promising one with so much bi-partisan support... because it was 'his' plan and not 'hers'? Hers being the one that failed and here we are some 15 years later with her ready to finish now what she
couldn't get done then. Beyond the failed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, one can't help but wonder what other unfinished business from her husband's administration she feels the need to prioritize. And thanks to Georgie, Jr., doesn't this fall into the category of 'been to that party and know what to wear.'
It's no wonder the Republicans all hope she is the nominee. As Democrats, we're getting the first glimpse of how 'polarizing' she can be. With Obama, they know they will be outnumbered by enthusiastic Democrats at the polls come November. With Hillary, they know she will drive all those Republicans who are more against Hillary than for McCain to get out and vote. They also know about the unfortunate elephant in the room people just aren't talking about...that without Obama on the ticket, a whole lot of Dems who came out for the Primaries just won't bother with the General Election. And if by some miracle of chance she does manage to get her superdelegate buddies to override the popular vote, and if that popular vote is clearly for Obama, well then she will manage to get a whole lot of Dems to vote for John McCain.
Hillary has insulted and alienated, reeked of desperation and disarray, resorted to attack when she couldn't deliver a positive message and when all else failed, she could only begin to organize those chits over the years in a preliminary plan to overturn democracy in order to win the nomination. Whether or not that destroys the Democratic Party in the process is irrelevant. Whether or not that's the best thing that could ever happen for John McCain is irrelevant. I may be getting ahead of myself and the wise people of Texas and Ohio won't let this doomsday scenario happen, but even the possibility is enough to turn me into something I've never been, a Hillary hater.
So instead of rolling over and losing to 'politics as usual', she has had her polarizing effect on me, too. Now, I will double my efforts on behalf of Obama. Smart? Experienced? Ready from Day One? One look at how she has run this election negates that rhetoric. But I am glad of one thing...I am glad she has threatened me by threatening to disregard the popular vote via her machinery of politics. I take that personally. I take that as a personal challenge to participate in the prevention of that possibility.
So if the Obama campaign doesn't offer up their formal 'thank you', allow me to do so as one volunteer out of an army of volunteers, all ready to resist your proclamation of inevitability.
February 18, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't have said it better, Carson! I have been pro-Obama since I read his books a year ago, and never felt too much about Hillary (except that she should have divorced The Cheater, as I am staunchly anti-cheating).
But all these desperate smear tactics have really pushed me over the edge to where I am practically seething every time I read about the newest thing she is pulling out of her ass. How could the race at this point even be "close"? What do her supporters see in her (feel free anyone to answer this)..
I understand hesitancy toward a relatively untested candidate (Obama), but when the alternative looks like Hillary & her tactics, how can it even be a "dead heat"?!
**SIGH**
February 18, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree this is great for him. She can't perfectly duplicate the attacks of the Republican slime machines, but she'll be a good stand-in now that her campaign is desperate.
Attacks on Obama's 'liberalism' is one area where Clinton won't be able to give us a gauge of how Obama would respond to such criticism.
February 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a funny post. HRC points out Obama weaknesses and it's an "attack" and "bad for the party". You remind me of the school teacher I know who says that some parents dont want their kids graded because it is bad for johnny's self esteem to be told he cant freaking add.
February 18, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How are they not attacks? So should we not believe the the numerous articles calling them attacks? I'm not going to give you that one. However, bad for the party - that's my opinion. So if you disagree with that, so be it.
As for self esteem and such - most people would not be able to survive what I do for a living - it takes a thick skin and even greater heart. You seemed to have missed the point of my article - that Obama needs this to be a better person.
February 18, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary. Obama and his supporters (or even those who don't support him) point out HRC's record, her corporate contributors, her execrable war votes, her ties with union-busters like Mark Penn, her Rovian fear mongering, her campaign's distortions and half-truths, and get labeled "Hillary-haters" and sexists to boot.
When the HRC campaign uses lies, distortions, fear-mongering, and half-truths against Obama, they are attacks, period.
February 19, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Primary season is being to remind me of the most recent Super Bowl. The Clinton campaign being the Patriots, and the Obama campaign being the Giants (Yeah G-men!). Right before the the Super Bowl I heard an interview with Archie Manning (Eli's dad), and the one thing that stood out was Archie talking about what a cool customer Eli had been since he was a high school ball player. When Eli drove the Giants down for a field goal on that first possession, I knew it was going to be a great game.
Obama, and his campaign, have shown themselves to be some very cool customers, and fought the allegedly powerful Clinton machine to a slight, but non-trivial, advantage. His campaigns coolness under fire impresses.
Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson, seem to be in panic mode these past few days. It boggles the mind to think they are this panicked when Wisconsin is close, and Clinton has a sizable lead in TX, OH, and PA. Am I missing something? I know they have a steep hill to climb, but is it really bad enough to warrant all these desperate and inaccurate charges against Obama?
This doesn't bode well if Clinton gets the nomination, because I have little faith in Penn and Wolfson to improve much in the face of extreme pressure. It is quite disappointing.
February 18, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you brought up the whole Patriots/Giants analogy. Its one that I've made to various friends of mine and I was thinking about blogging about - but you definitely should if you've got the time. I agree with what you're saying. A lot of what Hillary is doing makes no sense. I hope (there's that word again) that the public can see through it, and make the correct decision. But I think Barack can use these attacks and make him an even better candidate in their eyes.
February 18, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of the discordant notes coming out of the Clinton campaign come from the intense internal bickering and turf-fighting going on, and she does not seem to be able to control it. Basically there appears to be a Penn/Wolfson faction and everybody else. So all these internally inconsistent themes emerge as chaotic dips and darts and zigs and zags and bizarre pronouncements like "we don't believe in the momentum theory."
Or like the pronouncement the other day of Harold Ickes. He is one of the members of the credentials committee who decided that MI and FL should lose their delegates if they held the primary early. Now, as an adviser to Hillary he says he is going to push to seat MI and FL. He explains that there is no inconsistency because he actually wears two hats. Apparently the Clinton hat trumps the credentials committee hat.
The bad news for her, other than the threat of losing primaries, is that it gives the lie to her vaunted claims of being a capable executive ready to take over on Day One. The truth is she is a lousy executive, and her only strengths are in the area of policy delineation. Not passing laws especially, but defining legislature.
The sad fact is she is a living proof of the Peter Principle: that people rise to the level at which they bump into the ceiling of their competence, and then fail at that level. Right now, Hillary's competence level is that of a Senator. I think the sooner she realizes that the happier she will be in the long run.
In the future, she may be a possible choice for the Supreme Court, but luckily for her, that would not an executive position.
February 18, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was an excellent post. As an Obama supporter, I have felt the same things, but you articulated them really well. I loved the phrase, "substantiate hope."
That being said, these are perilous times and I fervently believe that Hillary would be a disaster for this country. I don't think she can beat McCain (and seriously question if she will be as ruthless against him as she has been against Obama). McCain is her opponent; Obama had no right to question her path to dynasty. Even if she managed to win the presidency, she has none of the skills required to effect any real change. Without the ability to make people feel that they are in this together, she seeds nothing but her usual divisiveness. Do you honestly see Hillary convincing Republicans and independents that progressive policies are in their best interests, even though they so obviously are? Without that kind of working majority, we accomplish nothing.
The character flaws of the Clintons that I refused to see all these years, are now so obvious to me. Can everything, all the time, be someone else's fault? Was there never anything they did to attract such response? I honestly believe they think they are the answer to all of our problems, but haven't we had enough messianic delusions to last us a lifetime? She's had a lifetime to develop skills to unify people to a common purpose and she has failed time and time again. She remains standing, yes. But we need a different, deeper kind of strength now that embraces us all.
It can't be just about being "tough". There has to be empathy and a deeper understanding of the common good. After all these years and all the things thrown at her, here is what she has learned: to destroy, like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney destroy. She can't lift herself up to be what we need; she has to destroy a good democrat -- take his gifts and trash them. She couldn't make her case for why she should be president, so she tore down her opponent instead. Yeah, that might make her a "winner" but it doesn't make her much of a human being. She's become less and less with each passing year. She's become a tiny person with petty motives. I deeply hope we don't reward this despicable behavior. I hope we as a nation understand that we need better, deserve better than this petty, destructive couple who have already had their chance in the White House. I don't count on it. We haven't done that since World War II. But I'm hopeful. I always believe in America.
February 18, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment