Stop the Silliness: Campaign Notes

Update, Tuesday night: After the Democratic debate in Nevada and the Republican primary in Michigan with the third winner in three contests, it feels great to be a Democrat. Trapper John liveblogging the debate at Kos said it best: "We've got three potential presidents up there -- they've got Lord of the Flies."

The three Democratic candidates came together to make the Democratic party stronger going into the decisive part of the primary campaigns and especially into the general election against the Republicans. This will help whoever the nominee will be, and also it will help elect a more Democratic and progressive Congress, which each will need to govern effectively.

Individually, I thought each had moments that helped them and hurt them, but on balance they all helped themselves. I feel better, although I don't think I'll soon forget how the Clintons behaved when they felt they were losing, in contrast to how Obama has behaved since his loss in New Hampshire. (There's more at American Dash.) END OF UPDATE.

On Monday Barack Obama held a press conference, at which he said: “I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. “We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”

“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”

“I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We’re all Democrats,” Mr. Obama said. “We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.”

"I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think they care about the African-American community and that they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and justice in this country.”

This was the first bit of sanity in several intense days in which identity politics reared its ugly head with charges and countercharges of racism and sexism whizzing back and forth. Though many of the charges were made, on and off the record, by staff and "surrogates" (an inaccurate use of the word, but that's the one everyone uses), Hillary and Bill Clinton did a lot of this to themselves by their clumsy statements, and their refusal to admit the statements were clumsy (though they wound up backtracking.) While I can see the points they were trying to make, and I understand that they were tired and perhaps desperate when they made some of these statements, they still reveal to me a small-mindedness and willingness to distort for political advantage that simply sickens me.

It seems a classic case of having suffered the vicious distortions of the right wing conspiracy, they've taken up the weapons of their erstwhile enemies. The irony of the week was that in the crossfire of statements by Democrats that might or might not have been conscious racial codewords, few noticed Karl Rove's overt use of racial codewords in his column. He must be pleased as punch.

The Clintons continue to distort Obama's record on the Iraq war, to the extent that his fellow Illinois Senator Durbin called it swift-boating. Obama himself didn't go that far, but he did say: "I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election."

The Offensive

This amidst a week of controversy over remarks that offend African Americans, including by a "feminist" defending Hillary. Controvery over remarks about Hillary that offend women, including remarks by other women. Hillary and her people were lambasted for being divisive, and defended as victims of a sensation-hungry media. Her staff and supporters are accused of engaging in racial politics. Then Hillary accused "the Obama campaign" of keeping alive the controversy over her remarks about Martin Luther King and LBJ. Yet it is her own words that haunt her.

One of her defenders specifically noted that the New York Times and other media are lifting her remark out of context. That does happen to be a nasty habit of our arrogant, theme-driven, cliche-making media. But here is the full quote as he produces it:

"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

So this is supposed to make it better. Actually, I grasped the point she was trying to make the first time--it may take a village but in the end it takes a President, and in a narrow framework, I agree. That's why we need a President who will lead on the Climate Crisis in particular, but also many other issues.

It's a metaphor for a legitimate if insulting point, which is-- Obama (King): poet, dreamer, who can't get things done. Hillary (LBJ): no poetry but ready to execute. There's no real evidence this is so, but it does state an assertion of why she should get the nomination.

People are upset because she disses Dr. King, who did a lot more than make speeches, when and where even making speeches was pretty courageous and important. They are upset by the implication that black people are dreamers who aren't competent executives, and that black people always need white people to do the heavy lifting. I don't think they're impressed by the quite believable statement that this isn't what Hillary intended to say. They suspect unconscious racism.

But what did she intend to say? She was specifically countering the power of Obama's message of "hope." Hope isn't enough, she was saying, and she talked about failed hopes. And in this context, the statement actually gets worse.

Leave aside Dr. King for a moment--look at this part of the statement:
" when he [LBJ] was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do..."

That's when she utters the codeword hope. The implication is that here we have another dreamer, President Kennedy, able to inspire a generation and he makes eloquent speeches, but --let's straighten out her grammar for her--he only hoped to pass Civil Rights legislation, but apparently he failed. It took experienced pro LBJ to do it.

Well, it's true that JFK proposed the legislation that became the Civil Rights Act. But I wouldn't exactly call it a failure of leadership. It was more along the lines of somebody killed him.

So for my money, her expanded quote not only insults Martin Luther King, Jr., it insults John F. Kennedy.

And once again I remind her and you that the one experience in raising hopes that Hillary is known for was to bring universal health care to the U.S. in 1993 when it was a very popular idea. She was the point person on getting it done, and she failed. I don't think it was all her fault, but the fact is, the Clintons raised hopes, and those remain failed hopes, and people like me are affected by that failure. Kind of ironic, huh?

Are you experienced?

When you get to the nub of many of these charges and distortions the Clintons had engaged in since just before the New Hampshire vote, the intent on the face of it seems to be to support Hillary's claim of being experienced, while Obama is not.

It seems reasonable to talk about one's specific experience and how it contrasts or compares with the experience(s) of someone else also seeking the presidency. But Hillary's argument that she is qualified because she is Experienced and Obama is Inexperienced raises the basic question: what is she talking about? What experience?

Hillary was never elected to anything until the year 2000. Before that, she had accomplishments on various issues, as did Barack Obama. Obama was elected to the state legislature in 1997. Hillary has roughly four more years than he does in the U.S. Senate, while he has roughly three more years as an elected public servant. They both have specific accomplishments as Senators.

Yet Hillary is Experienced and Obama is not-- stated most offensively by Gloria Steinem who insisted that a woman with as little experience as Obama would never be considered for President. Only a man. Which apparently means that this society hates the idea of a woman President so much that it would even rather have an unqualified black man. How offensive is that? Steinem is having a very ugly 70s flashback.

But Steinem glosses over the uncomfortable fact that most of Hillary's "experience" is of being what she was so caustic about in the past: a wife. Hillary was the wife of the President of the United States, after being the wife of a Governor. She can claim all she wants to claim about what she did there, but on the face of it, this is the qualification for President of Laura Bush.

Hillary may be able to tell us what's specifically relevant about the direct experiences of a First Lady and the indirect experiences of observing what people with responsibilities as elected or appointed officials did. But as a general claim of experience, it just doesn't work for me. What probably qualifies Hillary even more these days in the minds of many--and Steinem must really be galled by this--is that electing Hillary is also electing someone with actual experience of the responsibility of the office, her husband. He seems to be running just as much as she is.

I don't argue with Hillary's qualifications to be President, especially compared to the guy in there now. I certainly don't argue against it on the basis of gender, and women--especially women running for office-- have specific "damned if they do/damned if they don't" problems due to stupid gender stereotypes. Though how the Clinton campaign plays the gender card is a fascinating and not altogether praiseworthy story. Right here I simply maintain that the "I'm experienced and he isn't" argument is false and insulting. And incidentally, would be ripped to shreds in the general election.

I agree with what Obama said in his peacemaking statement. But the last couple of weeks has reduced my respect for the Clintons markedly. I'll vote for her if she is nominated because we only get to hire one of two people for the job in November (although if Al Gore were to run at the head of a third party ticket, I would probably vote for him.)

On the other hand, as long as we're doing identity politics, maybe I should vote for Giuliani. It's true there's never been a woman or an African American elected President. There also has never been an Italian American elected President. You know, fuggedabadit.

It saddens me to say that I believe--more now than even two weeks ago--that I don't see anything really changing if the Clintons are returned, except perhaps somewhat reducing the damage Bush has done, but that's not enough to save the future. At this point I would vote for Hillary but without hope.

I'll vote my hopes for the possibility of what John Kerry calls a "transformative presidency" when I vote for Obama in the California primary.