« Getting Beyond the Fictions of Michigan and Florida (and How Edwards Can Help Save the Day) | DemNamedRNC's Blog | The Sadness of the Ferraro Saga »
Crossing the Lines
I don't know what the exact wording should have been, but regardless, you are right.
There are two lines that have been crossed, neither of which needed to be. To be clear, I am an Obama supporter. But I think it is perfectly legitimate if Clinton wants to argue that she is more prepared to be Commander-in-Chief. I may disagree, but it is a legitimate line of argument. As long as the argument stayed there, I think the Clinton campaign was being tough, but reasonable. But then she crossed the lines:
The first crossing of the line is to suggest not just that she's more prepared, but that she is and Obama is not. It's not crossing the line because it's harsh. It crosses the line because Democrats have been beaten by the Republican fear machine as being too weak in a time of war. These arguments re-elected George Bush, and sent honorable men like Max Cleland into early retirement. The statement that Clinton made essentially accepts the false arguments that Republicans have made in the past by saying that some of us (Democrats) are ready, and some of us really are too weak.
The second line crossing is, frankly, baffling to me. I have to wonder whether the Clinton campaign has become so out of touch that they no longer know what they are actually doing. Democrats have two huge advantages going into this election year. One is the economy, for which the public clearly blames the Republicans. The second issue advantage Democrats have is that most Americans 1) believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, 2) believe that we are less safe as a result and 3) largely blame Republicans for the war. In short, for the first time in recent history, Democrats actually go into a general election with national security as an advantage. By making the statement that she made yesterday, Hillary Clinton has ceded that advantage back to the Republicans. She has harmed Obama, if he is the nominee, by suggesting that he is unprepared, but she has also harmed herself by offering agreement and equal footing to McCain if she is the nominee.
I realize many will say that he's a war hero and hence has equal footing (or an advantage) already. His service was heroic, but he still represents a very unpopular war, and is the poster child for the equally unpopular surge.
These statements by Clinton were damaging to Obama, but ultimately, they were equally damaging to herself and all Democrats.
There are two lines that have been crossed, neither of which needed to be. To be clear, I am an Obama supporter. But I think it is perfectly legitimate if Clinton wants to argue that she is more prepared to be Commander-in-Chief. I may disagree, but it is a legitimate line of argument. As long as the argument stayed there, I think the Clinton campaign was being tough, but reasonable. But then she crossed the lines:
The first crossing of the line is to suggest not just that she's more prepared, but that she is and Obama is not. It's not crossing the line because it's harsh. It crosses the line because Democrats have been beaten by the Republican fear machine as being too weak in a time of war. These arguments re-elected George Bush, and sent honorable men like Max Cleland into early retirement. The statement that Clinton made essentially accepts the false arguments that Republicans have made in the past by saying that some of us (Democrats) are ready, and some of us really are too weak.
The second line crossing is, frankly, baffling to me. I have to wonder whether the Clinton campaign has become so out of touch that they no longer know what they are actually doing. Democrats have two huge advantages going into this election year. One is the economy, for which the public clearly blames the Republicans. The second issue advantage Democrats have is that most Americans 1) believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, 2) believe that we are less safe as a result and 3) largely blame Republicans for the war. In short, for the first time in recent history, Democrats actually go into a general election with national security as an advantage. By making the statement that she made yesterday, Hillary Clinton has ceded that advantage back to the Republicans. She has harmed Obama, if he is the nominee, by suggesting that he is unprepared, but she has also harmed herself by offering agreement and equal footing to McCain if she is the nominee.
I realize many will say that he's a war hero and hence has equal footing (or an advantage) already. His service was heroic, but he still represents a very unpopular war, and is the poster child for the equally unpopular surge.
These statements by Clinton were damaging to Obama, but ultimately, they were equally damaging to herself and all Democrats.
Advertisement
Well put.
Why aren't your points a major story?
And why aren't there Dem Party leaders at least chiding HRC for "going there."
March 7, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, when does the media in general (or, again, party leaders) begin to state the obvious: Hillary has endorsed McCain!
Perhaps Obama should say,
"It's official. I am the Democratic Party nominee! Senator Clinton has chosen to endorse John McCain!"
March 7, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
They probably already have. This isn't going to be publicized, for obvious reasons.
Now that would make a great ad :) Include the clip of Hillary endorsing McCain - see how the voting Democrats like that.
March 7, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way I see it, there are two possible explanations for Hillary's behavior:
1. She really does want Obama to lose and she's setting the national stage to make that happen
2. She's completely lost touch with reality and doesn't realize that what she's doing is incredibly destructive.
I suspect it's a little of each. Hillary has an incredible sense of entitlement and Obama has run a campaign she didn't think any opponent could run. It's not too much of a stretch to say, then, that she probably has quite a bit of genuine hatred for Obama and will destroy his run as punishment for destroying hers.
As for #2, consider that these people spend most of their time in airplanes with reporters and in front of cameras making speeches and shaking hands, and it's also not too hard to imagine that the world they inhabit is so insulated from all outside influence that it's very easy to not consider the long term consequences of your actions. Hillary may indeed think she's just running a nomination campaign, without understanding that she's harming the whole party's chances in November.
The solution to both problems is that the DNC and its bigwhigs have to step in and give her a nice hard slap and ask "What the hell do you think you're doing?"
If she still has a reasonable and legitimate shot at the nomination, I say go for it. We don't want to disillusion Hillary's supporters anymore than we do Obama's. But I don't think this is a likely scenario - the math just doesn't work out. She does not have a shot without the super delegates overriding the will of the voters, which will be widely viewed as a steal, or without some kind of back-room deal, which would also be viewed as a steal.
It's worth nothing that the super delegates have never had to do that ever since this pledged/superdelegate system has been put in place.
The Democrats WILL lose in November if either candidate is seen to have stolen the nomination. The case of Hillary's being nominated is far more likely to be viewed that way because of her shortage of pledged delegates.
March 7, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very cogent and well stated post.
Personally, I don't find the McCain slurpin' all that incomprehensible. A sober reflection of the actions of the Senior Democratic leadership these past, oh, 40 years or so indicates that they really do buy into the Republican meme that they are weak on terror. They actually agree with it.
It's the simplest explanation of why, even as the majority party, they continue to get their butts handed to them by a lame duck president with the worst approval ratings ever. I mean, look at the FISA debacle, for fook's sake.
William of Ockham was a smart dude. Don't look for complicated ontologies when simple ones explain the facts on the ground as good or better. In this case, ol' Willie's razor slices out a picture of a Democratic party leadership that largely accepts and agrees with the GOP model of government.
March 7, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crap. Here's the link I meant to put in my last comment...
March 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 1, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink