Means and Ends
I begin with the premise that all Democrats want a fighter in the White House. A more progressive agenda will not come easily.
Hillary supporters take pride in the fact she is "a fighter," which is undeniable. As recent examples, her wins in TX and OH, and her determination in the face of a seemingly insurmountable pledged delegate lead speak to this fact. But, is Obama not a fighter as well? He has taken on the establishment candidate who began with far more name recognition, funding, and support from party insiders (see, e.g., her early substantial lead among superdels), and he has defied the odds, garnering more pledged delegates, total delegates, votes, and states. Is that not fighting (especially when his opponent is herself such "a fighter")?
So, we have two candidates who are willing to fight to be their party's nominees. The question is not desire or effort, it is means. We all have ends that we believe are worth fighting for with everything we have. But we also believe that not all means for attaining those ends are ethical or proper. Thus, though all Dems want a candidate who will fight, not all of us are willing to support the deployment of "kitchen sink" tactics. I for one have never thought we should stoop to the Rovian level; we should fight with issues, with dignity, and appeal to the better angels of our collective nature.
Now, I don't think Hillary's means are totally Rovian, but she is coming increasingly close. With Obama having essentially secured the pledged delegate lead, Hillary has embarked upon full smear tactic mode in an attempt to scare superdels to her side...maybe she is also trying to show them what "a fighter" she is. Can we not condemn these means while still calling for a Democrat who is willing to fight? Though there will certainly be some cynics among you, I think that he is making an ethical decision about how we should fight for our collective ends. This is one of the more compelling aspects of his candidacy.
So, alas, I guess I am just tired of hearing the "she's a fighter" excuse for Hillary's actions. It implies that he is too much of a softie, and that her means of fighting justify her ends. I won't buy it. We are better than this.
HRC is not a fighter. A fighter will not be swayed by daunting odds.
HRC has run away from most states where she didn't believe she could be Obama.
That's not a fighter. That's a fair-weathered friend.
March 9, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to put morals aside and try to approach this from a practical point of view. If you are going to employ a "kitchen sink" dirty strategy it should be in the interest of the ultimate goal: Getting your team into the White House.
But Clinton is using this tactic at the wrong-time against the wrong opponent and is in the process destroying her team's chances of achieving that goal. It is probably good strategy to exhaust all your pitchers to the point of injury in the 7th game of the World Series in order to win the championship and your pitchers would probably proudly sacrifice themselves for the cause. But to employ that strategy during the playoffs is only going to destroy your teams chances and your pitchers are going to end up resenting you for using and abusing them for such a pithy cause.
Even from a pragmatic point of view, Clinton's strategy has no merit.
March 9, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I think we can also question her ends, which seem to be more about her own advancement than the advancement of her party and her policies. Thus, she's ok with using the kitchen sink against any adversary, even those within her own party.
March 9, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Employing fear tactics and spreading false allegations is not fighting.
It's cowardice. Especially when you are fiercest behind someone's back.
March 9, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well [beep]ing said.
March 9, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. Here's your figheter...
Thursday: I just want to say what an honor it is to be sitting here with Barack Obama.
Saturday: SHAME ON YOU, BARACK OBAMA. MEET ME IN OHIO. (I'm pretending to be angry about a mailer you've been sending out since New Hampshire! Somebody, anybody, look at me!)
March 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am reminded of the War Authorization vote when all of the Hawks were saying, "We've got to have the courage to vote for War!" And John Lewis stood up and said, "Who are you kidding? Everyone knows that it takes no courage to vote for war! That's the safe vote! No one will lose the next election because they voted for this War. It takes courage to vote, No!"
I think something similar could be happening here. Obama is pragmatic, but he's facing his most severe test to date. Does he have the courage to change the way we do politics in America?
I think he does. And I hope that he will have more effective and rapid responses. But in effect, he's got to demonstrate his strength and point out that a) that her tactics are scummy; and b) the only way to put an end to the politics of personal destruction is elect a game-changer to the White House.
When politicians stop seeing Rovian tactics as in their interest, they'll stop practicing them.
March 9, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will never be an end to lies or to cowardice in the guise of a fighter. Nevertheless, I hope that Barack "Who's Sane" Obama manages to get enough of us voters and enough superdelegates to eschew cowardly, behind-the-back, below-the-belt tactics and vote for fairly-fought contests, which are out in the open and unambiguous - related to the issues.
Character enters in and is very important. It's part of who a candidate is and is part of how we vote, how the superdelegates vote.
I think many of us are trying to get out of the mud-pit dog fights that have characterized too much of politics for a couple of decades now. Clinton endorses that, encourages it. Obama fights it. I'm for Obama.
March 9, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spicoli, Obama won Texas!
March 9, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won Texas! just not with... you know... voters.
March 10, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Obama won the delegate count. You can argue all day if you want about popular vote, but as far as the nomination is concerned, only the delegate count matters.
March 10, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right Destor, Hillary got more primary votes in TX because of all those cross-over Republicans that just love her platform.
March 10, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anneeliz, I agree. I should have been clearer. Hillary's supporters are claiming "wins" in TX and OH as evidence that she's a fighter.
March 10, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
She won in Michigan too... Just ask her. She'll tell you herself.
March 10, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't look at me, I voted for Kodos.
March 10, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Jed B.
'The means we choose will form us in the end."
March 10, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I don't see Hillary Clinton as a 'fighter.' Being a fighter takes courage, and she's never demonstrated any of that.
Yeah, she's still battling for the nomination, but where's the downside for her in that? There isn't one. In fact, if she can damage Barack Obama enough so that he loses in November, it will just position her much better for running again in four years. You think her nomination was supposed to be 'inevitable' this time? Just wait for 2012 if the Democrats lose this year - especially if she can get herself the V-P slot on the Obama ticket! (No one ever blames the V-P for a loss.)
Sorry, but none of this is being a 'fighter.' I just don't get it. She CLAIMS to be a fighter, just like she claims to be so experienced, but why would you just accept that as gospel?
March 10, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's attack's on Obama indicate to me that she's looking at the trees and not the forest. The goal is winning the White House, and yet she's focused on just securing the nomination. She doesn't appear to be looking at the big picture. Seems to me the CIC needs to be able to see the big picture and then break it down. but that's just my humble opinion.
March 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you haven't crossed the George W. Bush Memorial Commander-in-Chief Threshold yet...
March 10, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink