Clinton Destroying the Party
Obama supporters (like MJ, and especially AK) seem to be saying that if the Clintons succeed in defeating Obama with bareknuckle politics, it will destroy the Democratic party.
But consider for a moment what this whole Clintons-destroying-the-party meme is really saying.
It's saying Obama is the Democratic party. I must have missed that memo.
This is nothing less than Cheney-style fearmongering. This is a political version of "we don't want the smoking gun to appear in the form of a mushroom cloud." It's a crass, vicious message aimed straight at our most primal emotions. This from the campaign that is supposed to be above it all.
H.L. Mencken said,
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Is this Obama's message of hope - that he is the only hope for the future of the Democratic party? Because that's not a message of hope, it's a message of fear. If you believe it, you're being played - by a (gasp) politician. Say it ain't so, Joe Lieberman. Say it ain't so.
I have seen plenty of Obama supporters in the comment threads who indicate they will never vote for Hillary in the general election, or that they'd rather vote for McCain, or any number of similar immature, Lieberman for Connecticut, take-my-ball-and-go-home attitudes. My six-year-old son would say these people are acting acting like babies.
Is this Obama's idea of bringing people together - against anything Clinton?
In various comment threads, I have attempted to defend Clinton, even though I think she voted stupidly for the joint resolution of force against Iraq. I'm voting for John Edwards in the primary. I think he'd make a good president. People say he's painting himself as a populist when his record isn't that of a populist. I believe that he has grown, matured, and become wiser. People do that - just look at Al Gore. The Al Gore of today would never have lost to George Bush in 2000. I am most uncomfortable with people and politicians who don't change and who can't admit to mistakes. I support Edwards BECAUSE he has become a populist. I support him because he has changed his mind about things.
Anyway, I have no illusions about his chances. It would take a miracle - a complete meltdown of either the Clinton or Obama campaign - for him to win the nomination. My second choice, as you might guess, is Clinton. But I support all three of them. My choice of Edwards is merely a matter of personal preference.
If our three Democratic candidate were steaks, they would be ribeye, t-bone, and porterhouse. Saying one cut of meat from the same cow will destroy the party is - there's no gentle way to say this - fucking nuts. "Everybody knows the porterhouse is the king of steaks and a t-bone is just a porterhouse with the best parts removed." Only profoundly shallow and silly people make these kinds of arguments.
If Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for him in November. Without hesitation. Gladly. I don't think he's the best Democratic candidate, but only by a matter of degrees. He is orders of magnitude better than any Republican.
If Obama loses the nomination, how many of his supporters will say the same of Clinton or Edwards?
If Obama loses the nomination, how many of his supporters will instead blow up the wells as they retreat?
The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear. - H. P. Lovecraft
I think you're somewhat incorrect about the central premise of this piece, but, the questions at the end are worth exploring.
It's not at all that if you beat Obama, you beat "the party." No one is suggesting he's the party.
The "destroying the party" theme is out there because, I think, of two things. First, this back and forth between Obama and Clinton on non-issues is providing good fodder for the GE. In fact, no matter who wins it, the Republicans now have a full page of talking points, and they can add "and even [either Obama or Clinton] agrees!!!" to the end of each.
The second is I think Bill Clinton is really making a big mistake here, making himself look really cheap and petty, hardly the "elder statesman" an ex-President should be. It would be different if he wasn't an ex-Prez, or it was against the GOP. If Obama wins, Bill Clinton can hardly save face at this point. If Hillary wins, well, he's made a lot of, if not enemies, at least lots of people with a bad taste in their mouth from his attacks.
I'm one of them. Bill Clinton's certainly lowered his stature in my book. A lot.
Mostly, this "destroying the party" thing is out there because his (and Hillary's) attacks seem ridiculously unfair and hypocritical, more so, to me, than whatever Obama is dishing back at Hillary.
Obama saying something about he "wasn't different" from Bush on the war (or whatever the exact quote was...) was obviously taken out of context, if you read the full paragraph. Does anyone really think he was for the war at any point? (Although I do believe, had he been a Senator at the time, he would have voted for the war, but that's different. He could safely oppose the war back then at the position he held at the time. It wasn't a big stretch do to so.)
The slum lord stuff I also think is unfair. At best, Obama showed a real lack of judgment, a quality that the Clintons fully share.
Most importantly, Obama did not say Reagan and the Republicans had great ideas, and the Clintons' attacks here are not only unfounded, they are the height of hypocrisy -- these are the exact kinds of things Bill Clinton used to say in the 1990s. Things he said to, you guessed it, get himself elected.
Now, all that said, will the party be "destroyed" from all this? I doubt it, but the answer to that question really depends on your last few lines, about whether or not the nomination process is ugly enough to make people take their ball and run home, or support the winner, regardless.
One other angle on this might also be that, looking at the polls, if it's McCain versus Clinton in the end, there really is a chance that between Hillary's negatives and the large numbers of people that we always here will never vote for her (I, anecdotally, know many people, both Dem and GOP, that say they'll never vote for her...we'll see how that holds when it really comes down to it...), and McCain's perceived "straight talk" bullshit, McCain could really win the election.
Obama, my guess, would win that match up.
In fact, despite all the destroying-the-party talk, I can't imagine a scenario where a Dem loses this. On the war alone, with every Republican saying how much they can't wait to get into office to keep the war going, how can a Dem lose? We're splitting hairs now in the primary, but once it's really a Dem versus a Bush-lovin' Republican, I don't see how a Dem loses.
Then again, I thought Kerry couldn't lose, so, grains of salt and all...
Lastly, just since disclaimers seem to be necessary with every comment these days, right now, I like Edwards, and Hillary's on the bottom of my list. She's way above, though, any Republican.
1.20.2009
January 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink