A Scrappy Fight for Democrats
MORE
Joe Conason
Supporters of one Democratic candidate or another may insist that their man or woman won last Monday’s debate in South Carolina, but in their hearts most viewers could only have been disappointed by its childish tenor and puerile content. Unless those viewers happened to be Republicans, of course—in which case they could only have been delighted.
With a worried nation edging toward financial panic and dragging down the world economy—thanks to foolish ideas and bad management—the Democrats seem strangely preoccupied with petty snarking.
A debate is supposed to be a discussion of policy, but this last was nothing more than a blather of insults. It diminished both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while former Senator John Edwards only emphasized his irrelevance with glancing blows at both contenders.
By emphasizing obscure votes in the Illinois legislature and old corporate ties, Senators Clinton and Obama showed that their differences on real issues must be narrow indeed. The attempts to besmirch each other’s character and commitment were distasteful, especially because those attacks could so easily be mirrored against the attacker.
Consider the nastiest moment in their confrontation, when Mr. Obama responded to accusations that he praised Ronald Reagan and Republican ideas. Turning to Mrs. Clinton, he retorted that while he was “fighting these fights” against Reaganism and its ill effects on American workers, “you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.”
“I was fighting against those [Republican] ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor [Antoin] Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago,” she replied tartly.
It is true that Mrs. Clinton sat on Wal-Mart’s board—but it is also true that Mr. Obama’s wife, until last year, sat on the board of a food company whose profits (and compensation of its directors) depended heavily on Wal-Mart, its largest customer. She resigned not long after her affiliation with that company began to draw critical scrutiny because of the Wal-Mart connection, inflated management salaries and a controversial plant shutdown in Colorado.
It is true that Mr. Obama did legal work for Rezko housing projects in Chicago that ended up in very bad condition, both physically and financially. Those deals lost money for taxpayers and harmed tenants but enriched the owner—a sleazy guy, since indicted, who was an Obama friend and contributor. But it is also true that years ago, Mrs. Clinton performed legal work for one or two questionable businessmen in Arkansas.
That exchange revolved around the more substantive issue of Mr. Obama’s attitude toward Reagan and Republicanism. Having told a Reno newspaper’s editorial board that the Republicans have been “the party of ideas,” and having said that the country was ready for the “transformative” Reagan presidency in 1980 because of the “excesses” and government expansion of the 60’s and 70’s, the Illinois senator realized he had to back away from those remarks.
The Republicans, he emphasizes now, are the party of bad ideas.
But why is Mr. Obama’s pandering to Republicans so much worse than what Bill Clinton tried to do, back when he told the nation that the “era of big government” is over and “triangulated” between the Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill? Those were savvy strategies for stopping Republican advances. Mr. Obama is a smart politician who has figured out how to attract independent and even a few Republican voters.
In short, both senators were corporate lawyers, and both have enjoyed happy connections in the corporate world (as did that budding populist, Mr. Edwards). Both the Obamas and the Clintons realize that drawing support from the center is the only way to win elections in America. More importantly, however, both have also displayed considerable idealism and commitment to the poor. And each of them knows that the other is not a hypocrite or a fraud.
So why do they pretend to dismiss each other with cheap canards? Whatever the reason, they should fulfill their earlier promise to leave those tactics behind and treat each other as honorable competitors whose goals are not so different. They should stop describing each other in terms that would make an endorsement seem impossible, or at best insincere, next November.
What voters want to hear—in every debate—is what they talk about when the other isn’t present: how they propose to improve our prospects in an ominous time.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
I agree the democrats should not be focusing on the bad points of the other...they s/b explaining why they s/b the next president of the u.s.
If the media would do its job and not demonize one candidate while canonizing the other,(Saint Obama and Hillary the Witch) there would not be as much of a need for the candidate being smeared to point out that the other guy is not so pure, which then leads him to hit back - and the fight is on.
As for triangulating, the better question is why so many Democrats disparage Bill Clinton for triangulating, yet praise Obama for the very same thing, when it is called "bipartisanship"? How silly can you get?
I've got to say, Joe, I'm a bit disappointed. What's the matter with the Rock-'em, Sock-'em robots game? It's been building up, and the Obama camp has been insulting Hillary for too long. In fact, it's their only campaign, because for the rest he agrees with Edwards and Clinton, but only limply. I think the revealing "gang-up" the other night was Obama trying to defend his weak-ass health care plan. He's not bipartisan, he's playing pander bear to all the right wing voters he's going to have to get to beat Hillary.
Oh, Mommy and Daddy are fighting! No-o-o! Good. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Is Obama ready for prime time? I don't think so.
Oh, and by the way, they spoke a lot about a lot of issues. Why all the focus on the short time when they were cussin'? It was good for us.
Oh, and by the way? Obama was lying. Hillary brought up his remarks about the GOP being the "party of ideas" for the last 10-15 years, and Obama tried to pretend she had said something about Reagan. Reagan wasn't in office 15 years ago, he was starting to decline with Alzheimer's. Bill Clinton was in office. But Obama never gets this animosity for being tough.
I've got to say, Joe, I'm a bit disappointed. What's the matter with the Rock-'em, Sock-'em robots game? It's been building up, and the Obama camp has been insulting Hillary for too long. In fact, it's their only campaign, because for the rest he agrees with Edwards and Clinton, but only limply. I think the revealing "gang-up" the other night was Obama trying to defend his weak-ass health care plan. He's not bipartisan, he's playing pander bear to all the right wing voters he's going to have to get to beat Hillary.
Oh, Mommy and Daddy are fighting! No-o-o! Good. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Is Obama ready for prime time? I don't think so.
Oh, and by the way, they spoke a lot about a lot of issues. Why all the focus on the short time when they were cussin'? It was good for us.
Oh, and by the way? Obama was lying. Hillary brought up his remarks about the GOP being the "party of ideas" for the last 10-15 years, and Obama tried to pretend she had said something about Reagan. Reagan wasn't in office 15 years ago, he was starting to decline with Alzheimer's. Bill Clinton was in office. But Obama never gets this animosity for being tough.
I've got to say, Joe, I'm a bit disappointed. What's the matter with the Rock-'em, Sock-'em robots game? It's been building up, and the Obama camp has been insulting Hillary for too long. In fact, it's their only campaign, because for the rest he agrees with Edwards and Clinton, but only limply. I think the revealing "gang-up" the other night was Obama trying to defend his weak-ass health care plan. He's not bipartisan, he's playing pander bear to all the right wing voters he's going to have to get to beat Hillary.
Oh, Mommy and Daddy are fighting! No-o-o! Good. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Is Obama ready for prime time? I don't think so.
Oh, and by the way, they spoke a lot about a lot of issues. Why all the focus on the short time when they were cussin'? It was good for us.
Oh, and by the way? Obama was lying. Hillary brought up his remarks about the GOP being the "party of ideas" for the last 10-15 years, and Obama tried to pretend she had said something about Reagan. Reagan wasn't in office 15 years ago, he was starting to decline with Alzheimer's. Bill Clinton was in office. But Obama never gets this animosity for being tough.
Joe, Joe Joe!
What economic mismanagement? I think that you must be specific. I am sick of generalized criticisms where the term "mistakes were made" or "change" is used to be interpreted in many different ways. This tactic is pure demagoguery. If you point at President Bush's failure to veto excessive spending and to sign the most expensive welfare bill since the no-so-Great-Society initiative, maybe you have a point!
The current economic crisis is the product of congressional and other political pressures to apply radical egalitarian imperatives to credit markets. "Subprime" describes borrowers who are not entitled to borrow money because they have histories of bad financial behavior, employment and income earning capacity. These subprime borrowers previously did not have access to credit, and are disproportionately black and hispanic. Lending agencies have now given them loans and they are unable to pay the market price, often because they were aggressive liars in making loan applications. The political initiative, based in radical egalitarian myths, forcing lending institutions to make imprudent loans, is the problem here. George Bush had nothing to do with that!
Mike
Joe, I usually like your work but why are you now playing the intellectually lazy game of matching up Obama's and Clinton's insults with each other and essentially calling them a wash? Obama explained that he worked about five hours for a church project in which Rezko was involved. Hillary was on the Wal-Mart board for 6 years while the company's labor practices deteriorated. Also, when Michelle Obama runs for President it will be relevant what companies of which she sat on the boards.
And in calling the Republicans the party of ideas over the last 10-15 years, Obama went on to specifically name tax cuts as one such key idea and specifically said that those ideas did not work. He never complimented a single Republican idea, under Reagan or since, as good policy for America. So when Bill and Hillary state that Obama said Republicans had good ideas, they are either lying or they didn't read the whole quote. They're probably lying.
Ultimately I agree that it does not serve Democrats, particularly Obama, well to be involved in this back-and-forth. But that is because most voters form their impressions from headlines and sound bites lasting less than 5 seconds, rather than critical thought. If they compared who's being honest and merely trying to defend himself (Obama) to who's launching dishonest attacks (the Clintons), they'd see what's really going on here.
A Dem is Dem. They are the party of perverts, child killers and flag burners. Can anyone imagine that Hillary Clinton can question any living person on ethics of all things ?
Clinton's real experience is being the wife of an impeached US President, the wife of a disbarred lawyer who took a plea bargin to stay out of jail.
Barry O is at least is a new guy with a few ideas beyond the dirty and scandal ridden values of the corrupt and now racist Clintons. When will the black voters wake up and escape Uncle Bill's plantation?
Hey, Joe:
Maybe the reason the Democrats are "besmirching each other's character," as you say, is because they don't have anything else to talk about. No one is pressing them on the important policy or philosophical questions relevant to the office of the presidency.
These candidates are rarely, if ever, asked about such issues as terrorism or what America's role in fighting terrorism should be, or the relevance of the constitution, or their views on capitalism, or the proper role of the different branches of government, or about school choice, private property rights, immigration—illegal and otherwise, the definition or limits of free speech, international trade, practical energy solutions, or a hundred other substantive issues.
There might not be a dime's worth of difference between them, as you suggest, but until their Democratic constituents show any interest in these crucial issues and want to know their candidate’s stand on them (don’t hold your breath), the “petty snarking” will go on.
Would Black voters support a candidate for president who they perceive as the “White”: candidate, rather then a candidate who is White? That is a distinction being build around Obama. Republicans, and now the Clinton campaign, are building the perception around Obama that he is a “Black” candidate, rather than just being Black. Being a smart articulate Black man has been the foundation of his support. A man who is part of the society we all live, who is Black.
If Obama does get the nomination the Republicans will go after him in two ways. He will be portrayed as the Third World candidate. The man whose father is from Kenya, and connection to Kenya will be build, true or not. Then there is his schooling, however meaningless, in Indonesia. Obama will also portrayed as the “Black” candidate representing Black interests, only. We already see Obama being call just another Jesse Jackson, who does not talk in rhyme (already a Republican talking point).
This year we could see the Republican Party launch the most divisive campaign in history, a campaign that could set back the country a generation or more. If Obama is the Democratic Party nominee, it will be important that he win, and do so with substantial White support. Obama’s so-called pandering to Republicans is understandable, even if not laudable.
The MSM is largely responsible for the tenor of the campaign. TV looks for petty conflict as a means of creating an audience to please advertisers. The media is bored with issues that are deflected rather than dealt with and knows the best way to be shut out is to hold all candidates' feet to the fire about essential issues.
The candidates will play to whatever gets them the most coverage figuring it is less costly than paying for commercials.
Joe,
As a conservative Republican, I can stand on the margins and enjoy the Democrat presidential nomination fracas. While my view is biased, because I would never vote for a liberal Democrat, Obama certainly has the charisma to inspire. He's an admirable man with a seemingly strong character. When he attemps to rise above the partisan Republican name-calling by labeling some Republican ideas as worthy, his Democratic foes quickly pull him back into partisan anti-Republican snarkery.
Perhaps there can be bipartisanship when the Democrats finally admit that tax cuts actually increase federal revenue and fire up the economy. (The current stimulus package, meager as it may be, being a prime example.) Obama tried to go there but was quickly snatched back into the zoo of Democrat financial bufoonery when Hillary labeled him the equivalent of an enemy sympathizer.
Just when the Democrats breach the center with the words, character and action of a truly inspiring candidate, the Democrat establishment force him to be a pitiable liberal demogogue.
"In short, both senators were corporate lawyers, and both have enjoyed happy connections in the corporate world (as did that budding populist, Mr. Edwards)."
Sigh. . . How you've changed, Joe. You've become like those Heathers in the media you used to criticize back in the day. You concentrate on the cute/silly tit for tat between Obama and Clinton and pretty much ignore Edwards . . . or, if you do mention him, it is in a smug, dismissive way. How high-school cliquey is that? How Maureen Dowdish!! And to top it off, almast as an afterthought, you throw in a little backhand swipe at Edwards that is non-specific and unsubstantiated. How White Water!!!
FYI: I believe that John Edwards was a successful litigator against corporations before he ran for Senate in North Carolina. Edwards is also the candidate that corporate lobbyists and CEOs have named as the one they would least like to be elected president. They really like Romney, McCain, and Clinton and they think Obama would most likely be okay, too.
Why don't you practice what you preach instead of dismissing Edwards with your own cheap canards and snarky put-downs? He's only keeping the campaign focused on the issues. And FDR was rich when he was a "budding populist."