This is a fairly tough — and I’d say fair — explanation by Johann Hari in The Independent of how the Clinton campaign has operated, the myths surrounding the Clintons and Hillary Clinton’s claims of experience.
It is clear the Clintons are determined to get this nomination, any way, any how. If they have to do it by falsely claiming to have won states like Florida and Michigan – where Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot, because there was an agreement by all the candidates to punish the states for holding early primaries – then they will. If they have to do it by overturning the will of the Democratic electorate by appealing to the unelected super-delegates – a group of party functionaries who seem likely to hold the balance – then they will. If they have to do it by pandering to racist sentiments – dismissing Obama as akin to the black firebrand Jesse Jackson, or by leaking images of Obama in African tribal dress – then they will do it.
This ties fairly well to the special comment (video here) offered by Keith Olbermann on Wednesday, which tied together the Geraldine Ferarro comments essentially calling Barack Obama an affirmative action candidate with other questionable comments and the tacit acceptance of so much of this questionable behavior by the campaign and the candidate.
To Sen. Clinton’s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and to her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness.
And worst yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns; a disturbing, but only borderline remark.
After what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the “3 A.M.” ad, a disturbing but only borderline interpretation …
And after that moment’s hesitation in her own answer on 60 Minutes about Obama’s religion; a disturbing, but only borderline vagueness …
After those precedents, there are those who see a pattern, false or true.
After those precedents, there are those who see an intent, false or true.
After those precedents, there are those who see the Clinton campaign’s anything-but-benign neglect of this Ferraro catastrophe, falsely or truly, as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice that still haunts this society voiced and to not distance the campaign from it.
To not distance you from it, Senator!
To not distance you from that which you as a woman, and Sen. Obama as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain!
Which you should both fight with all you have!
Which you should both ensure has no place in this contest!
This, Sen. Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.
The tawdry direction in which this campaign has turned is a huge disappointment, given the remarkable interest that it has generated — record turnouts, massive rallies, etc. — and the good will with which the Democrats entered the election season. Anyone handicapping the race back in December or even February would have made the Democratic nominee — whether it were to be Clinton or Obama — the odds-on favorite to reside at One Pennsylvania Ave. come January.
But, as Olbermann points out, the ugliness is making that less likely. The Clintons appear willing to damage Obama in a way that will weaken him in November and split the party in the process. Hari views it as the Clintons making a “lunge at power” that “should be remembered when the end credits roll – as a greasy stain on the bright blue dress of the Democratic Party.”
He writes
Think about the symbolism for the watching world if the Clintons manage to snatch this nomination. The people in a majority of states in America will have shown they are ready to embrace a black man as President – only for some white guys in suits to hand it to the wife of the ex-President. Their arguments in their own defence will seem feeble. The idea that Hillary is more “experienced” seems to me both anti-feminist and untrue. How does being married to a man make you “experienced” in his job? As the stand-up comedian Chris Rock said in a recent gig, “I don’t get it. I’ve been married for 10 years – but if my wife came out here on stage now, you wouldn’t laugh.”
This is not about sinking the Clinton candidacy and promoting Obama. Yes, I did vote for Obama in the New Jersey primary, but not out of any great commitment. He was actually no higher than third or fourth on my original list (after John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and possibly Chris Dodd). This criticism has nothing to do with my vote or potential support.
This is about tone and tone-deafness and what it might imply about the candidates. Obama has his flaws — his “new way” is in too many ways a recycling of the old way and too often traps him in unhealthy compromises designed to show his ability to rise above partisanship. And he also has allowed himself to be connected to some questionable people.
As for John McCain — his willingness to accept endorsements from radical Christian clerics like the Rev. John Hagee and or the Rev. Rod Parsley offer only the most tepid of rebukes to their views. Not exactly what one might expect from the driver of the “Straight-Talk Express.”
Watching this Democratic race spin into the dark side is a bit like watching an unfunny comedian — say Andrew Dice Clay — tell off-color jokes. The audience might titter a bit uncomfortably as it squirms in its seats, but it is just waiting for the show to end and for the comic to get off stage.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 