I’m Done With Hillary Clinton: Two Unavoidable Unacceptables for a Democratic 2008

I’m a Democrat. I give money. I’ve work campaigns, both as a volunteer and as paid staff. I’m realistic and critical of my party (and open to criticism in return) but when it comes to fellow Democrats, candidates and activists, loyalty still matters a great deal to me. The party doesn’t reflect everything I believe in the way I believe, but it is the direction I want the country to head, and that’s what it comes down to. I have no apologies.

No matter what, I will vote for a Democrat this November: Clinton, Obama, whatever. I began this political season almost irritated that I had to make a choice between two candidates that rated about even in my book in nearly every way. Both have unique strengths and correspondingly worrisome weaknesses. I could have staked a claim on either one of them.

But at this point, I’m simply done with the Clintons. Not just for this race, but period. No matter what happens from here on forward, I’ve just had enough. I have friends who are dedicated to her, and whose political careers are linked to her fate. And it’s been truly difficult to get to this point.

But the second she opened her mouth to weigh in on the issue of seating Michigan and Florida delegates, I began to have my doubts. And with her declared intention to fight on until convention in August there’s just no avoiding it anymore. I can no longer pretend that she puts the party above even the slimmest chance of furthering her own ambitions.

She’s in a terrible situation, I know. I truly believe that Obama’s lead is as much luck as anything else. Swap the order of state primaries, juggle a little media coverage this way or that, and things could well have ended up the reverse (and if so, I think it almost certain that Obama would indeed have, in her place, dropped out to take the vice-president slot by now). That’s got to be excruciating. It’s got to feel pretty darn unfair.

But it’s still just no excuse for the damage she appears fully willing, even eager, to do to the party. Obama is in the lead without much question, and there simply aren’t any plausible ways she could win without doing serious damage to the party. Those are the facts. So from people who run around calling people “Judas,” where is the party loyalty?

Now, admittedly, there are all sorts of reasons to poo-poo the usual worries about primaries hurting party candidates. The reality really is that primaries often help, not hurt, the eventually nominee, and certainly the process helps us vet and weed out those that just aren’t up to the task. But all these good reasons increasingly cease to apply the longer a sustained neck and neck situation like this continues for months.

And then there are the two critical issues that, more than anything else, make Clinton’s continued efforts an outright threat to the party, rather than a sign of healthy competition.

The first is the harm she’s doing to any hope of mounting a top-class coordinated field campaign worthy to face off the one that John McCain is already putting together. Good field campaigns (the gumshoe ground forces that knock doors, ID voters, and prepare carefully targeted Get-Out-the-Vote efforts) are critical parts of modern elections, but they take an incredible amount of time to plan, prepare, and execute properly.

We’re talking months here. We’re talking John Kerry’s 2004 effort being late to the game by only really ramping up in June. And here is Clinton basically promising that there will be no true coordinated campaign, working under the auspices of a specific candidate, until September. That leaves only two months to build a huge volunteer organization and make millions of personal voter IDs and on-message contacts. There’s simply no way to build a credible field campaign in such a short time. Period.

What she is proposing is nothing short of crippling one of the few things that could give Democrats the edge they desperately need in must-win swing states like Michigan and Florida. There’s no way around this. As long as she’s still in the race, the party can only work with both hands tied behind its back.

The second issue is the lasting damage she’s caused by continually twisting the already painful blade of the Florida/Michigan delegate disqualification issue. Make no mistake: the bitterness over the DNC’s stance, right or wrong, on Florida and Michigan’s illegitimate primaries has already cost the party, in states where it couldn’t really afford anything going wrong in the first place. It’s dented the enthusiasm of critical activists. It’s burned bridges, and gotten people in the party to take sides in a very serious and even nasty way. We’ve gotten to the point where, no matter how it’s all resolved, if it either affects the outcome of the primary, or involves those delegates remaining unseated, some faction or another of the party will remember it and rue it for decades hence.

And yet, here is Clinton, desperate to hold onto anything that could possibly allow her to seize a long-odds victory, egging the bitterness on.

The only proper thing for the two candidates to do would to simply stay out of it. To allow the problem to be first ignored, and then made moot as the delegates are seated at the convention, the outcome unaffected by the DNC’s caving to ceremony.

Clinton could have done that. But she didn’t. And she isn’t. If anything, she’s spun the issue into exactly the sort of moralizing controversy it has no business being. I’m largely indifferent to the DNC’s stance myself: the current system is a mess, in many ways. But it is the set of rules that was laid down, and questioning it mid-stream, especially when Clinton herself once declared that the races wouldn’t matter, rubs me oh so the wrong way.

Again, I’m not talking here about losing my vote. I’m talking about losing my trust.

And perhaps more as well. As only a second term Senator, Hillary was well on her way towards becoming one of the most powerful and influential Democratic leaders in Congress. But if she succeeds in visibly crippling Obama (and her endorsement of McCain’s attacks, as well as the Wright mess coming when the party is still too divided to push back properly, have both already hurt) and John McCain wins in November, then the Clinton legacy will be in serious trouble. Even moreso if her support of Obama’s near inevitable candidacy is conveniently half-hearted and ineffectual, confirming the already bitter suspicion that the Clintons and their allies were less than seriously behind John Kerry in 2004.

People like myself can forget and forgive, but only with the sort of apologies I find it very, very hard to imagine being forthcoming. And we have long, long memories.

Addendum: Also…. what the hell???  It’s one thing to bravely walk into the lions den with your head held high.  But Clinton should, if anyone is, be above hobnobbing with Richard Mellon Scaife, right wing crackpot extraordinaire.  The whole thing smells far too much of Rush Limbaugh’s conniving call for Republicans to vote Hillary purely to cause Democratic disarray.  That Scaife’s bizarre turn-around on the Clintons seems to have something to do with simply getting back at his ex-wife (an Obama supporter) makes it all the more unseemly even without playing right into his hands.

7 Responses to I’m Done With Hillary Clinton: Two Unavoidable Unacceptables for a Democratic 2008

  1. Bob Stewart says:

    LOL. You lost me early on when you said you would vote Democrat, regardless. I have NO use for people such as yourself. You admit you’ll vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee, regardless of the campaign she has run. Obviously, you’ll vote for Obama in spite of his being the worst kind of racist. I can only assume that you’ll vote for the Democrat every time, even if that person is a Hitler.

  2. Bad says:

    Perhaps you should explain why, as long as a candidate represents the basic core platform of the party (which makes your Hitler scenario simply nonsensical and irrelevant) my particular strategy doesn’t make any sense. On the contrary: I consider people that fancy themselves discriminating independents to be the more foolish of the two takes. In my experience, such voters generally have little idea of how our political system works, and vote not on calculated policy strategies, but shallow, ultimately meaningless emotionalisms and fleeting media memes… leading to flatly irrational expressions of policy preferences.

    Either Clinton or Obama would do far more to advance the issues I care about than John McCain. Period. What exactly are you suggesting is wrong with noting and acting on that?

    As for Obama being a “racist,” well, I think it’s pretty clear that if you’re the sort of person who actually takes nonsense like that seriously, then you’re not exactly staking much claim to any rational complaint against my voting habits. The worst Obama is guilty of is tolerating bigoted blather from his church: a crime for which the a likely majority of Americans are as or more guilty, and certainly McCain and other conservative Republicans are far more guilty.

    Also, I think the claims that Clinton ran a poor campaign, at least in terms of strategic, financial, and campaign standards, to be way overblown. As I said, I think a lot of this season came down to luck. What she blew, for me, was any sign that the larger party mission outweighed her driven focus to win. The latter is certainly desirable in a candidate, but when it becomes a form of blinders…

  3. Ebonmuse says:

    You nailed it in one, Bad. I, like you, started out this primary season considering both Clinton and Obama to be equally matched candidates. But the more time that’s gone on, the more I’ve been gravitating toward Obama and away from Clinton, and now I consider myself firmly in Obama’s camp.

    For me, also, Hillary’s increasingly slash-and-burn campaign tactics have contributed to a sharp downturn in my view of her. It seems more clear to me every day that she values her own candidacy more than Democrats’ chances in general. Another particularly annoying symptom of this has been the way she dismisses the importance of each state that she loses, coming up with increasingly contrived reasons why that state “doesn’t count”: it’s a small state, it’s a caucus state, it’s a state with a lot of black voters, it’s a red state.

    I’m glad that Obama is campaigning in the red states; assuming he’s the nominee, he has a fairly good chance in many of them. I really believe he can compete in states that Hillary and other Democrats had long since written off. The foolhardy strategy of taking the blue states for granted, writing off the red states, and spending enormous time chasing an increasingly small pool of swing states is precisely why Democrats have been losing presidential elections. We need to act like a 50-state party again and not take any state for granted. Obama understands this; Clinton plainly does not.

  4. Bad says:

    Her “well that didn’t count” rationale is all the more silly now in light of her “we must let every state have a chance to vote” justification for staying in utterly regardless of her chances. Everyone knows that many late primary states just don’t really get much of a say in the process. It’s unfortunate, but it’s just the way the system is set up at the moment, and pretending otherwise isn’t doing anyone any good.

    Still, if not for the larger implications for the party’s chances in November, I would otherwise be glad that some states that have never had any say now feel like they are a real part of the process. Perhaps in future elections that feeling will be the impetus for reforming the process.

  5. […] 31st, 2008 · No Comments Karl Fogel wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAnd then there are the two critical […]

  6. Lonnie Brookins says:

    Hillary Clinton is old news and is responsible for all that is bad about politics. She and her husbands anything to win tactics are not good for the democratic party, or for the American people. It seems that the newsmedia has no interest in being fair and balanced as the keep pushing for her to stay in a race that she cannot win.
    After the recent primary in Penn Tim Russett in his analysis of the Clinton said ” The Clintons feel that the Democratic Party belongs to them and they can do with it as they wish”. This should anger all American that a single family thinks that they can hijack a political party.

    Also to tell the American People that she will fight for them and that she does not want to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida is so dishonest. she wants the Superdeligates to overturn the will of the people in 50 states and make her the nominee. Is that not disenfranchising voters as well?

    I feel that Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton have basically the same agenda so to give her a pass on her negatives which are much greater than Barak Obamas so they will have a news story is dishonest and as they should report the news and not drive the news.

    John Macain will win because the Clinton want to destroy Barak Obama so that Hillary can try again in 2012. I am an Independent and don’t know who I will vote for however I feel that the News Media is doing a great disservice to the American people by not reporting the truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: