January 13, 2008
Hillary Clinton is shooting herself in the foot
Posted by Jamelle under democrats, politics | Tags: 2008, bill clinton, hillary clinton |You know, the biggest problem with the Clintons’ racially insensitive rhetoric* is that it’s terribly counterproductive.
The Clinton campaign seems to think that if they win the nomination, every Democrat in the country will dutifully bite their lip and help Hillary win the nomination. field negro has a pretty succinct description Clinton’s attitude:
It’s time for people’s true feelings to come out. It’s time to win by any means necessary. And then after the coronation we can make nice and pretend that all is well in A-merry-ca again.
But that’s simply not true. A lot of people - Obama supporters or not - will be pissed about Clinton’s willingness to use racist, dog-whistle rhetoric to win. And if enough of those people, scorned or insulted by the Clinton campaign, decide to sit out the election election - whether in voting or volunteering - it has the potential to damage Clinton’s general campaign. This is especially true for African-Americans. There are a number of states which are simply not in play if African-Americans don’t support the Democrat in overwhelming numbers. The Clinton campaign is playing with some serious fire by making racially charged remarks about Obama.
Like I said earlier, this entire episode absolutely smacks of Hillary Clinton’s huge sense of entitlement to both the nomination and support from rank-and-file Democrats*. If she honestly believed that nomination wasn’t owed to her - and that she ought to work for it - then she wouldn’t be setting up her nearest rival for failure in a general election contest.
What she would be doing is running a campaign that’s aggressive but not malicious. She would recognize that the most important thing is winning the presidency, and that requires a unified front among Democrats, even if they are rivals. To me at least, the fact that she doesn’t see that reflects a serious selfishness on her part; if Hillary Clinton doesn’t get the presidency, then no one will. Her campaign is not about the future of the United States, and it’s certainly not about the future of the Democratic Party***, it is about the Clinton legacy. That’s it.
*I don’t think the Clintons are racist in the least bit, they are ambitious and entitled, and will do anything to get the nomination. Including the use of racist/racially insensitive rhetoric (take your pick).
**What the Clintons don’t seem to get is that younger Democrats - those of us who came of political age during the Bush years - owe them nothing. Most of us were only a few years removed from our mother’s wombs at the beginning of the Clinton presidency, and we barely remember the politics of era. We cut our teeth on Bush, and some of us even blame the failures of the Democratic Party during the early Bush years on the Clintons.
***If the Clintons were actually serious about securing the future of the Democratic Party, they would at least show Obama a bit of respect for his ability to mobilize huge numbers of young people. The volunteers and staffers on the Obama campaign will be running the Democratic Party in ten, fifteen years. The Clintons would do well to recognize that.
January 13, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Since when in “fairy tale” racist? I think that various Black pundits and leaders are just jockeying for position with the Clinton Machine. You must remember that these Black “leaders” are effectively in the Clintons’ payroll; they’re just looking for a raise.
That being said, I agree with completely that the Clintons’ “hillary’s way or No Way” campaign agenda is reprehensible and foolish.
January 13, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I don’t think “fairy tale” was racist. That was taken out of context.
I still think that diminishing the impact of civil rights leaders and basically saying that only whites can get things done is pretty inappropriate.
And I hate Clinton, yes hate, for thinking that she deserves the Presidency, especially at this crucial time after Bush. I hate her for not getting out of the way and thinking that this moment, this very very pivotal moment in American history, is her moment. It’s arrogant and selfish and I think, potentially, disastrous.
January 13, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Ahh..The MLK comment! Yeah, that was grossly stupid. I doubt racist however. It is beyond Hillary’s capacity to believe that an individual could cause more change than the Govt - President - could. She’s very authoritarian and seems to have a dictatorial approach to most things.
January 13, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Oh, and Jamelle, I know we were discussing the crying the other day and Bill Maher made a good point about it.
Isn’t it funny that the crying done by Hillary was “just the right amount of crying” and the day of (or before I forget) of the Primary?
Unlike with Howard Dean, Hillary showed a calculated amount of emotion so that she seemed human but not out of control. And the woman who asked the question later went and voted for Obama because she said that Clinton immediately got political right after the tears (putting down Obama before her face was dry).
I think this whole episode just reveals what an opportunist Clinton is. I’m telling you, they were crocodile tears and I think that kind of manipulation of voters feelings is despicable.
We can’t let this woman win.
January 13, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Well, perhaps not racist. But her words are insulting to those who champion ideas but do not have access to institutionalized power. I think she was being offensive as well as narrow-minded. To say that progress can only be achieved by the great people, the people in the halls of power, and not by illegitimate groups and the powerless is not a very inspiring message.
I will defend Bill on his comments, though. I think it’s ridiculous that so many people actually think he was talking about the entire Obama campaign being a “fairy tale” and not just his Iraq War narrative.
In fact, I wish that people would stop misinterpreting Bill so that we can actually start critiquing what he did say: that Obama’s narrative of being anti-war is not true. Well, he’s certainly got more credibility in this area than Hillary, who actually voted for the war. So right there it’s hard to criticize Obama no matter if what he has said over the years has been contradictory. And secondly, the only time I’m aware of that he said he had a different stance on Iraq was during the last Presidential campaign. He was vague on how he felt about the war because he didn’t want to hurt Kerry’s campaign (since Kerry did vote for the war).
I don’t what the Clintons wanted. I guess they wanted him to come out against the war vehemently at the time and undermine the Kerry campaign. If you watch the latest Meet the Press Hillary says that Obama’s statement that he didn’t want to make Kerry look bad by talking about how he didn’t agree with the Iraq War was a political move. It was a political decision to “change his stance”. But that’s a pretty bogus criticism because he only made that “political” move in order to help another politician and his party, not himself.
January 14, 2008 at 1:53 am
The point about Obama’s supporters is especially well taken. They will indeed be running the Dems. Some of the most committed people I know politically are Obama supporters, and are very actively involved in his campaign.
January 14, 2008 at 9:48 am
Obama’s supporters have bought into the “hope” represented by Obama’s image and are therefor very active. If Obama looses the nomination I would expect that “hope” to curdle into disillusionment. If that happens, the Obama supporters will not be running the Dems - or anything else.
For many of Obama’s supporters this is the beginning of their political involvement - beginnings are such delicate times. :(