Bob Herbert has "Questions for the Clintons"
By: teacherken
Published On: 1/26/2008 11:48:30 AM
this is crossposted from DailyKos at Lowell's suggestion
The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics.
ob Herbert of the NY Times wrote that in the middle of his column today, after having explored the remarks of both former federal legislators on behalf of the Clintons. Most know the Kerrey remark, about a "secular madrassa". IF you don't know Young's remarks, he said “Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.”
his diary will explore Herbert's column.
First let me remind people that I am not supporting Barack Obama, having announced earlier this week that I am supporting John Edwards. But I have also explained why I cannot support Hillary Clinton in the primary in a diary exploring Monday's debate. I want to be sure that as you read this diary you have any information you deem necessary to determine if my motive in posting it is other than what I state now: the column is an opinion by an important writer for the nation's "newspaper of record" and it raises a real concern, one which should not be considered an isolated concern - after all a number here (including me) have raised similar concerns in recent weeks.
Now to Herbert.
He begins his column discussing the long-term mayor of Charleston SC. Joseph Riley has worked hard at healing racial divides in his city, speaks highly of a number of candidates, considers the Clintons his friends, and has endorsed Barack Obama in today's primary. Herbert notes The mayor’s thoughtful, respectful, generous assessment of the field echoed the tone that had prevailed until recently in the Democratic primary campaign. That welcome tone has been lost, undermined by a deliberate injection of ugliness, and it would be very difficult to make the case that the Clintons have not been primarily to blame.
Let me repeat that last clause" it would be very difficult to make the case that the Clintons have not been primarily to blame.
The words that follow that paragraph are brief, and to the point:
Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife’s candidacy, has at times sounded like a man who’s gone off his medication. And some of the Clinton surrogates have been flat-out reprehensible.
Again, note the force of language used: sounded like a man who’s gone off his medication and flat-out reprehensible
After exploring the reprehensible statements of Clinton surrogates Kerrey and Young, he offers a quotation from a mainstream news blog which I will not quote, then acknowledges that Obama's pursuit of the nomination was always going to be difficult, but given his experience as a Chicago politician one need not feel sorry for him.
I want to go through three paragraphs just before Herbert's one line warning that the questions he raises in these paragraphs need to be answered and asking the readers to "stay tuned." Let's examine the paragraphs one at a time.
Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.
whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive and have seemed positively gleeful It may be extreme to wonder if the Clintons can be other than divisive, but it is clear that they started with a substantial portion of the American electorate and many opinion makers who viewed them negatively, sometimes with outright hostility. One might have expected that their actions would not feed into that paranoia. Earlier this campaign cycle I used to argue that the caricature of Hillary was so over the top that when people would encounter her the expectation would be so low that she would easily exceed them and thus win a substantial number over to supporting her. I no longer think that. Watching her the past few weeks she seems to have decided that she is justified in using a scorched earth policy straight out of Carville, Penn, Atwater and Rove. While it would be expected that she would take advice from Democratic consultants who had helped her husband, that one can clearly see evidence of the approach of the consultants who elected the two presidents Bush is disturbing to many. And the rationalizations offered for some of the tactics, while they will be cheered by partisans of Mrs. Clinton, serve onloy to further alienate many others. They may lead to success in achieving the nomination, but one has to ask at what cost.
It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.
I no longer wonder. It seems obvious that there has been a calculation made that Sen. Clinton can win the nomination by this process and that the zeitgeist is such that any Democrat will have the ability to defeat any Republican. Without arguing the merits of the first part of that approach (the nomination) I think it may represent a misreading of the mood of the public with repect to the general election. And while general election victory would still be possible, it would occur at the end of an extended period of extreme and divisive partisanship that would serve only to further divide the country. It also might be very expensive for those Democrats down ballot from the presidential contest, something about which it seems clear to me matters little to the Clintons in comparison to the goal of regaining the White House for themselves. Here I can look at the use of Dick Morris and triangulation in 1996 during Bill's reelection run as a model.
So far I have been inferring questions in the two paragraphs just quoted from Herbert. Im his penultimate paragraph he turns to direct questions:
What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?
What kind of people are the Clintons?Must we not look at what they are willing to do to achieve victory? Can we help but consider the kinds of things said and done during this campaign and then begin to worry about the possible answer to this question?
What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? n 1992 Hillary said that if they voted for her husband they would get two for the price of one. Afer the debacle of health care reform it was not clear that the American people wanted such an approach. ANd for all the fondness towards Bill among Democrats at the start of the campaign, thinking that translated into wanting him in an active role within the White House is a misinterpretation. After all, part of the fondness is that his presidency compared so favorably to what we have been experiencing in the past two terms. And if we needed any reminder of some of the unstated concerns even many Democrats have, Mitt Romney found a way to insert them into the Republican debate.
Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying? As important as this is, I think it is the wrong question. I believe the evidence before us is that they are certainly astute enough to recognize the need of the nation for healing. But they have chosen something else as more important, that need for winning, and all else is subservient to that goal.
Were the candidacy of Hillary Clinton the only possibility for removing control of the White House from the Republican party there might be some small justification for arguing that any tactic or strategy that advanced her candidacy was appropriate: one could make the case that it would be the lesser of two evils. It would, however, even in that case still be evil.
But one need only look at generic ballots before the recent nastiness began to see that Clinton was not the only possibility to achieve a Democratic victory. Thus it becomes increasingly difficult to accept the idea that the nastiness being employed on behalf of her candidacy has any rationalization beyond being the only way she and her brain trust think she can achieve victory in the primary contest.
They may believe that once they achieve the nomination they can pivot, and that Democrats will support her because the alternative would be unthinkable. But I see evidence that increasing numbers of Democrats are of a different opinion, a fear that I explored in this diary Thursday.
Perhaps the questions offered by Herbert are answerable, as are the concerns expressed by others. Perhaps the kind of campaign we have seen since shortly before Iowa will be replaced by something else, and quickly. I certainly hope so, because the longer it continues, the stronger will be the impression of increasing numbers that the Clintons care about enough except power for themselves, and the consequences of that attitude becoming firm is disastrous to consider.
Peace.
Comments
A couple of quick comments (teacherken - 1/26/2008 11:55:49 AM)
1) I will not be able to closely monitor this. The version at dailykos, which has been on the recommended list since shortly after being posted, has well over 200 comments and I cannot even take the time now to read all of them
2) to save some trouble, let me remind people that I am supporting Edwards, that while I have explained why I cannot support Clinton in the primary, I would vote for her in the general against any Republican
3) regardless of my own preferences, I make Clinton the favorite now to get the nomination, ranking it Clinton 55%, Obama 40% and Edwards 5% (there is still in theory a chance for him).
4) I do not view Herbert's column as a hit piece, and I know my diary is not a hit piece. Even if both were, the Clinton camp would nevertheless be well advised to pay attention to the concerns/questions raised therein, because they are not merely the expression of angry Obama supporters or a meme pushed by the MSM because they like a good fight. I am hearing and seeing it elsewhere, including from two of my students who are strong Clinton supporters (one a white male, the other a black female) who have independently expressed the wish that Bill Clinton would shut up because of the damage he is causing
5) It is not a question of whether some Obama supporters (Jesse Jackson Jr., Joseph Lowery) haven 't also made over the top comments. There is a difference in that it has not been a concerted strategy by the Obama campaign whereas to any independent observer it has been on the part of the Clintons - witness Mark Penn's repeating the term cocaine on TV even after the Billy Shaheen incident - something on which Joe Trippi immediately called him.
6) Whether or not Clinton could win the general after such a primary strategy is still debatable. It is not a given one way or the other. But there is no doubt that the approach we are seeing will have a negative impact in down ballot races, and would make it harder for a Clinton administration to bring the nation together.
So interpret all this as you see fit, both the words of Herbert and what I have to add.
Peace.
Exactly, Ken. (Lowell - 1/26/2008 11:59:11 AM)
Thanks for sharing your views, they are right on target as usual.
Thanks (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/26/2008 2:06:23 PM)
Thank you for raising the concerns which need raising and oing it as only you can.
Personally (Newport News Dem - 1/26/2008 3:37:10 PM)
I am tired of the Obama supporters acting like crybabies about the Clintons. Two candidates are in a close and competitive race and both sides are not pure, IMHO. I quite going to KOS because it was embarrassing to read all the whining and bitching. If you can't take this spat, you are not ready for what the pugs have in store this fall.
In disclosure, I have been and still am totally neutral and do not have a clue as for whom I will vote on the 12th.
It's not an issue of "crybabies" IMHO (Lowell - 1/26/2008 3:56:45 PM)
It's an issue of the Clintons hurting the party in the long run while they attempt to win the nomination in the short run. I'd also note that lots of people are asking this question, not just Obama supporters but also independent political analysts, Edwards supporters, etc., etc.
I am not an Obama supporter, but an Edwards supporter (teacherken - 1/26/2008 4:49:15 PM)
which I disclose, as I also disclose that I had decided why I could not vote for Clinton in the primary. My concern is the longterm health of both the Democratic party and the country.
Reading the WaPost columnists (Quizzical - 1/26/2008 6:35:16 PM)
I think we would be better off to read all the op ed pieces in the Washington Post more critically. As Bob Somerby likes to point out endlessly, the one constant theme of the MSM is that in the end, all of the leaders of the Democratic party are to be exposed as Big Fat Liars.
I view Herbert's piece as an attack piece, as was his column which Russert quoted to Clinton on Meet the Press when she was on. But, I guess there's nothing wrong with that -- he is a columnist, after all, and giving his opinions on things is his business. He's within his rights to attack who he wants. So he says that the Clintons are "primarily at fault." I don't know what that means -- it could mean 51% I suppose. It doesn't mean that Obama and his campaign are faultless. Not that it matters anyway.
In the Washington Post of Jan. 25, in the top left position was Michael Gerson's oped calling Hillary Clinton "The Incumbent." He goes on at length to remind us how much Republicans hate her, while conceding that "[i]n some ways this enthusiastic contempt seems disproportionate." What really got my attention though was when Gerson says that Clinton is "the closest there is to an incumbent in the 2008 election." That doesn't pass the laugh test. Wouldn't that incumbent-like candidate really be a Republican, like McCain, who is openly committed to carrying on the Bush administration's policies in Iraq? Gerson also goes on to say that "the Clintons practice a form of politics without honor." Guess why he says that? He quickly shows us. He wants to use Clinton as cover for his own desire to put this into print: "Already Clinton's proxies have attacked Obama as a drug user and maby a drug dealer, and bemoaned politicians who 'shuck and jive.'" That's Gerson, the former Bush speech writer talking, not Clinton or her surrogates. It's a neat trick for Gerson to dump a truckload of crap on Clinton and Obama, and blame Clinton for it while he's doing it. Sweet! Unfortunately we are going to see that trick again and again and again from now until Nov. 7, even if Clinton withdraws from the race tomorrow morning, dresses in black and goes to live on the island of Elba.
Below that, we had E.J. Dioone, Jr.'s column about "The Ideas that Bill Forgot." His basic thesis is that Bill Clinton is a hypocrite because Obama is kind of echoing the same things Bill Clinton said when he was running in 1992. "In many ways, Obama is running the 2008 version of the 1992 Clinton campaign." But weren't we just reading less than a week ago that Obama thought it was the Republican party, not the Democratic party, which was the party of ideas over the last 10 to 15 years? Uhh so I guess the Ideas the Bill Forgot were the Democratic Party ideas that Obama thinks were inconsequential compared to those of the Party of Ideas. (Didn't Geoge W. Bush also run in 2000 as a different kind of politician, who was going to be a uniter rather than a divider? Seems like a common election theme.)
Then there is the Charles Krauthammer column, "Losing Ugly", in which he absolutely trashes Edwards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
My initial reaction to this was that I wasn't very interested in having a conservative like Krauthammer tell me what to think about a Democratic candidate whom I like, like Edwards. But look at what he does to Edwards. He basically paints him as a Big Fat Liar. Interestingly, I searched RK, and did a blog search on Google, for a defense of Edwards in response to that Krauthammer column, and there hasn't been one yet.
"there hasn't been one yet." (Lowell - 1/26/2008 6:38:05 PM)
Sounds like a John Edwards defense diary is crying out to be written by you! :)
Herbert writes for NY TIms, not Washington Post (teacherken - 1/26/2008 9:20:23 PM)
and he columnists in general do not speak for the Editorial page, which under Fred Hiatt is more than a bit of a problem
and regardless of what you think of Herbert's piece, if one looks at the exit polls from SC, it seems as he has a far better sense of the pulse of the electorate than for what you are willing to give him credit.
Credit for Herbert (Quizzical - 1/27/2008 12:26:54 AM)
On the contrary, I give Herbert full credit for being able to read the polling data as well as you or I. We don't need him for that. As for his opinions, he's a very bright and well-informed guy and a great writer, but he's got his biases. I could be wrong, but I don't think he likes the Clintons.
If Bill and Hillary Clinton were the stars of a reality TV show, it would be a weekly series called "The Connivers."
http://select.nytimes.com/2007...
And that was back in February of last year.
Ken, respectfully I think the problem with Herbert's column, as with a lot of (aznew - 1/26/2008 7:17:16 PM)
similar pieces on blogs and MSM is that it is long of accusation, but short on facts.
Herbert levels all sorts of accusations against Bill and Hillary, but when it comes to evidence, he quotes:
1. Andrew Young
2. Bob Kerrey
3. An anonymous commenter on an unnamed blog (which you did not repeat, thankfully, but which was a significant part of Herbert's argument, although not yours).
This is a pattern. whenever a Clinton supporter criticizes Obama, it is a surrogate doing the bidding of Bill and Hillary. But when it is an Obama supporter, well, it's just a supporter who is off the reservation.
My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between, but I will not state that as fact, as it is supposition.
As is Herbert's assertion that "the Clinton's have seemed positively gleeful in this atmosphere."
Is he serious? Why, just yesterday Bill Clinton was reported to be losing it with a reporter.
In fact, Herbert, in his zeal to hurl insults, hilariously contradicts himself. On the one hand, Bill Clinton is gleeful. On the other, he is apparently acting as though he is off his medication (presumably anti-depressants), a hackneyed expression that any first-year copy editor would strike from a column, not to mention cruel to people who rely on medication to hold depression at bay.
Well, which is it? Gleeful, or a ranting lunatic off his meds. Oh, never mind, lets just call him a gleeful, ranting lunatic, and while we're at it, throw in serial pedophile for good measure (an accusation for which there is about an equal amount of evidence as Clinton being "gleeful" at the current dispute in the party) and be done with it.
there is only so much space in the column (teacherken - 1/26/2008 9:22:29 PM)
I would agree that the quote from the blog was unnecessary and over the top
but there are tons of other examples besides those two - Mark Penn, Billy Shaheen, Robert Johnson . . . and of course there is Bill CLinton's mouth as well.
I would think the results from SC make clear that Herbert has his finger on something of the pulse of the American electorate.
But consider (aznew - 1/26/2008 9:27:08 PM)
Shaheen - fired
Bob Johnson - To me, his comment seemed like a poor attempt at an off the cuff joke, but who knows.
Mark Penn - I don't know why Clinton sticks with him, so that one is tough to argue.
az, I agree with you.... (Dianne - 1/27/2008 8:25:37 PM)
and thank you for speaking to the truth. I listened to this (Sunday's) morning's blather and was struck by the talking heads putting words and thoughts in Bill Clinton's mind and mouth. I'm sure that when someone in the media takes a deep breath to see what has been said in the name of truth, there will be widespread embarrassment.
Thanks, Dianne (aznew - 1/27/2008 8:39:41 PM)
I am sure some folks think I'm simply blind, but the more I look behind the behind the media spin, the thinner the case against the Clintons becomes. Do they calculate and strategerize? Yes.
Name me one politician who doesn't.
I expect Republicans to heap scorn upon them. I'm surprised at the ferocity of how Democrats feel. I mean, it's a campaign, for goodness sakes!
Yeah, it's a campaign for heaven's sake! (Dianne - 1/27/2008 8:50:25 PM)
I too am surprised at the ferority of how Dems feel. And yes the facts are getting more and more distorted. I've not seen anything like this since the Republicans swiftboated Kerry.
And the media has really abandoned reality. I've watched Margaret Carlson over the last few days licking her lips at how she can next discredit the Clintons. Just like when she said "I had fun during the 2000 election making fun of Al Gore It was so easy". Journalist she's not.