Politics: Not For The Faint-Hearted

The New Republic: Negative Attacks By Both Democrats, But Only Clinton Labeled As Ruthless

(The New Republic)  This column was written by David Greenberg.

---

The issue of negative campaigning and its proper bounds is now dominating the Democratic campaign. In recent weeks, the neck-and-neck race has degenerated into a miasma of trivial flaps - the source of that photo of Barack Obama in Somali garb, the "gaffes" of Samantha Power and Geraldine Ferraro, and so on - only tenuously related to the question of whether Obama or Hillary Clinton would be a better president. Each side, angling for any edge, gins up pseudo-controversies. In response, each feigns indignation, claiming the other is hitting below the belt.

These skirmishes have yielded no discernible advantage. But the bickering has, troublingly, validated a piece of conventional wisdom among a liberal commentariat that was already tilting heavily toward Obama: that Clinton is "ruthless," "vicious," even "Nixonian"--an unscrupulous appendage of her husband's "machine" (a word seldom used about the far better oiled Obama apparatus). As Obama's guru David Axelrod would have it, "They are literally trying to do anything to win this nomination." You hear it said everywhere, from blogs to high-toned op-ed pages. But this virulent meme is untrue, and - quite apart from the current contest - anyone who cares about liberalism and its future should be worried by its spread.

To begin with, the charge that Clinton is Nixonian is as scurrilous as the smears that Obama is a closet Muslim or that John McCain sired a bastard child. Her campaign, simply put, is not categorically different from any other hard-driving presidential bid, including Obama's own. It should be recalled that, back in the fall, when Obama trailed in the polls by double digits, friendly columnists positively begged him to go after the front-runner. In an October 30 debate, Obama charged that Clinton was "changing positions whenever it's politically convenient" and that "she has not been truthful" about her Social Security plans. The jibes grew so strident that Bill Richardson called a time-out in the middle of the debate, declaring, "It's pretty close to personal attacks that we don't need."

The point isn't to taunt, as if in the schoolyard, that Obama "started it"; the point is that no presidential aspirant enters the arena an innocent. Both candidates have flip-flopped, ducked questions, taken potshots, made dubious campaign promises, and spun the facts in disingenuous ways. They have done so for the same reason that fish swim and birds fly: It's in the nature and job description of politicians to do so. To plead that one or the other has done these things more, or more nefariously, is to launch a litany of tit-for-tat charges that would outrun the pages of The New Republic.

Besides, objectively quantifying the cheap shots is impossible at this fraught moment, when any incident is read through the distorting lens of candidate preference. In a famous experiment from the 1950s, the public opinion analysts Hadley Cantril and Albert Hastorf had fans of Princeton and Dartmouth's football teams watch a film of a rough game between the two - in which, most egregiously, Princeton's star player was injured - and tally up the penalties. Dartmouth fans were more likely to judge the game as rough but fair, with penalties committed almost equally on both sides. Princeton fans said Dartmouth was responsible for more than two-thirds of the infractions. Team loyalty shaped or dictated perceptions. It is doing so today among Democrats and pundits.

Take a test: Did you think Clinton's "3 a.m." ad doubting Obama's readiness to handle crises was fear-mongering, rather than a valid, if slightly lurid, gambit? Did you read her "as far as I know" response to a question about Obama's religion as a shameful effort to stoke rumors rather than an unfortunate verbal tic amid a firm slap-down of those rumors? If so, you probably voted for Obama.

On the other hand, did you think Obama's health care mailers that echoed the old "Harry and Louise" ads were following the Republican playbook rather than "drawing distinctions" on the issues? Did you hear sexism when Obama spoke of Hillary's "claws com[ing] out," rather than an innocent remark? If so, you no doubt prefer Clinton.

This (very) partial list of mini-controversies may not persuade either aspirant's enthusiasts that this year's contest does not exactly pit Richard Nixon against Mahatma Gandhi, whomever you would cast in either role. But it should lead us all to think twice about feeling confident in our candidate's moral superiority - and especially about slinging terms like "Nixonian." Lines exist in politics that shouldn't be crossed, but, unlike Tricky Dick, Hillary Clinton hasn't tapped her rival's phones or broken into his psychiatrist's office. She hasn't stolen his debate briefing book or convened a mob of rioters to shut down a vote count. She hasn't used the machinery of impeachment for partisan gain. It's been just words.

None of Clinton's alleged offenses even departs from historical norms. Some detractors have cried foul at her hints - and they've been only hints - that she might woo some of Obama's pledged delegates. But, until recently, when primaries and caucuses became the norm, jockeying for delegates was standard practice, and, even in recent decades, it's hardly been unheard of. Late in the 1980 primaries, President Jimmy Carter had all but sewn up the nomination, but challenger Ted Kennedy stayed in the race, hoping that, if he won some key primaries - as he did - he could peel off Carter's supporters, who might not want to back a likely loser in the fall. Kennedy continued to pursue delegates even after the party rules committee barred first-ballot switching at the convention. In 1984, Gary Hart, despite losing in the primaries, planned a challenge to the legitimacy of roughly 500 of front-runner Walter Mondale's delegates, though he ultimately relented. If no Democrat has tried flipping delegates since then, it's only because the races haven't been close enough for the option to be worth considering.

Nor should Clinton's tactics be faulted for giving ammunition to the Republicans for the fall campaign. Harping on a rival's weaknesses is part and parcel of any campaign. Al Gore denounced Michael Dukakis's prison furlough program in 1988. Bill Bradley branded Gore a serial exaggerator in 2000. Whether these attacks serve to toughen or soften up the eventual nominee can't be proved either way. But historically Republicans have needed no help in finding ways to bash Democrats. And, while it's not the job of journalists and intellectuals to look after the Democrats' interests, a single standard should prevail. If questioning Obama's readiness for prime time is to be shunned lest it abet John McCain, Democrats should likewise avoid the potentially destructive notion that Clinton is an unusually dirty campaigner.

The most compelling reason to stop the demonization of Clinton is a philosophical one. For the claim that Clinton's attacks are somehow beyond the pale rests on and revives a distressing view of liberalism, politics, and power that, only recently, liberals seemed quite united in overcoming.

With its emphasis on fairness, openness, and playing by the rules, liberalism has always fostered an ambivalence about the exercise of power. A well-placed concern not to let ends justify means has often led to a misplaced sacrifice of ends to means. Fears of power's abuse have often constrained its use. In the 1950s, when Adlai Stevenson carried the Democrats' standard, party chairman Stephen Mitchell argued that liberals had to respond to the underhanded tactics of men like Nixon in kind. In the opinion journals, he was rebutted. If won on such terms, asked William Lee Miller in The Reporter, "then whose is the victory?" In contrast, Miller argued, "if we stick by what we believe, we may not win as often, but when we do we shall know what the victory means." That's how Stevenson ran - and lost. Since the 1980s, Democrats have explained away defeats by arguing that Republicans won only by playing dirty - a rationalization that is both inaccurate and self-deluding.

Yet, in contrast to this "doughface" liberalism, as Arthur Schlesinger famously termed it, another liberal tradition also exists. Under Franklin Roosevelt, wrote Schlesinger, "American liberalism…had a positive and confident ring. It has stood for responsibility and for achievement." FDR and the New Deal's lieutenants respected fair play and fair procedures, but they put results first. They understood that politics is, inherently, a field of combat, not for the faint-hearted.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Kennedy - than whom no one was called "ruthless" more often - grasped the importance of confidently using power for progressive ends. They knew that vanquishing adversaries is essential to winning elections, implementing policies, and improving people's lives. No liberal should excuse the occasions when these men crossed inviolable lines, but none should forget either that the raft of legislation that Washington produced in the 1960s was not a product of chummy bipartisan committees and painless consensus-building.

One of the few bright spots of the Bush presidency was the rediscovery of this liberal tradition. The Florida recount fight, the post-September 11 patriotism politics, the rush to war in Iraq, and the swift-boating of John Kerry--all united liberals in disdain for the spinelessness of so many of their leaders. A hundred score op-eds demanded more Democratic mettle. The netroots gathered force not from any well-formed policy agenda but from a desire to fire up the base. E.J. Dionne Jr.'s 2004 book “Stand Up, Fight Back: Republican Toughs, Democratic Wimps, and the Politics of Revenge” was just the most pointedly titled of a shelf-load of tracts arguing for a liberalism that didn't regard an appetite for battle and a compassionate spirit as antithetical.

Recently, though, the Bush administration's implosion and the Democrats' capture of Congress eased the demand for a fighter. The launch of Obama's campaign, with its Stevensonian appeals to our better natures, dovetailed with a new - and complacent - optimism that the Democrats would regain the White House in 2008 all but inevitably. It's as if the angry populism from which Bush and the right have long drawn strength has vanished from the scene. And, while Obama has shown his own ability to fight fiercely, he has all along retained the posture of the reluctant warrior. Accordingly, he wins plaudits from an elite that clings to - or has reverted to - an ideal of bloodless political warfare. In contrast, when, last December, Clinton, after being pummeled for a month, announced, "Now the fun part starts" - heralding her plans to strike back - she was trashed for taking pleasure in the fisticuffs. The climate brooks no place for a happy warrior.

None of this is to celebrate the current tenor of the race. Good people on both sides have been needlessly caught in the crossfire. The demand for heads to roll whenever an aide misspeaks has reached a pitch that is dangerous, not for any singular ugliness but for its pettiness. And the press, to its discredit, lets these campaign-generated pseudo-events shape its coverage. But, as noted recently by James Carville - no stranger to political combat - campaigning is training for governing, preparing candidates to "get hit, stand strong, and, if necessary, hit back." Without a certain humility and hesitation about hitting back, neither Clinton nor Obama would be a good liberal. But, without the requisite readiness to do so, neither would be a very good politician either - or, more to the point, a very good president.

On the question of "heart," which of the three candidates would "get hit, stand and, if necessary, hit back?" McCain proved his mettle as a prisoner of war and Hillary proved hers as a beseiged first lady of a President impeached for personal actions highly embarrassing to his wife and child. Obama? For purely political purposes he threw grandma under the bus, abandoned his adopted church family and, finally, after vowing not to do so, disavowed his trusted friend and mentor. If the question of heart entails asking which of these would you "trust behind your back with a weapon," I have to go with either John or Hillary. Which of them I end up supporting will have to be determined by some other criterion. It doesn''t appear that "liberal" or "conservative" will be one of those. Maybe Obama will be the DNP''s nominee and my dilemma will be solved for me.

[jon2012-2009]

I agree this is a well-written piece. The statements made are nuanced to the facts used to marshal them. When compared to Republican trash, I almost marvel at the thought that I''m still reading American English.

[beinformed]

Thanks for a refreshing, clear report on the campaign. I found it even, balanced and intelligent. This vetting process is taking too long, and I am feeling that the media is waiting for Obama to get the nomination to report on the issues of his character. Obama can not run on the platform of change with his history as a politician. He lost my vote when I found out how he was first elected to political office in Ill. He is practically annointed the chosen one, and I have seen little coverage like this anywhere in the news. When it appears, it seems to be ignored.

[xlib]

irlliberal-gee, last I heard the missus was saying she wouldn''t pull the troops out. Maybe that was a speech where she was pandering to a certain group. As for obama, well, he''d be too busy visiting with some dictators in the oval office.
As for mccain, I don''t recall him saying he would bomb, bomb, bomb. Pull that one out of your nether regions, did you??
Me, I don''t like any of them.

[xlib]

Still haven''t seen a word about the madame''s campaign manager and his seat on the board of a bankrupt sub prime mortgage company. And here all along ms clinton was railing against these horrible, horrible people. Funny how c#$p like that doesn''t get covered here and on other msm sites. Too funny.
Let''s see, campaign manager, sub prime mortgage company + ms clinton railing against them all at the same time. TOO, TOO FUNNY

[rafterman1]

===The article on the Clinton Dream Team Was excellent! I would love to see or hear on TV news! Great wow and the truth !===

Yeah, except that half his points aren''t even true or unprovable.

[rich_jdy]

Well written piece!! Lets face it, if Sen Clinton were a man none of the harsh and virulent attacks on her would be said.
Personally, I like the way she keeps hanging in there, fighting and hitting back. Good for her and us because it shows how she would fight for the United States.
Richardson, Leahy, Dodd, Ombama campaign are anti-american because they dont want to hear from the rest of america who they want for president!! Count ALL the votes!!! None of you Obama worshipers had a problem with that in 2000 win Bush stole the election and Floridas votes werent counted and we all howled at the moon over that, why now? Afraid of the results I suspect.

[reddog2113]

Vote4thebest - elegantly said. Insightful and right on. I wonder if some of those mainstream media guys actually understand these dynamics, when they are staring at the ceiling at night? I hope so.

[magnetrack]

I agree with paris1969; the article is one of the best. I also tend to think that vote4thebest nailed it pretty well.

[p-syrus]

It is precisely because of this orchestrated personal smear of Hillary that I will NOT support Obama''s candidacy for president.

Change like this we can do without.

[berthaw51]

The Obama and Clinton platforms are not the same. She represents the old regime, business as usual. The Bush administration and he represents a government that is a republic not a democracy. Our founding fathers wanted that. McCain will institute the draft and all our young will perish. McCain is out of touch with all the issues but the war. The war is about money and power. The initial mission was to get Osama and they are even trying to track him. Remember the war on terror was about 911 and the suspected terriorist leader was Osama. Instead we went to Iraq and seized the oil and the current administration has advanced their personal agenda at the expense of the American public. That is what McCain represents, the same old BS.

[vote4thebest]

The reason why Clinton gets hit hard because of these reasons:

1. Obama''s supporters take their anger out of Clinton for staying in the race because they start seeing bad stuff coming out of Obama such as his refusal to answer key questions regarding Wright''s relationship.

2. The mainstream media continues to give Obama''s a free pass. Example: all networks carried Clinton''s mispeaking while only Fox carried the Wright''s story. When the mainstream was forced to carry the Wright''s story then they only cover the speech and called it ''historic'' even when Obama thew out the big distraction of the Race discussion to avoid answering the real questions.

Because of this bias coverage, Obama is still not vetted which will do the party more harm. Obama is no longer electable due to his belief in anti-white and anti-american but most people don''t know about it because of the mainstream media. The republicans are salivating to bring this up and will win by a huge margin.

[voter6]

The article on the Clinton Dream Team Was excellent! I would love to see or hear on TV news! Great wow and the truth !

[voter6]

I am truly getting so disgusted with this campaign if it was not for Mr. Obama I would not read or watch anything about this election, so sorry that he has to be so very scrutinized by by everyone I really feel that it is being unfair they are just nailing him to a cross, how ruthless and without empathy Hill is I really hope to god not to have to look at her anymore.

[irliberal]

There are three choices for president: Hillary, Obama, McCain.

Hillary and Obama''s platforms are nearly identical and both would end the Iraq war.

McCain quote: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

Vote for Hillary. Vote for Obama. If you want an endless Iraq war and a new Iran war (that makes a war on THREE - count them THREE fronts, folks) then, by all means, vote for McCain.

The rest of this is all hype, distraction, and partisanship. Nothing more need be said.

[dsproull]

CLINTON DREAM TEAM
Just a reminder of the Clinton years:
First first lady to come under criminal investigation
First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a State Court
Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
Most amount of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
First president sued for sexual harassment.
First president accused of rape.
First president to establish a legal defense fund.
First president to be held in contempt of court
Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

[paris1969]

Excellent article ... actually one of the best this week!