Clinton and Obama Should Relax, Recharge and Refocus

The punditocracy and the press corps are simply salivating at the prospect of Democratic primaries lasting into the spring. The stuff of voyeurism is palpable -- insults, cattle futures profits, tax returns, real estate deals. It's politi-porn at its best.

So far, it looks like the candidates are willing to play along, or at least are unable to resist doing so. The allegation by Hillary Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, that Barack Obama is "imitating Ken Starr" is just the sort of crack that whips the "let you and him fight" instinct into a frothing frenzy. Obama adviser Samantha Power's unfortunate "monster" description of Clinton didn't settle anything, but only led to Clinton Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe sending out a fundraising email within moments of Power's subsequent departure.

McAuliffe and the direct-mail team felt the need to remind the recipients that, "Just one day after Senator Obama promised to begin attacking Hillary, a senior Obama advisor has called her a 'monster.' That's right -- a 'monster. At the same time, Senator Obama's aides have begun rehashing the old negative attacks of the 90's against Hillary. This is not the politics of hope -- it's the usual attack style politics that we have seen time and time again." And, BTW, click to contribute because "A contribution now will show the Obama campaign that there is a price to this kind of attack politics."

It's hard for the combatants to tamp down the instinct to attack. In the middle of a campaign, the urge of the candidates and their staffs to go one-on-one with charges and counter charges is hard to resist. On the emotional level, they are in perpetual combat mode. It's hard to have good feelings about a candidate who is spending millions of dollars to defeat your candidate. On the tactical level, they might think that if going negative helps, then going more negative helps more. This campaign has gone on for a long time, and the more tight the race, the more taut the nerves.

I'm not one of those calling for the campaign to stop or even for a forced truce. A little timeout would be nice, so that candidates and their staffs had a little down time to relax, recharge and refocus. The emphasis should be on that last element.

My state's primary has passed and so my vote has been cast. I didn't feel particularly strongly about either Clinton or Obama. (For the record, I supported someone who didn't even run, although it would have been interesting for him to display a Nobel Prize, Oscar and Emmy at campaign appearances.)

The two big developments that have occurred since my state's primary are that there are now two Democrats left standing and that there is now only one Republican. If I were voting now, I'd be looking for the candidate who is the toughest not against the other Democrat, but the toughest against John McCain. Let all that creative invective and aggression from the Clinton and Obama camps be redirected toward the record of the Bush administration and to McCain, where it rightfully belongs.

Imagine Obama and Clinton (and their unruly surrogates) not spending valuable energy slamming each other, but instead competing to keep the McCain and Bush records in the news. Such a scenario might not be as entertaining to the jaded scribes at ringside, but the crowd will be on its feet cheering with joy at the contest, not sighing in anguish.

Comments

[castlerider]

You are absolutely right that we should be keeping the rethugs under pressure for their stupidity and mismanagement of our nation.
There are so many things that need to be said very vociferously right now, keeping these rightwing jerks on the defensive where they belong. OK , here's a real good one:

For instance, the fact we all know and know too well that had Al Gore won, or been allowed to win in 2000 the price of gas would now and still be probably no more then 1.50 at the most !!!!
There's no way it would be more then that, with the fact that Gore would have made automakers give us cars with better MPG, and strongly stressed better and other alternative forms of energy, making OPEC work harder and have to compete more for the business.. Also, he would not be afraid to take the oil companies to task to work with us better, rather then be a president who looks the other way whenever he is asked to!!!!

Why isn't this argument being expressed, over and over and over, until it has become a MANTRA on the daily news???????????

SO WHAT if they say that's impossible to state? SO WHAT if they say you are "full of it????"

This is the way people need to be made to think!! This is what gets there attention!! the CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS THAT PISS EVERYBODY OFF SO BAS WHEN IT AFFECTS THEM!!!

Come on, people... I cant think of anyone better who deserve to be questioned and treated controversially then Bush, Cheney, and all the rethugs, after all they have done to this nation.

[TribunusPlebis]

High-minded calls for unity coming from Mrs. Clinton's supporters, now that they assume she will win Pennsylvania and therefore the nomination, are only thinly veiled attempts to end the contest or to distract us from this reality: The cause of bitter division within Democratic ranks at this point is Hillary Clinton, whose continuing distortions of Senator Obama's record and whose mocking and denigration of his speeches and experience have far exceeded the level of negative politics in any previous race for the Democratic nomination in the modern period. If she is nominated, and if Obama supporters sit on their hands in the fall, it is because they'll have reached the conclusion that someone capable of such destructive campaigning shouldn't be president. If she is nominated after her campaign has hurled invective at Obama at every turn, she will have only herself to blame if the party cannot be unified. So the first precondition of unity is an end to Mrs. Clinton's attacks.

[CitizenK]

Below "pheepher" writes:

"Someone needs to tell Hillary going out and stating McCain brings experience to the race is very shortsight­ed."

-- Did I miss something when Obama on March 4 said: "In the coming weeks, we will begin a great debate about the future of this country with a man who has served it bravely and loves it dearly"?

"Someone needs to tell Hillary that she needs to run a clean campaign rather than attacking her opponent's strong points."

-- Did I miss something only some 72 hours ago about an Obama surrogate flying 3,000 miles to the UK to trash Hillary Clinton? Or when Obama himself on March 4 linked McCain and Clinton as twins opposed to "change"?

"Someone needs to tell Hillary that the American people are voting for Obama because they are so tired of the politics of smear that she has resorted to as of late."

-- Did I miss something about the American people in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island actually voting for, not Obama, but Clinton?

"Someone needs to tell Hillary that not all mothers tell their daughters to play "victim" to advance their careers and to demonstrate that behavior in an attempt to win votes is insulting to women."

-- Do I miss something about twisted, reverse, Jedi-mind-trick misogyny here?

"No one is "picking" on Hillary; however, they just may be showing distain for her deeply flawed character she has never addressed nor sought to eliminate.­"

Did I miss something about the character of Obama in his lying to Ohioans about NAFTA followed by his lie about his surrogate's visit to Canada to assure them that he was only just lying to Ohioans?

To all well-meaning Obama supporters: Please give your candidate the respect you believe he deserves and actually listen to what he says for a change!

CitizenK

[CitizenK]

The Week of the Lady or the Tiger

Brothers and sisters in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island -- thank you. Thank you for proving that Thomas Paine was right about the value of common sense, that Abraham Lincoln was right about the limits of leaders who believe they can fool all of us all the time.

Thank you for showing that big money masquerading as the people's money can't fool you or buy you. For showing that biased big media could not pundit you, momentum you, or infotainment you into accepting their vision for your future.

Thank you for proving that Democrats still hold the value of a lifetime of resilient leadership at a greater worth than flashy trailers for a coming attraction. For believing that you have to earn a people's trust, not merely talk them into giving it.

There could have been no greater contrast between the two choices than the speeches given by the candidates Tuesday night after the results came in. Nothing could have been more revealing about their characters, more predictive of the tenor of their future presidencies. Forgetting his scripted branding as the candidate of unity and reconciliation, Mr. Obama went directly to attack mode, making the shabby and desperate charge that "John McCain and Senator Clinton echo each other in dismissing this [campaign's] call for change."

Brothers and sisters, ask John McCain whether he thinks he and HIllary were separated at birth. Ask McCain whether he thinks Hillary's demanding that the Pentagon plan for an end to the war echoed his courting and counseling Bush to expand it.

Senator Clinton, for her part, showed the kind of grace and true eloquence that this country needs in the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She had not only talked the talk, but walked the walk in having stood up against a chorus of those pressing her to throw in the towel before these primaries, including, of course, the Obama camp. Outspent at least two to one in Ohio, Clinton's perseverance in the face of the momentum machine was an act of faith and hope that unmasks Obama's rhetoric as the cheap jive that it is. As she said of the voters in the upcoming contests, "They want their turn to make history, they want their voices to count. And they should be heard."

Her final words, not given their due in the world of 30-second sound bites were:

"Americans deserve solutions, and they deserve them now. ... I have big dreams for America's future. The question is not whether we can fulfill those dreams, it's whether we will. ... Together we will turn promises into action, words into solutions, and hope into reality...­.Together we will seize this moment, lift this nation, and heal and lead this world."

In my book, that's hope you can really believe in. It is time for change in America alright. It's time for the lady not the tiger. It's time for a woman in the Oval Office not simply because Hillary is one but because she is the one who has earned it -- and as she showed on Tuesday, the one who deserves it. But still, won't that be historic!

Yours in solidarity from New York,
CitizenK

[tea in the harbor]

Send an email to your congress person. Tell them that they have the power to stop this .....woman any time they choose! The super-delegate system works both ways, if the anger and negativity of this campaign continues, it is because they haven't the courage to stop it! Obama needs the support of 100 or so more of them and this thing is over! All the anger and vitriol in the world won't save the anointed one from her rightful fate, and everybody can concentrate on November. Rejection of her tactics would also make Johnny McWarmongers planned campaign look petty and vindictive, forcing him to play a game he doesn't know! I'm not a member of your party, but a move like that might make me overlook the impotent whining of Reid and Pelosi and join!

[S1m0n]

Vote for Hillary - she brought peace to Ireland!

[tea in the harbor]

Very good idea, and maybe we can help. One Mr. Foster has just taken the seat of Denis Hastert, a republican stronghold in Illinois. He did it by following Mr. Obama's philosophy. Perhaps if We the People were good enough to share our feelings that a rapid public endorsement of Sen. Obama could have a like effect on their future,(they are all running), it would fill their super-delegate souls with a yearning to take a stand, and end this unseemly little game!

[LuluDoll]

This is brilliant! I am an Obama supporter and I think this would serve everybody well. They should both act as if they are in the General Election. At this point it seems down to who could win the general. So let them both audition for us. That would build the progressive base we need, highlight the positive side of the candidates and kick the opposition's ass. If they both started campaigning against the Republicans I think it would reassure the voters as to who the right candidate is.

[Rockwell]

You are correct. I'd like to see Hillary and Barrack spend at least half their energy and resources attacking McCain's record and reminding people that McCain is Bush's third term.

For example, we democrats have a golden opportunity to exploit the Boeing contract loss. McCain actively and proudly killed the deal that would have given 44,000 jobs to US employees but instead ships the jobs to France of all places. What about American jobs? What about National Security?

Let's bring American workers back to the Democratic party by reminding them of how loathsome Republicans are to the working class.

Let's bring back the Military supporters by reminding them how brutal the Republicans have been to returning vets.

Lets focus on the real enemies of America - the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al-queda in Pakistan. And lets remind our fellow Americans how Bush, McCain and the Republican party abandoned those fights, left us vulnerable and instead went on an illegal adventure in Iraq for the sake of Big Oil. And how well it's worked because big Oil is richer than ever (Yes, baby Bush, gas is $4 a gallon).

There are arsenals of ammunition we could be launching at McCain the Republicans but instead we fight each other. Lets repoint at least some of those guns at Karl Rove, can't we?

[JWLANDSCAPES]

No matter what I will support our party's nominee. I won't let the media render us apart or
vicious and fanatical idealogues with too much free blog time on their hands discourage me from being a democrat, first and foremost.

[AuntSally]

At this point, Sen. Clinton has pretty much cornered the market on the negative campaigning. I certainly haven't seen it from Sen. Obama's side.

So point taken, though I'm puzzled by the coloring of both candidates with the same brush.

[TribunusPlebis]

While Art Brodsky's suggestion that the two campaigns should relax and recharge is good advice, it's unrealistic to expect that either campaign will wholly set aside its instinct to criticize what it sees as shortcomings in their opponent, nor would it be healthy for our democracy if they did so.

Take the Obama campaign and its supporters. In recent weeks, Mrs. Clinton's behavior has struck them as over the top, distorting the Illinois Senator's record and belittling his eloquence. They see this kind of strategy as a deliberate resort to the negative politics for which elections in America have become notorious, and that this makes solving problems in Washington infinitely more difficult.

If the Obama people believe that Clinton would be an ineffective or even disastrous president, they have a responsibility to make that case. If they do it intemperately (as with Samantha Power's calling Hillary a "monster"), it won't resonate. But there is a rational case to be made about the damage that the Clintons' kind of high-spin, take-no-prisoners politics does to our democracy. For Obama, there is no benefit in a decorous campaign if it avoids important truths, just as there is no benefit to the party in Hillary's contentious campaign if does the same.

Senator Obama says he wants to change our politics. Therefore he's the one who can make the discourse of the campaign into an issue. He could say, for example, that his opponent's campaign is exacerbating rather than healing what plagues our politics. Distracting and dividing the people is how Bush has governed. Is that what we need more of?

Similarly, the Clintons' refusal to release their income tax returns amounts to stonewalling the need for transparency in government. It means they don't want to be easily held accountable for their actions -- and we cannot change politics unless we have leaders who are accountable.

In raising these questions, Obama is asking, in essence: Aren't we all sick of the system in Washington? How much longer do we have to wait, to have a president who believes that too? This is about far more than this campaign, he might say. We presume to preach democracy to everyone else in the world, while refusing to make it rational and honest in America. We say we are patriotic, but patriotism means insisting that we have the kind of government that's worth our patriotism.

That's the kind of dust-up we ought to have in this campaign.

[IamaGApeach]

In this "silly-season" (isn't that what Barry called it?) I'm trying to focus on the record-breaking participation in this nomination process. Isn't it great that every state has relevance? It would be nice though for our two outstanding nominees to campaign against our nation's problems, not against each other. Oh F@#% it. I need a break. I already voted. I'm not paying attention anymore.

[vanessa04]

Once again, the rare blog post on HuffPo calls for sanity and reason. The result?

A sprinkling of responses from posters of undeclared affiliation thanking the author, and agreeing that a unified effort is critical to taking back the White House.

And a tsunami of declared Obama-supporting posters mocking and deriding the author and reviling his concept.

So it goes. It was a good idea, Art. And a nice try.

[Seattlelite]

What rubbish not to mention insulting - to suggest that Sen. Obama is running his campaign like Hillary is running hers. Sen. Obama has not resorted to the old dirty tricks campaigning the Clinton's are SO accustom to. So sell crazy somewhere else I'm not buying it. If you're looking for integrity in a candidate Hillary would certainly not be a choice.