Hillary Supporters, Don't Her Tactics At All Disturb You?

Look, Hillary Clinton is my senator, meaning not only that I live in New York, but that I voted for her twice.

Edwards was my first choice for president and would still be if he were in the race. I now support Obama, not without wariness. But with commitment. And I'll sure try to stay engaged and watchful if he becomes president.

That said, I say this: Hillary's campaign tactics over the part few weeks have been shocking. I mean, scandalous. I mean, crossing some destructive Rovian threshold.

I know admirable people who are Hillary supporters. I just can't help wondering:

How can the recent tactics by HRC and some of her affiliates--the McCain and me stuff, the I-don't-think-he's-a-Muslim stuff, the Geraldine Ferraro stuff--not give her supporters profound second thoughts?

Or am I missing how this thing works? That essentially it's Mel Brooks' profound theory of the difference between comedy and tragedy, transferred to politics: If my candidate does something lowdown, it's a teensy mote in a grand and good eye. Whereas when your candidate does it, it's a godallmighty log--an ocular rotten redwood.

But surely, don't Hillary supporters not feel awful uneasy at what I've mentioned above? I've encountered a number of people over the last few days who've told me that they were still pretty undecided between Hillary and Obama--until now, when they regard her in horror.

If you're for Hillary, I'm puzzled how you reconcile these tactics of hers. Is it that she's been misunderstood? Is it that Obama has somehow done similar things too, eg, his stupid remark about Reagan's optimism? But surely these aren't equivalent?

Is this all just Hillary "playing hardball"? But there is hardball--and then there is Rovism. You don't think Hillary is getting awfully near Rovism?

Seriously, I'd like to know. Because I don't understand.

Appreciations to Uber.com, where this post appears in my blog Brain Flakes.

Also at.SmirkingChimp.com

Comments

[Emmaboverry]

Whatever you think of her, she's been very gracious with the press. For instance, I came across this nice thank you note from her and McCain:

Dear Media:

Thank you for your part in creating PASTOR-gate. Our fight against
the insurgent forces of Obama and his ranting Pastor will not be easy.
But with your help, we can do it.

The Clinton-McCain Campaign

[JXB]

A sense of entitlement may explain it, and this applies to Clinton herself in addition to some of her supporters. Those that came to the nomination process genuinely feeling that Clinton's nomination was inevitable or that she was entitled to the nomination seem to have a harder time perceiving her campaign's recent tactics, especially the McCain-is-more-qualified-than-Obama and the 3 a.m. fear-mongering stuff, as well over the line and bad for the Party as a whole whichever candidate becomes the nominee. They are angry that she has been beaten by a much better run campaign and much more inspiring candidate (who they think should wait his turn), and this anger and arrogant indignation clouds an objective assessment of the tactics used and helps justify those tactics because they are helping Clinton (they are actually hurting her substantially in the long run, especially if she ever got to the general because they rely on themes that will lock her into the type of fight that McCain will dominate -- experience, who's better equipped to "protect" Americans and their sleeping children, who will kill and capture the terrorists better, etc.). But these tactics really are very objectionable, almost certainly won't change the outcome, and are harmful to the Democratic Party, and they would be just as objectionable if the Obama campaign employed them.

It does not take a whole lot of objectivity to see that the Clinton campaign felt it was losing so badly through February (some would say lost) and became so desparate to reverse Obama's momentum that it traded away long-term viability and collective Party interests for any immediate short-term gain it could get over Obama, even if that short-term gain came by way of tearing Obama down and violating, in possibly unprecedented fashion, the sacrosanct unwritten rule of primary Party decorum that one does not compare the other Party's nominee as more qualified than your Party opponent (even more so if your Party opponent is the frontrunner and likely nominee). But anger, arrogance, and an establishment sense of entitlement obscures much.

[jackstpaul]

Yes, I'm disturbed, to the point that the decisive issue for me in deciding between Obama and Clinton was her scorched-earth, the ends-justifies-the means, sleazy campaign.

Hillary doesn't belong to the Democratic Party; she belongs to the Clinton/Hillary Party. What matters in the end to her & co. is that she wins, not that the Dems win. Hence, her willingness to abandon decency and become sleazy.

As far as Obama "attacks" go, he's being roundly criticized--as he has been--from supporters and some critics, and media alike, that he hasn't demonstrated that he's tough enough by returning Clinton's fire with fire. He's been restrained. What has Obama himself said so negative about Hillary? She's said plenty herself, worst of all that he's not qualified to be Comm-in-Chief (though paradoxically qualified to be VP)--while her surrogates--very major surrogates--have made sleazy comments, too. Some Obama surrogates have made belwo-the-belt comments, but they haven't been central figures in RUNNING the campaign (as Penn, Shaheen, Wolfeson are/were0. Powers comment was belwo-the-belt only in the use of one word, "monster," her thought wasn't belwo-the-belt. That hardly compares to the racist thoughts and other sleazy comments of Clinton et al.

I think some have made more of the race issue in ostensible criticism of Obama--the MLK thing--in certain instances (not the Ferraro comments, though--def. racist) but I haven't seen Obama adn co. do it. It's been outsiders.

Hillary is making McCain's case against Obama. Self-defeating, also against herself. Imagine McCain"s ad: It's 3 am, who do you want answering the phone, me with my 25 year military career, and 28 years in Congress, or Hillary Clinton with her experience as lawyer, children's advocate, and 8 years in the Senate?

She"s breaking her word left and right. Will she do so with the UN, EU, NATO, Russia, Chinese, WTO, IMF and anyone she deems a barrier to her immediate personal short-term interest?

She"s a Republican in method, displaying a Bush/Cheney arrogance of "'I'll do whatever to get what I want."

Hillary, you're behind, and you'll lose. Don't ruin it for Dems and Obama. It's not whether you win or lose. All of your advocacy on behalf of children is being eviscerated everyday with the sleazy moral lesson you're teaching"break promises, do whatever it takes, etc.--them about how to conduct themselves in life.

[Rule Of Law]

"...she belongs to the Clinton/Hillary Party. "

Yes, we would always wonder where her loyalties lay, after herself, of course.

[eridees]

The reason they can and will continue to support her is for the very same reason Obama supporters believe in his message of hope. Unfortunately her message appeals to the dark side of people who have for many years felt that they have been unfairly punished for being "white". That is why although she may not have been responsible for Ferraro's remarks, she knows she will benefit from it. Therefore trying to appeal to their common sense is a losing battle. They want to believe as much as they accuse Obama supporter so doing the same. This country is at a crossroads and the fallout will either be one of further division or of unity. It is up to each individual to decide what side of history the wish to be on.

[carpediva]

thank you so much for this post.
i'd like to request my fellow Obama supporters refrain from answering "for" Clinton supporters with snark... in the hope that a non-hostile environment might encourage some of them to actually answer this question.
like mr. yourgrau, i truly don't understand their continued support, so if someone is willing to venture a genuine explanation, i would be sincerely interested in hearing it.

[OwenScottIII]

I'm with you, carpediva. (How do people on Huffpo come up with such great names?) The open and honest dialog on race and gender is long overdue.

[lvdragonlady]

Considering that it looks like she is willing to 'sell her soul' just because she THINKS she should be president. As far as I can tell, her mindset is very much like the shrub we now have in office and personally I really do not want to got through 4/8 more years of a president who has his/her own agenda and does not give a damn about this country or the people in it.

[BionicWoman]

No, her tactics do not bother me because at the end of the day she is the only woman who could squeeze through the tactics of all the men - over all the years - that held women back. That is what it took to get here. It is very easy to forget what a sexist world this is.

Until 10 years ago - a woman applying for a job (no matter what kind) would be asked how many words a minute she could type. The only women who got ahead used sex. Most of us could never get a break and life was so hard that it was all we could do to say "yes sir" to hang on to our measily paychecks. Pay for women is still not equivalent to men - by the way.

It is women like Hillary that made enough headway to offer younger women a few opportunities. I am a secretary in a law firm and I can tell you that only in the past 5 years (with very few exceptions) have I seen young women attorneys. This is in New York. It is still bad in the rest of the country.

And as for Hillary's work at Walmart - how dare anyone judge her by today's standards? Just getting there was a monumental achievement. No man would let us really accomplish anything then. She couldn't have done any better. They would have fired her. As it is, she was just the token girl on the Board - and she probably endured insults and humiliation. But she got there.

Watching Hillary, I see other women stand a little straighter. This makes us all feel better though we are very angry about the way she has been treated by the media. It is as if they are beating her down. Whether on not you think this is legitimate, it is affecting many of us women. We aren't judging her the way you are. The success at all cost is more important because men have made every success so difficult to attain that when we achieve, there is no turning back. That is more important than anything else. We understand this better than the younger women.

[JAJ2007]

Wow - pretty scathing...

I'm a woman and I've been in the job market for over 20 years - no one has EVER asked me how many words a minute I can type. While some women have gotten ahead with sex - it never seems to last for long, and everyone around them knows it - and disrespects them. The women who get ahead on their own seem to stay ahead - and get a huge amount of respect.

25 years ago, I worked for my father's DC area law firm as a "gopher" (these were the days before fax and email, when everything had to be delivered by hand). There were several young women attorneys in his firm then. Yes - the majority were men, but there were a substantial number of women too. I believe that today most law schools are now graduating an equal number of women and men. Perhaps the firm you work for (where they still call you a "secretary" instead of an "administrative assistant" or simply "assistant") is very conservative?

I don't see Hillary as some great feminist icon - she got where she was because she was married to a President. She was asked to be on the board at Wal-Mart because her husband was the Attorney General and then Governor of Arkansas (where Wal-Mart is based.) (Hillary Smith would never have been asked to be on that board.)

Granted, she has personal ambition too, which is why she pursued elective office when it was offered to her. Good for her. However, her tepid legislative record, poor judgment in advisors, and inept management of her own campaign disqualify her for the Presidency.

This is one woman (in her 40's) who does not stand straighter when I see Hillary. I am disgusted by her behavior. If she had run an above-board campaign, she would not have been attacked by the media.

I want a woman president - I just don't want this woman. Give me one who has gotten there on her own. Give me Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Christine Gregoire, Patty Murray, Claire McCaskill, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen(?) Sebelius, or any of the other worthy women who've made their own way. (I'd say Granholm too, except she was born in Canada) Give me someone who can tell me why I should vote for her, instead of tearing down the other guy. Give me someone who doesn't ask me to vote for her because she's a woman, but because she is the best candidate, with the best plans and policies.

[Rule Of Law]

JAJ, right on. If Anyone had asked my wife how many words she could type she would have shoved her Phd up his butt and tamped it down with her slide rule! Other countries have had top notch women leaders---let's nominate one like those.

[JXB]

Thank you for these thoughts. You are absolutely right that there is a history of sexism in this country, and that sexism still exists today, just as there has been and still is racism. And no doubt Clinton had to endure and overcome special challenges not faced by men, just as Obama undoubtedly had to face and overcome challenges that people with two white parents do not. But neither Clinton's gender nor the past/present existence of sexism justifies fear-mongering and other negative campaign tactics that tear her opponent down, promote the Republican candidate over her opponent, and divide and harm the Democratic Party. These tactics would be just as out of bounds for the Obama campaign, or the campaign of any Democratic male candidate, to employ.

[Rule Of Law]

My wife and many of her friends ARE judging her just that way. Their ethics are not for sale, and they believe that our President's ethics should not be either!

[OwenScottIII]

I was trying to reply to Bionic Woman and the comment went "poof." Take two- BW, your comment is the best affirmative rationale for supporting Sen. Clinton I've seen to date. It doesn't even mention Sen. Obama, much less trash him. I notice JAJ2007 saw her experiences differently but that doesn't mean yours aren't valid. I plan to refer other BHO friends to your comment so they may learn from it. Let's keep a constructive exchange of ideas going and best wishes to you and your candidate. I'll continue to try to keep my pals in line. Yours truly, Owen

[lisakaz]

I've asked myself this question a lot. All I hear are parrotting the same invective that disguises itself as "debate" or some sort of rationale. And yet we've seen this all before from Rove and his Rethug attack squad. I don't get the holier-than-thou view where HRC's supporters don't see that THEY"RE DOING THE SAME THING. What -- it's only wrong if Bu$hitters do it? I thought it was just plain wrong?

And worse is that they're not doing it to take down the Bu$hitters but doing it against a rival w/i their own party. Anything to win!? Isn't that THE PROBLEM with our politics???

[Mollye]

What tactics? This is just a biased attack. Women are still held to different standards than men. Did it ever occur to you that Obama "seemingly" plays so nice (oh, Hillary's just down, she's having a bad day..that's nice?) because he doesn't want to draw negative attention to himself? Heaven forbid we ask questions about the radical minister he has been so close to for years. I have never seen such rude people as the Obama supporters. I have read threats of violence on the streets of Colorado made by people on this blog. I have seen threats of violence in Virginia, uttered by Doug Wilder on television. So Barry Yourgrau, do us all a favor, and really, really conduct an indepth study of Barack Obama and get back to us with some facts that will show why he would be a good President.

[OwenScottIII]

Thanks for these insights. It's difficult to see ones chosen candidate from the other side's perspective. Sen. Obama has been described by some supporters of Sen. Clinton as "passive-aggressive." He does need to be able to withstand close scrutiny and demonstrate that he can handle it. Perhaps you saw Anderson Cooper interview BHO about Rev. Wright and other MSM coverage today that has been taking an aggressive look at the pastor and Sen. Obama's 20 years of church attendance. The discussion of race and gender going on via the blogs is a much needed dose of honesty and passion. I hope both sides are open to making it respectful and constructive exchange of information and ideas. All the best, OS

[nazgul]

Contact Hillary Clinton at www.hillaryclinton.com and the DNC at www.democrats.org and remind them that:

- Hillary agreed not to "campaign or participate" in MI and FL
- Hillary did not object to the rules up front
- Hillary admitted that the votes would not count on Super Tuesday
- Hillary's current claim that the votes in MI and FL were fair, legal and should be counted is outrageous, because they weren't and her shallow motive is clear based on her previous actions and remarks.
- re-votes would drain precious contribution dollars from the general election, (much like her destrucitve, futile) campaign.
- in order to uphold the rules, the MI and FL primaries cannot count.
- as a compromise, in order to seat delegates, they should be split 50-50
- revotes would drain precious contributions needed for the general election
- revotes would be incredibly expensive relative the number of delegages that might go to one candidate or the other (if OH and TX are any indication, $2-$3 million dollars each)
- Hillary, the state representatives who ignored the rules and the voters should be happy to have their delegates seated at all, based on the fact that the rules were well known.
- Hillary should be thankful she isn't fined for campaigning.

[cuthbertallgood]

I have big issues with the tactics of both candidates. The gay baiting religous pandering on Obama's side last fall was a Rovian as it gets. And it was volly number one. Selective vision about the candidates on this issue always seems to be either from a lack of information, a lack of honesty, or a tacit agreement that gay people are fair game and religious pandering is a great tactic for our Party to take up. Sorry, both of the remaining candidates will only get my vote against McCain. I don't really support either of them but I do oppose McCain. Like always, no Democrat to vote for, but it is easy to vote against the Republican.
But acting as if one side is clean in this contest is indicitive of something, or some things. It sure is not an indication of clear and honest thought. The two most vicious Democratic candidates I have ever seen, and I remember back to 68.

[hopeless277]

It's easy to understand. Her supporters are Republicans. Republicans are crossing over the asile to vote for Hillary in primaries so that she will be the nominee. See? How hard was that to figure out?

[BusGreg]

It wasn't hard to figure out at all, all one had to do is look closely at the exit polls and then listen to the talkingheads. I live in NC and it is hard to describe the outright hatred for Hillary. I've heard a good dozen people in my small group of acquaintances and friends say that they will only vote for "Grandpa Munster" if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. We have not had our Primary here, where unaffiliated voters can vote for either party.
As for myself, I liked Edwards. His healthcare plan as well as his desire to bring the troops home were sincere, but he couldn't get the votes. I'll vote for Obama where I see hope for change. Unfortunately Hillary has proven that she believes in change too. What happened to 1993 Hillary? I liked her ideas then, but today she seems to be just about where the republicans were in 93.

[MzTexas]

Really???? It's worked so well, hasn't it? Last time I checked it is OBAMA who is leading in the delegate count. You need to read the Village Voice article from March 11 by Wayne Barrett. In Texas, 9% of Obama's vote was Republican. Obama, not Clinton, is the candidate of choice for the RNC. His record and personal history has been off limits to the media for fear of the charge of "racism." Rove and the RNC don't care . . . the black vote isn't as vital to their campaign. Clinton's history has been hashed and rehashed for years . . . nothing new to see. Obama, on the other hand, is fertile ground for the Slime-master and his gang of goons. You'd better hope that the media jumps off of the Obama is Pristine bandwagon and starts scrutinizing him NOW . . . otherwise, we've got a guaranteed McCain victory in November . . . that would be the ultimate nightmare.

[MzTexas]

As I've said on this site, I'm an independent voter who doesn't support any of the media-created candidates . . . they all leave a lot to be desired, but I think some clarification is necessary. Are you talking about Ms. Clinton's ACTUAL tactics or are you talking about the media's VERSION of her tactics. There's a big difference.

All I can say is that the media's handling of the Democratic campaign is guaranteeing a McCain presidency. I don't think our country can survive that reality. So, I'm thinking that the Democrats need to get their stuff together and tell the media to SHUT UP!

[trevor01]

I know what you're referring to when you talk about Hillary's campaign. If you take the time to read the lead article in the current issue of The Village Voice you will discover where this spin is coming from and what it is hoping to accomplish. From the beginning of this campaign Democrats have been parroting right wing ideologues and doing the heavy lifting in this effort to trash both Hillary and Obama. Hillary is a decent, hardworking and scrupulously ethical politician. She has amazing talents but even she can't stop this character assassination without a little help from Democrats on both sides of divide.

[charlietuna11]

you've got it right. i support obama.,but if hillary recd. the nomination i would not only vote for her but campaign on her behalf..after the past few weeks,, i can tell you that under no circumstances could i ever vote for her..if she is the nominee, i will vote for mccain,,a man i feel is delusionl and to often off his medications.. i to have twice voted for her as my senator..she will never fool me again