How Does This Help Democrats Win?

Every time I think I might lean toward endorsing one or the other of the candidates things pop up that push me away again. I used to say I liked all of the candidates running for the nomination. Now I'm wondering about that.

And it isn't just the candidates, it's the stuff the people around them are doing. The people a candidate puts into leadership positions says a lot about how that person would run an administration.

My main concern in the primaries is winning in November. I can't support taking self-interest over the interests of the party in November. When you run a scorched-earth primary campaign you reduce the chances of keeping people motivated. You also give tremendous ammunition to the opposition. In California we had a scorched-earth primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for Governor between Westly and Angeledes. Then, during the general election all Schwarzenegger had to do was run ads with the same scripts that Westly had used and coast to victory. The result is that now we have a huge budget deficit and the school budget is going to be cut 10%. And the health budget. And everything else. Thanks guys.

The same thing is happening now between Obama and Clinton.

Hillary says John McCain is qualified to be President but Obama is not. How does that help Democrats win?

Then a top Obama aide calls Hillary a "monster." How does that help Democrats win?

I have said this before: the candidate I want has the instinct to jump in and defend other progressives.

Now with that in mind, I want to address one particular meme that is circulating. Obama supporters accuse the Clinton campaign of "using race." I am so sick of this divisive, false accusation. It is not true and it divides Democrats. It is destructive to all of us. The same COULD be said of the Obama campaign and misogyny, by the way, if you applied the same standards -- someone loosely associated with the campaign saying something that COULD be interpreted as such-and-such. At least, if you consider the word "bitch" and associated characterizations as misogynist. I haven't seen the "N" word used anywhere, but I HAVE seen the "B" word used.

People being stupid and saying stupid things is NOT a campaign strategy. People who support a candidate are not "the campaign." And everyone knows that racism and misogyny are not going to win over the base in Democratic primaries. The accusation that this is a Democratic primary campaign strategy for either campaign is ridiculous.

We are all in this together. There is really no substantive difference between Obama's and Clinton's policies. They are both solid progressives and either would be a great president. OUR goal must be to get the conservative movement that wants to rule, not govern out of the White House and Congress. They really want to have a one party system with no oversight, no checks and no balances. That is as dangerous as any of their policies. What we need to focus on is getting them out and restoring our traditions of democracy.

Click to continue.

Update In a post at my own site, Seeing the Forest, I also talked about the nasty, threatening and intimidating blog comments that almost all seem to come from Obama supporters. We are seeing that reflected here, too. I wonder how many might actually be Republicans trying to divide us?

Update I guess the comments here make my point. I write a post criticizing Hillary and Obama, and am deluged with comments saying I support Hillary. What has happened to people's brains?

Comments

[LizM]

"What has happened to peoples' brains?", you ask.

WHAT?, indeed.

All of this craziness surrounding the pedestrian campaigns of Clinton and Obama...and I would have to include the campaign of the candidate you were "glad" to vote for...tell many observers of the Democratic presidential nominating process that competence, ability and personal integrity have been tossed by the wayside by the electorate, in all of their infinite wisdom. That was made crystal clear by the time the last Iowa caucus wrapped up.

And, as for being ready to assume the office of President and Commander-in-chief on "day one"...it is quite apparent, to this observer, that the electorate/media/blogosphere do not find this to be an important consideration, or a factor at all, in their deliberations.

When the next President is sworn in, we will know two things...(1) the people get the leaders they deserve, as much as it pains me to say that; (2) the next POTUS will NOT understand the first thing about what will be required to end the civil war in Iraq in a responsible manner that would see the US promoting and facilitating (NOT imposing or dictating) a sustainable political settlement (NOT partition) among the warring Iraqi factions. And if this issue is not the most critical challenge facing the US - from both a foreign and domestic policy perspective, then I am sure I don't know what is.

[FogCityJohn]

Mr. Johnson,

Much of your comment is well reasoned, but I must disagree with you on the issue of "using race." Race has certainly been used against Obama in at least one instance in this campaign -- the attempts by Hillary Clinton (and Tim Russert) to link Obama to Louis Farrakhan. Russert asked Obama about certain of Farrakhan's statements that indicated support of Obama. Russert and Hillary Clinton then suggested that because Farrakhan had said some positive things about Obama, Obama was somehow responsible for Farrakhan's anti-Semitic views. Why would this be so? There's no evidence at all that Obama agrees with Farrakhan (indeed, the evidence is to the contrary) or that Senator Obama sought Farrakhan's support. Yet, as with Russert's earlier questions to Obama about Harry Belafonte's views, Russert and Clinton sought to imply that make Obama is responsible for Farrakhan's opinions. In contrast, both Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have recently voiced support for Hillary Clinton, but no one is suggesting that Hillary is under some obligation to affirmatively reject Coulter's and Limbaugh's views.

Although this isn't exactly the kind of in-your-face, "n word" racism that's (thankfully) no longer tolerated in public discourse, it's a form of racism nonetheless. Obama, a black man, is deprived of his individuality and somehow becomes "responsible" for the views of all other black men, even when they have nothing to do with him. Hillary Clinton is quite properly not held to account for the views of all white people or all white women. The rule SHOULD be no different for Barack Obama, but as we have seen, it is. And Clinton tried to use that against Obama. In so doing, she's using race because she's trying to hold Obama to a standard that would never, ever be applied to white candidates like her. You can disagree about the importance of this incident, but I don't think that one can credibly argue that it is not a form of racism.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually, it appears Hillary IS responsible for every comment by anyone supporting her. They are all called "surrogates."

Hillary should have done a lot more to defend Obama in the Farrakhan thing. As I have said, I will support the candidate with an instinct to defend progressives.

[FogCityJohn]

One might perhaps reasonably hold a candidate responsible for the words or actions of a "surrogate," IF that surrogate is somehow connected to the candidate's campaign. What is objectionable is trying to make Obama responsible for anything that any black person has ever said. Barack Obama should be judged on his own views and actions, not on those of people with whom he has no connection but who just happen also to be black. To the extent that Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton are trying to pin Farrakhan's views on Obama, what they are doing is a form of racism. The idea that all black people think alike has no more validity than the idea that all black people look alike.

[LizM]

How will the defense of progressives help in any way to bring the self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence to an end in Iraq and allow US forces to withdraw without leaving a failed state behind?

In other words, is there a candidate who has the instincts to fully understand what will be required to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement in Iraq or, at the very least, develop a viable containment strategy and prevent a regional conflagration?

[elmundo6]

This is an interesting discussion. At the outset, I will admit I am an Obama supporter. However, I am concerned that the intra-party divisiveness will hurt our chances in November.

I will add to the discussion only that Bill Clinton (whom I like, by the way) was not only appealing to some white voters when he made the comparison between Obama and Jesse Jackson. Many blacks were initially extremely hesitant in voting for Obama because they did not want to waste their vote. It was only after Obama began winning that blacks began to support him in large numbers. I don't think I'm off base about that.

I also don't see how you can compare the "monster" comment by an Obama aide to Clinton's comments regarding Obama's qualifications. I think that was an error and maybe one that Clinton has come to regret. It is very tricky to tear your opponent apart on the issues without giving the other side ammunition, but somehow Obama and Clinton must find a way to do so, and right now, in my opinion, Clinton is not doing a good job at that. I think she is not putting the party first by making these types of comments about a Democratic rival.

It seems that she is putting it out there that she might want to run with Obama on a Clinton-Obama ticket. I don't see how she can seriously suggest a ticket with a VP who is not qualified to lead. Makes no sense to me.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

That is such a good point and shows the harm that is done when you don't defend fellow progressives.

[Thankyouforsayingthat]

The Clinton camp is actively undermining Obama's credentials on the Iraq War. When a Clinton surrogate says "he won't be able to milk the cow." I am deeply disappointed. Why would a democrat take away the other democrat's ability to fight the republicans on the war issue?

Obama fiercely attacks Clinton on her vote for Iraq war, but he attacks her from the left, while McCain is firmly positioned to the far right. Should Clinton win the nomination, she will face McCain who also voted for the war, and the vote becomes a non-issue. She can still fight with McCain on the issue of whether we should continue the war, and for how long.

Clinton attacks Obama from the right, claiming that he does not really want to withdraw our troops. Effectively neutralizing Obama's ability to fight McCain on this issue should he win the nomination.

When Obama attacks Clnton, his theme has consistently been: either Clinton is like McCain, or while Clinton is bad on this, McCain is way worse.

Clinton's new line of attack smacks something that baffles me. They state that Obama is terrible, unfit, not ready, while McCain clearly is great, fit and ready on day one. While how this line of attack boosts Clinton's chances in the GE is not clear, it clearly hurts Obama's chances in the GE. More importantly, it might help the Clinton's chances in the primary so far. And I would argue that is incredibly short-sighted and destructive to the party.

[GoreyFantod]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-bucks-the-trend-and-rakes-in-cash-from-the-us-weapons-industry-397281.html

Senator Clinton accepted more defense industry donations in 2007 than any other presidential candidate, including John McCain. All major Presidential contenders are wedded to the military/industrial complex to some extent, but Senator's Clinton's obligations are deeper and more extensive. Her fealty to the political status quo is part & parcel of her allegiance to the DLC and its craven conservative philosophy.

I don't claim to know whether Senator Obama will defy his corporate paymasters & live up to his promise to end the war, but I do know this: we will not end the war by electing a DLC Democrat.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

An industry is not allowed to donate to campaigns. You mean she received campaign contributions from people who work in the industry. Everyone "accepts" every donation they get, y the way.

I suppose you think that Obama is going to do anything to cut military spending and take apart the military-industrial complex? he won't even go up against the health insurance industry.

[Thankyouforsayingthat]

To be more specific, You say in your post that both sides should be nice, only to turn around and say,
"Except that Obama's supporters are particularly nasty!" I'd ask you, too. How does that help?

What would be more helpful, would be calling for speedy resolution.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

I sais I want a candidate with an instinct to defend progressives. All you have to do is read the comments here to see that many Obama supporters have the opposite instinct.

[Thankyouforsayingthat]

We all remember watching a moving where 2 guys are in a fist fight. Suppose that we are not particularly rooting for one or the other, and just want the best man to win. All of a sudden, one of them pulls out a knife, and started blindly waving the knife around, trying to scare off the unarmed guy. Before I realize it, my shoulders are raised in a nervous posture, my head twisting to the side with eyes closed, and I couldn't watch it, and I cry out in a rush of emotion: "that guy plays dirty!!"

I believe that is what happened with a lot of Obama supporters who believe that Clinton is not playing fair. They are angry and are appalled by the tactics used by the Clinton on Obama who is either unable or unwilling to hit back. Do they let their emotion run away when they come to Obama's defense, probably. Is it helpful, probably not, but it is understandable.

Furthermore, I find that the argument that the nasty comments only come from Obama's supporters simply not true. Both sides of emotions run high, really. I hear plenty of "women who don't vote for Hillary should be ashamed of themselves" coming from other women, too.

No, this does not help the democrats, I whole-heartedly agree. However, your post does not offer concrete solutions, either.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

From the campaigns themselves I see both campaigns acting badly, harming Democrats generally.

But I see Obama supporters attacking progressives. The Clinton supporters have largely been driven away from commenting by the intimidation.

You wrote "I hear plenty of "women who don't vote for Hillary should be ashamed of themselves" coming from other women, too."

I agree with that. I think people should not decide on who they support based on gender or race identity. But I didn't say that the nasty comments ONLY come from Obama supproters. I said the vast bulk of them do, and this is the case today because the extent of it has driven most others away fro engaging in the conversation at all.

Do you think I feel like I will bother to post again, after the deluge of nasty comments that followed my post here? I criticized BOTH campaigns, but the response is entirely one-sided, attacking me, a fellow progressive, all from Obama supporters. 100%. This is happening across the blogosphere.

[moda31]

"Obama supporters accuse the Clinton campaign of "using race." I am so sick of this divisive, false accusation. It is not true and it divides Democrats. It is destructive to all of us. The same COULD be said of the Obama campaign and misogyny, by the way, if you applied the same standards -- someone loosely associated with the campaign saying something that COULD be interpreted as such-and-such."
so now bill clinton is LOOSELY associated with the campaign? yeah okay.

[andhakari]

"Update I guess the comments here make my point. I write a post criticizing Hillary and Obama, and am deluged with comments saying I support Hillary. What has happened to people's brains?"

Well, gee wilikers fella, if you equate Hillary's studied and repeated knock-down of a felow democrat via her McCain endorsement with an Obama workers off-hand comment of Hillary the monster, I guess people are going to think you must be a Hillary supporter. What has happened to your brain that you might think you can fool people into thinking Obama is as low as Clinton? Do you think we're a bunch of troll Republicans, ready to jump at every spin-doctored snipe: "he's not a muslim, as far as I know" ... what garbage.

[craziescrazies]

Re: Your updates.

Want to know the reason? Your post was clearly biased toward Hillary. There are many other things she has said that you didn't mention, things she has said DIRECTLY and PERSONALLY, and some things coming from her aides. Obama's negative comments have all come from advisors.

Yes, absolutely both sides have thrown too much trash around, but the majority of the "earth-scorching" has come from the Clinton camp, and the bias of your post makes it seem the other way around. Your updates serve only to draw attention to your pro-Hillary bias, however slight it might be.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

I guess I understand now why Hillary is ahead in the popular vote in the primaries. Messages like these have people reacting negatively to her supporters. I would have assumed people would have been turning to Obama, but she remains ahead.

[andhakari]

Wow, since when is Mrs clinton ahead in the popular vote? Even when you include the Michigan mess and all the repubs who voted for her in Texas just to cause trouble, she's still behind. Repeating a lie to fool people into thinking it might be the truth is a tactic the Bush administration used to fool "experienced" Hillary into supporting the Iraq war. Now Hillary and company think they can use it to get Bush's job -- and be just like George, apparently.

[ljsfolly]

As I have seen much of either for/againest Hillary or for/againest Barack brings to mind what we have not really learned yet, that who is posting is actually for/againest who. Is it a republican pretending to be a democrat or democrat actually for one posting againest the other one? There seems to be a lot of people ranting about one candidate that might not be againest that one at all just trying to manipulate you or me. The constant I know is only what I know and I believe for myself. I was involved in politics and I hated what the Clintons did to the country while in office. Hillary the "wronged wife" all the time knowing he had done what he did in a repeated behavior of long standing. His feeling he could point his finger at me on tv and lie to me. It was never about the sex but about the lying openly to me a United States citizen. After Bill left office he became a multimillionare using his clout and face to support some scary people. I hold it againest Hillary for choosing not to read the NIE report on Iraq. Sen Graham decided againest the war because of that report he read. The NIE report kept us from war in Iran when Bush had already decided he was going to do it. Kyle Lieberman and the Glee Hillary had when she voted for the war and the many times she has supported obvious Republican bills to further them not us. Barack worked behind the scenes to try to get an agreement in Kenya while running for office this time. He worked on and voted for so many positive things while in state senate and in the US Congress Senate and this isn't what is looked at. I pay attention to such things as I have mentioned and they are from multiple sources so I am a supporter of Barack and never Hillary. The war In Iraq has cost us our standing in the world, the respect of others all over the world but the things I care about the most is the many lives lost in Iraq and our own soldiers and those who have supported us there. Our economy is another casuality of the war as is the giant losses of the dot coms and it will take some time to fix but not with big business running things like it is now. Hillary is in bed with the same people as Bush has been. I want hope. I need hope and belief in a future not more division which the Clintons have always loved to make a part of them.

[syllepsis]

The comments on this thread, by Mr. Johnson and some others, that Hillary is a "progressive" are extremely amusing.
Yes, I suppose voting in 2002 to give Bush his war, and then last year providing him with a pretext in Kyl-Lieberman for another one, are "progressive" acts.
Her notion too that Obama lacks the experience which both she and McCain have- in endorsing preemptive wars, and handing the President blank checks to wage them- is truly "progressive."
She will help us progress into the Dark Ages.

[pmag88]

Interesting point that republicans would be posting here to try and divide the party. I'd say that this may in part be true, but it is more likely that people are just so desperate for change that they have turned their fear into rage and directed it at Clinton. They are so afraid of losing what they see as maybe the last best chance for change that Clinton has become a monster for doing what basically any politician in her position would do. It's just sad.

[realistxxx]

It would have helped the Democrats win if Hillary had bowed out gracefully after losing a gazillion straight and then WI.

Instead she went with the scorched earth campaign alla Karl Rove. Of course, this worked and then she became the Comeback KId part Deux (I just threw up in my mouth).

If she had actually been able to knock off this lightweight upstart in the nomination process I would have supported her fully. Now, not a chance. I do like my big-a$$ Bush tax cut and both Obama and HRC will raise the taxes of those of us making over $200K. So, hey, it's all good.

Therefore, if the HRC base (elderly,

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

By that logic it also would have helped the Democrats if Obama bowed out. Hillary has more votes, Obama has more delegates.

If you want to talk about scorched earth tactics, what about the Obama supporters who attack other Democrats and progressives for not supporting Obama?

I'm just pointing out the incredible double standard that Obama supporters play by.

And Obama is no lightweight. Not at all. He hold the promise of a sweeping transformation -- if only he had the instinct to support fellow progressives.

[Manx]

While I agree with the gist of your post, you shouldn't be surprised when bloggers make nasty comments about Clinton. After all, these people are human and they reacted accordingly when they expressed their outrage over Hillary's remark about McCain's superior qualifications to Obama's.
I was incredulous upon hearing her comments and, like many decent people, was furious. I was furious because she is damaging the Democratic party and providing future ammuniton for McCain and the Repulicans.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, that's why I wrote this post.

Unfortunately the Obama supporters are blind to the negative, anti-progressive things their candidate does.

[misspeach2008]

Thanks for trying, Dave.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

This thread has me thinking that Obama might just have an obligation to ask his supports to start defending rather than attacking other progressives. What is it about the Obama campaign that is leading to this deluge of attacks on progressives?

[syllepsis]

Does Obama now have an obligation, not only to accept resignations from his own campaigners for calling Clinton names, but to assert that McCain has proven his qualifications to be President, and he himself hasn't?
I would not call anyone who unfavorably compares McCain's 'qualifications' with Obama's to be remotely progressive. Since Hillary did make this claim, .then I ask you where is this "deluge of attacks on progressives?" Who are these progressives, who are supporting such an unprogressive candidate?

[FogCityJohn]

Mr. Johnson,

Not sure where you see Obama or his supporters "attacking progressives." To which progressives are you referring? You haven't named any, so I'm at a bit of a loss. You should also remember that many of us in the left wing of the Democratic Party do not view the Clintons as progressives. Both Bill and Hillary are long-time, self-described DLC Democrats. They have pitched and marketed themselves, by design, as "centrists." Indeed, one important aspect of Bill Clinton's political strategy was "triangulating" against liberal members of his own party in Congress. While this was perhaps a winning political strategy for Clinton himself, it would be difficult to call it either progressive or helpful to the Democratic Party as a whole. Indeed, Clinton presided over the loss of the Democrats' majority in the House for the first time in 40 years.

Remember that Bill Clinton promised us universal health care, but gave us "welfare reform" and NAFTA. He promised an end to the ban on gays in the military, and what we got was "don't ask, don't tell" and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which he signed after he himself called it a divisive piece of legislation. For her part, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war (and, if I'm not mistaken, the Bush tax cuts). Hardly what one would describe as a "progressive" position. And to those of us who have loved ones who were forced to serve in that misbegotten conflict because Democrats like Hillary refused to stand up, that vote is difficult to forgive.

And as for attacking progressives, this progressive (who prefers the term "liberal") would feel a lot more comfortable with the Clinton camp if they would stop describing me and other Obama supporters as "naive" and "cultish." Believe it or not, we're intelligent, thinking people who just happen to have a vision for the party and the country that differs from Hillary Clinton's. Rather than denigrating us and our views, Senator Clinton would do well to remember that if her current negative campaign tactics succeed in securing her the nomination, she will need all of our votes if she is to have any hope of prevailing in the fall. In other words, she should try offering people reasons to vote FOR her, as opposed to trying to devise ways to get them to vote against Obama.