Obama and Clinton Forces: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

With all that's going on in the Democratic race, I'm sure the Republican Dirty Tricks Forces are rubbing their hands in glee. So, my question, as I expound a bit on this and that regarding the presidential contest, is to repeat the oft-posted Rodney King admonition, "Why can't we all just get along?"

We Democrats are dangerously close to helping the Republicans score a renewal of the White House lease and in many ways it is because the two Democratic front runners are so close in their political philosophies. It would be much easier if one of them were running against, say, Joe Lieberman instead of the other. We would then be able to choose between major candidates based on clear-cut issues instead of the personality squabbles and petty bickering that have grown increasingly ugly.

For starters, race and religion should not be a factor in an American political campaign, and although it might be Pollyannish of me to even express that point of view it has to be stated and stated again. If only it were not on people's minds then we would not have a photo of Obama in African costume along with persistent questions to Hillary Clinton as to whether her campaign planted the photo and/or whether she believed him when he said he wasn't a Muslim.

He isn't a Muslim, but even if he were it shouldn't matter, and in a better world there wouldn't be frenetic Media attempts to boost ratings and sell journals parsing Hillary's response as to whether she was flirting with current prejudices regarding this religion. Anyone who knows the Clintons is well aware that they have both embraced and been supported by folks in minority groups and those who practice a variety of religious beliefs. And anyone who has followed Barack Obama's career knows full well that his rise in politics has certainly been aided by an even-tempered and cosmopolitan societal acceptance for and by all aspects of our American family, whether as an Ivy League student or working with community activists on the South Side of Chicago.

That said, it probably would have been smarter for Hillary to just say, "I'm not going to discuss religion in that context, because religion has no place at the table in American political discussion unless it intrudes on our collective well-being."

To the point, there are wonderful human beings here and around the world who are Muslim, Christian and Jewish, and there are also those who lurk on the extreme perimeters of those religions making hurtful comments and sometimes inflicting physical harm on those who don't subscribe to the very narrow doctrinaire ways in which they conduct their lives.

Why should the majority of any religion be tainted with the sins and idiotic statements of those few among them who seek to divide us? Intolerant people who castigate those who conduct their lives in a fruitful and amicable manner. Small minded bigots who condemn, threaten and sometimes harm those with personal lifestyles and choices performed by consenting adults that pose no real detriment to the community simply because such actions or viewpoints are not considered to be the majority's preferred cup of tea blend?

And why are the Obama forces trying to make us wonder about Hillary's tax records when she said she would reveal them by April 15, a full week ahead of the upcoming Pennsylvania primary? If there's anything damning, believe me the Media are fast readers and have, no doubt, employed oodles of CPAs and tax experts so that they can, perhaps eagerly, report to the world that Hillary and her husband have been acting fishy.

Why are both of these candidates not honing in on the specific differences regarding how each would conduct our government? As someone who thought the Iraq intrusion was foolhardy before our entry, which would presumably put me more on the Obama side, why do I see little difference between Hillary and Barack at the present moment? He can't just keep repeating a speech he gave when he was a state senator in the Illinois legislature. His comments at that time may well have been sincere, but a clearer match-up in this particular debate and follow-up would pit Hillary against John Edwards and Joe Biden, my earlier preferred presidential candidates, as well as Christopher Dodd, all of whom were in the U.S. Senate in the fall of 2002. They, like Hillary, voted, in my view, erroneously for the war authorization and during the earlier part of the campaign season had different takes on how and when we should have a troop pullback.

But to contrast Hillary with Barack on this particular senate action is like apples and oranges, because we don't know if Hillary would have felt the same if she had no specific responsibility as a member of the Senate and was instead, perhaps, teaching law or government service at a prestigious university. Nor do we know for sure whether Obama would have dissented if he'd been in the Senate then. We do know that Obama and Clinton have voted similarly regarding war funding and the general Iraq mission since they have both been colleagues on Capitol Hill.

They both give reasons as to why we can't just cut and run, even though, to my mind, with the increasing deaths and maiming on both the Iraqi and U.S. sides we should do just that. If we are no longer there, in spite of the McCain/Bush rhetoric, it will have much less impact on our national security, as there would be no fodder for terrorist attacks. Certainly not against our country. As many have said since our 2003 invasion, up to that time we had so much goodwill around the world by those who were so sympathetic because of the events in New York City, Washington, D.C and the Pennsylvania field in the fall of 2001. And we blew it all with this reckless, tragic and extremely costly misadventure.

So, we should instead be discussing Clinton and Obama's different national health policy initiatives and their specific ways to stop our economic failures at home and abroad, amidst the mortgage crisis and the slide in the dollar. We should look at them personally only in how confident we feel about their knowledge of domestic and world events, and not simply count their years in office and/or public service but where they were spent and how relevant they may be to convince the national electorate that he or she has the right stuff to lead our country.

Instead it's become a tit for tat gossip clash, and while Obama appears less confrontational in his replies to Clinton's sometimes strident remarks against his candidacy, he is equally to blame when outrageous charges and comments about Hillary are leveled by his top supporters. In particular, those who have taken a key part in his campaign and whose utterances must have been vetted by him, if not immediately, then certainly shortly thereafter. Especially as negative unkind remarks are continually put forth albeit in different formats and venues. And that goes for Clinton's campaign forces as well when campaign stunts are directed Obama's way.

Folks, we are handing the White House to John McCain, so long as he doesn't make a major mistake. If he appears pleasant, if not very creative or forward seeking, it will give the majority of our nation's voters a greater sense of comfort as they perhaps reluctantly direct George W. Bush to hand the keys of the Executive Mansion to McCain. Voters are funny that way, and even with all the problems of the past seven years, if they see the principal candidates on the other side squabbling hysterically as in the current mess, they will shrug their shoulders and perhaps hold their nose but vote for McCain as someone who doesn't completely embarrass them.

That's why I am issuing this plea for the candidates and their key supporters to ratchet down the rhetoric and remember who they are really running against and what they hope to achieve for our nation. They are both so close in the delegate and popular vote, and with the Michigan and Florida primaries possibly going to be redone it may well be closer than ever by the time we get to the convention in Denver.

If it is, and since it is part of the process, we have to entrust the super delegates to perform a necessary service based upon their experience and view of the political scenario as it unfolds in the late summer. To indicate, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi did the other day, that it's all up to who is ahead in delegates, even if it's so, so very close and neither has a majority, is to in effect nullify the necessity of the super delegates themselves. The nomination process is not a plurality contest as it would be for candidates running for senator or governor in most states. In those situations, assuming there are three or four candidates, someone could win office with thirty or forty percent -- or even less.

However, we have instituted a process wherein the leaders of our political party can take a hard view of what's going on and, given the proximity of national support for both candidates, give their votes to either candidate to put him or her over the top. It's not as if they were poised to award the nomination to a candidate such as Kucinich, Dodd, Biden or even Edwards. Nonetheless, their selection process must be predicated on who has the best chance of winning, considering the even nature of the current contest.

To do less and to simply vote for the candidate who is ahead in votes -- no matter the slight difference -- makes them irrelevant and unnecessary, which I do not for a minute believe would sit well with the egos of every member of Congress, our nation's governors, former presidents and other leading political figures.

Whatever the case, whoever is chosen should not be hamstrung with so much disappointment by the supporters of the other side that the most important goal -- that of recapturing the White House that was stolen in the election of 2000 -- is not realized because of the collateral damage done to the fabric of either candidate's persona and political being. We must not, under any circumstance, allow this to happen, and to do that we have to debate reasonably among ourselves and above all we must pledge to get along.

Comments

[BatedBreath]

"Why can't we all just get along?"

You're a little late with this.

[FrankN]

There's no substitute for party discipline enforced by the DNC. Howard Dean has to work with Al Gore and other senior Dems to be sure Clinton's & Obama's destructive campaigning tendencies/surrogates don't undermine the party's prospects in November. As individual voters, there's only so much we could do, but party leaders can do alot if they take their responsibilities seriously.

[BatedBreath]

Will someone please tell me what destructive campaign tactics Obama has engage in towards The Clintons? I am sincerely at a loss to think of any personal attacks he has made on them and can think of a lot she has heaped on him. Seriously, what has he done?

[TommyMcCarthy]

South Carolina ring a bell?................................................................tm

[Dazedandamazed]

When Kerry and Kennedy convinced Obama to run against Hillary they knew what they were doing and they knew what group of voters they were willing to throw under the bus to stop Hillary. Now they have gotten their way. Stop Hillary at any cost, lets give it to them give Obama the nomination. Let them reap what they so for the next decade. Sorry we are not irrealevent as you will discover in November and in 2010 and 2012. Thanks I have voted Dem since 1980 but this is no longer the same Democratic party as the Obama supporters have gone to great pains to tell me. I am no longer welcome under their new shiney little tent. Well go ahead paint any color you want but if it includes less people you will lose again. I guess the progressives have attained there goal of trimming down the Democratic party to only those who will march lockstep with them. Good Job

[Mesaywar]

"and they knew what group of voters they were willing to throw under the bus to stop Hillary'? Which group would that be? Those too estranged from the reality based community to realize that although Obama has an ice-cube's chance in hell of winning in November, Hillary Clinton has no chance at all? None. Zilch. Zero. Or, did you mean those who went along with Senator Clinton's fantasy of inevitability? A delusion so deep, that the junior senator from New York ran a royal meet and greet, and coronation pageant instead of a campaign until mid February?.

Which group would that be?

[Dazedandamazed]

Well you can argue all you want but the truth is that you have handed the GE to McCain. You have divided the Democrat party who now has no choice they must nominate Obama and have given moderate Independents as well as the righties all the reasons they need to support McCain. Congratulations, 6 months ago Democrats could have nominated a potted plant and won. Today we cannot nominate Clinton or Obama without losing.

[PistonMoaned]

I think that participating in a caucus, as we had here in Colorado, gives you a chance to see the supporters of the other candidate face-to-face. It's much harder to demonize the opposition when you've had a chance to talk with them. I just participated in our county convention last Saturday and once again, the interaction between the two camps was a very healthy thing. So, for those who think caucuses are somehow un-democratic, I submit that they are very healthy forums for political interaction. If we had more chances to meet like that, we'd have less tendency to refer to the opposition as clueless or hypnotized.

[mrJJ]

Indies, newbies & crossover voters that want some form of insurance that the present day Bush/Cheney policies are NOT continued should vote FOR their Dem Senate & Congressional seats in their State in the General.

Whether or not you leave your Dem Presidential choice BLANK for 08 is your own decision to make. Of course you'll have to wait until after the Dem Superdelegates make their decision during the Convention August 25-28

[Cathexis]

Well said, Mr Russnow!

I can understand people getting hyper-enthisiastic about one candidate or the other, although I'm not really hyper-enthisiastic about either.

What I can't understand is the desire to "take the other one down."

Newsflash: IF YOU ALIENATE THE OTHER SIDE'S CANDIDATE, FEWER OF THEM WILL SUPPORT *YOUR* CANDIDATE, if your candidate should win the nomination!

You stupid, stupid ***-munches! You get so focused on winning some potentially pyrrhic victory in the Nomination race that you completely lose sight of the more important General Election. Support your guy/gal ... fine. Disagree with the other candidate ... fine. But don't start down a scorched earth policy (my candidate or nothing) that WILL end up alienating some substantial subset of the Dem/Progressive voting bloc. If you **** off people bad enough with your vitriol, they WILL end up prefering The Enemy (GOP) win, just to "show you" or keep *your* candidate from winning.

At best, your risk diluting the active support, should your candidate actually win the nomination.

This goes for too many people supporting EITHER candidate.

*I* wanted Gore. Then Edwards. Clinton and Obama are in my distant 4th tier and frankly, I don't care who gets the nomination. Should I whine and sulk and complain about both candidates' negatives just because my 1st or 2nd choice wasn't nominated? Hell no ... while neither of these two (IMO) is anywhere near as good as either of my first two choices, both are imminently serviceable.

Both of them ARE way better than any GOP candidate. So I *will* support the eventual nominee and I will NOT badmouth either, risking weakening them should they win the nomination (or alienating their supporters, if they don't).

You may not like to hear this, but either one is a fine candidate and would be worlds better than anyone the GOP can field. I've lived through two terms of GOP-ruled hell ... don't you dare risk a third one because you don't have the maturity to deal with internal competition!

[larry278]

Cath..., may I join you in saying that I'll vote for any Democratic candidate who gets the nomination for POTUS? I will not even think of voting for John McCain or anyother ReThugLieCon for POTUS. Anybody who thinks that singing, "Bomb Bomb Iran" is funny is as crazy as W.

[ljsfolly]

The war vote Hillary made set the tone for many but I disliked her long before that. I saw through the "I am a Democrat" when she has supported the republicans many bills and was a cheerleader for the war. I may have disliked her prior to the war vote but dispise is closer to wat I have felt since the war vote. I see Barack as a breath of fresh air after being pounded into the earth by bush-clinton-bush and I no longer want politics as usual. Hillary represents the same as has been will be in Washington while Barack is the hope candidate her hsband used to say he was. I see whether it is consider buased or not, that Barack has done as best he can to stay above the attack politics which is the norm in politics now. He has answered Hillary and her surrogates attacks not attacked her personally as se has done him. Parsing words and misrepresenting along wit outright lying has been all I ave seen from the Clinton crowd until Hillary chose to endorse McCain and take Barack on like he was the opposition, he being the dem while she the republican.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

constantly making false charges of racism is what has turned me off.

Sunday Bill Bradley was on Meet The Press and actually had the nerve to say the Hillary had said that Obama might be a Muslim, as far as she knows.

Bill knows Hillary never said that. And, I would expect better from him. But, it has become standard fare for Obama supporters and the Obama campaign to deliberately mischaracterize anything Clinton or her supporters say.

I will not vote for him precisely for this reason.

[Darnamell]

Bill Shaheen. Bill Clinton. Bob Kerrey. Ed Rendell. Geraldine Ferraro. Adelfa Callejo. Bob Johnson.

And that lovely "as far as I know" bit.

One or maybe two of these incidents we could wave away. The oncoming stream of these implies a quiet wink to racists and bigots. You can say Hillary isn't racist, and you might even be right. That said, she sure is giving a lot of quiet endorsement to those who are.

When freaking John McCain is more honorable about denouncing speech as soon he hears it happens, that might be Republican overreaction. Hillary Clinton standing next to people race-baiting on stage is just quiet endorsement.

You say you won't vote for Obama because he's never outright said she's got bigots on staff. You just don't like it when, justified or not, someone at least asks what the motivation behind the comments are. That's some pretty convoluted logic considering your candidate's "kitchen sink" mudslinging philosophy.

I won't vote for her because she won't speak out against her supporters' worst tendencies. That's a little more cut-and-dried, no?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Did you bother to read the link?

Bill Clinton - calling Obama's claim to be consistently anti-war a fairytale is not racist. But, the Obama campaign claimed he called Obama's entire campaign a fairytale.

To your claim that his campaign hasn't race-baited... Michelle came right out and claimed that Bill Clinton said the entire Obama campaign was a fairytale. A complete LIE.

Barack hasn't had to make a personal outright claim of racism against Hillary. His surrogates and the press have been more than happy to do it for him. And, it all statred BEFORE SC with a bunch of false, mischaracterized claims used very well by the Obama campaign to drive the black support away from Clinton in SC.

Do you recall Obama claiming his campaign wasn't doing this and then being confronted by Tim Russert in a debate with 4 pages of instructions to his campaign on just how to do it?

Bill Shaheen discussed Obama's self admitted drug use and talked about how the republicans would use it against him in a general election. I don't understand how talking about drug use is racist unless you think 1. only balcks take drugs or 2. Shaheen wouldn't discuss the drug use of a white candidate. We all talked about Bill Clinton's claim that he didn't inhae without and complaints. We all discueed GW's alcohol and drug use without any comaplaints.

Bob Kerrey discussed the FALSE claims and the crazy email about Obama supposedly being a muslim. He didn't claim he was a muslim. Before you claim racism, please check an accurate quote of what he said. And, see what question he was responding to.

Hillary talked about LBJ's role in getting civil rights legislation passed. She was immediately charged with diminishing MLK's role and with racism. Again, this was a deliberate misrepresentation of what she said.

Ed Rendell - accurately described how the voters in his state tend to vote. He has first hand knowledge of this based on his own race for office.

[Darkbane]

The reason we can't get along...........and the reason why I refuse. For the first time in my life my own political party attacked me......not my candidate.
Hillary and her supporters called me delusional, naive , overly emotional, fanatical and several other things to explain why I was a supporter of Barack Obama. Hillary mocked my candidate in a speech and to me confirmed the very venom I saw on forums on a daily basis.

I despise Hillary but prior to this campaign I had no reason to dislike many that support her ..........this campaign has changed that. The instant I was called delusional/fanatical for not agreeing with the current political polls (ie...Hillary winning) I lost all respect for her campaign and frankly for most of her supporters.

I am so scarred by this I will not be voting for Hillary for presidency if it comes to that. I was once jaded enough to say I would vote for Mccain but I won't. I will simply voice my discontent by abstaining. The Clinton campaign wouldnt want a delusional vote anyway.

[BrianZ]

You despised Clinton before the campaign and had no reason to dislike "many" of her supporters and yet you want some of us to believe you "lost respect for her campaign" and her supporters? I find it hard to reconcile your statements.

I would be much more inclined to believe that you did in fact despise Clinton and her supporters from the start and you stepped across the line, more often than not, in your posts and got exactly what you deserved.

[em0199]

I don't think Darkbane was talking about replies to posts as much about the way Hillary has mocked Obama supporters as delusional. So I understand what Darkbane is saying and I did not deserve any of this mocking.

[BatedBreath]

My thoughts exactly.

[langstonhughesfan]

This is going to sound like I'm in 2nd grade, but the bottom line is: THEY STARTED IT. I was very hopeful that we'd get to see two Dem candidates criss-crossing the country, lifting the party up, and sticking it to the Republicans. But something changed when Hillary saw what she firmly believed was HERS slipping away. She thought she had a RIGHT to the nomination, and when it didn't go her way, things got really ugly. I was a big supporter of hers--voted for Bill twice--but the tone of their campaign became so racist and divisive that I lost all respect for them. Yes, I supported Obama from the start, but I didn't start really "hating on" the Clintons until South Carolina. It really was amazing to see two such privileged people lose their minds! They really couldn't BELIEVE their status just didn't translate into votes. And then her refusal to get out of the campaign, her wanting to change the rules and just win at any cost really has been the problem. There is no way she can win, mathematically. So she's needing to do some backroom deals to steal it. That is a widely known reality. SHE CAN'T WIN UNLESS THE RULES CHANGE IN HER FAVOR. That's going to be a problem for the party, but she doesn't care about THE PARTY. She said MCCAIN was more prepared! That's just an outrageous thing to say. Obama has never said anything as backstabbing as that. He's not innocent, but I don't think he's ever put his own need to win above his principles or the party. So, yeah, it's gotten bad out there, but if we really look to the genesis of this problem, we can only point to one person: HILLARY CLINTON.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

This is amazing.

What RULES have to change for her to win?

Super Delegates? There has never been a rule that defines how super delegates HAVE TO VOTE. You may not like that, but that is reality.

Re-votes in MI and FL. Check with Howard Dean. 18 months ago when they all agreed to strip these two states of their delegates, they also all agreed that a re-vote would be possible within the rules for them to ge their delegates seated. Again, you may not like this, but it's reality.

[langstonhughesfan]

Nobody's arguing about the superdelegates...especially since Barack just picked up another one today. But the crap about FL and MI is just outrageous, and if the tables were turned, you'd be screaming foul. She gets her butt kicked in SC and instead of thanking the voters who supported her, she's off to the next "more significant" state and beginning the process of campaigning in BAD FAITH in FL. Her word means NOTHING. And let's not forget how everyone agreed in NV that caucuses could be held in the workplace, until...WHOOPS... That might screw Hillary. Better to get the teachers' union to try to block the process at the 11th hour. There's no way around the REALITY that when the rules don't suit the Clintons, they do EVERYTHING in their power to change them--or break them. They NEVER operate in good faith. That's a MAJOR PROBLEM with their campaign.

[LoloZ]

Hey, It was Hillary CLinton who set the nasty tone, after she lost Iowa, and even more so in SC. It was the Clintons who brought up race, then tried to blame Obama. How about Hillary's hissy fit, "shame on you, Barack Obama, meet me in Ohio..." SHE complimented McCain's credentials, said Obama was naive and unfit to answer the 3 am phone call. The list goes on and on. I'm not talking about the candidates' surrogates here, i'm talking about the nastiness coming straight out of the candidate's mouth.
So, GET ALONG???? Hillary has trashed Obama, brought down and divided the party, and you want them to get along?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Hillary was absolutely right to say "shame on you" to Obama in Ohio.

Obama was sending out a mailer in Ohio which attributed a NAFTA quote to Hillary which she NEVER said. Obama was fully aware that the flier was a LIE and sent it out anyway. How was he aware? He used the same flier in Wisc and was made aware of the inaccuracy at that time.

Do you think it is OK for Obama to send out a flier when he knows it contains a LIE?

[FreedomLoverX]

Get along? I have no worries about the voters. It is one of the candidates I can't get along with, or go along with.

[JXB]

This post follows many over the last several weeks calling for the campaigns to "get along" and come back to the "issues" for the good of the Party, etc. While the sentiment is laudable, it is inescapable that during January and February when the campaigns were conducted in a more civil and "issue focused" manner (much more so at least in comparison to the last several weeks), Obama emerged with a large pledged delegate lead. The Clinton camp recognized this and decided to change the style and tone of its campaign in an effort to stay competitive. It is hard to image the Clinton campaign shelving its negative attack posture, since a more civil, issue, and message-based contest proved to be unfavorable for them.

[AnninCA]

Too late. The damage is already done. The division is already visible. And the only people who can mend this are the candidates themselves.

Somehow, I'm not buying that Obama is too worried about this given his announcement that he intends to attack her on character. (As if this is new?)

He's going for broke.

[LoloZ]

You are so deluded. The Clinton campaign set the nasty tone the minute her "presumptive candidate" status changed.

[BrianZ]

So nice of you to resort to personal attacks. Very much the politics of hope I assume? It's never enough to simply state your point, you must condemn and make it personal. It certainly shows a certain lack of maturity and respect.

[Darnamell]

"Going for broke"?

It's called "be careful what you wish for" or some reference to glass houses and stones.

Hillary Clinton should have known better than to stand on her own shaky principles. I expect Obama won't have to get his hands very dirty to put her back on the defensive. That way he can get back to running for president instead of dealing with daily character assassination from his own party.