I don't know what makes me sadder or more disappointed: The gutter politics we've seen over the last few weeks, or the apparent willingness of some Democrats to tolerate it in hopes of a victory in November. Maybe that's "naive," as some will undoubtedly argue. But I don't think so. A dirty Democratic primary season will help the Republicans in the long run, no matter who wins the nomination.
Most of my criticism, especially in recent weeks, has gone to the Clinton campaign. But the others have been inappropriate at times, too. While others thought that attack ads from both Clinton and Obama last week were acceptable hardball, I thought they were errors in judgement. And yesterday's two-pronged racial attack by the Clinton campaign created a new low in Democratic sleaze.
The Clinton radio ad cut and pasted audio from Obama in mid-sentence to alter the meaning of what he said. It was part of a coordinated "outrage" campaign at Obama's purported admiration for a Republican - during the the same week that Bill Clinton co-authored a Wall Street Journal editorial with one Republican and talked about how how "close" Hillary is with another. And you know what? Good for him. Any Democrat who gets elected will need to work with the GOP, so why not reach across the aisle occasionally? (The Bill/Arnold proposal was a good one, too.)
Let's be clear: Attacking Obama for being too GOP-friendly while doing some cuddling yourself may be disingenuous or hypocritical, but it's par for the course in hardball politics. The Clintons cross the line when they stoop to deception.
Obama crossed a line, too, when he ran an ad that states "Hillary will say anything and do nothing." (CORRECTION: As several commenters observed, the actual quote was "Hillary will say anything and change nothing." Still inappropriate, in my opinion - she won't change anything? - but not as strong.) Here's a simple rule of thumb: Don't create sound bites that the opposition can use if your opponent gets the nomination. The line is also personal and nasty. It was a mistake, and I'm glad he seemed to be backing off from that strategy in his victory speech.
(Note what I just did here: I criticized a candidate I like, because he did something I thought was wrong. I did that with Edwards, too, when I was leaning heavily in his direction. It's an exercise I recommend to supporters of all the candidates. The end result might be a better nominee.)
I wrote earlier that I felt the Clinton campaign had engaged in a set of coordinated race-related comments, any one of which might seem innocent but which seemed deliberate when viewed as a whole. Although I mentioned the possibility that I was wrong (and that they might have just suddenly become "accident prone" on the topic), I had misgivings. A number of people I respect said this was a false, media-made accusation, and I worried I might have some serious amends to make if I was eventually proven wrong.
Sadly, I haven't been. Bill Clinton's comments equating Obama to Jesse Jackson - while another, unnamed "Clinton advisor" was saying this victory makes Obama "the black candidate" - is as overt a pitch to racial stereotyping as any Democrat has made in many years. Of all the South Carolina primary winners in the last forty years, why pick Jackson? Why not John Edwards, who won in 2004? Why not George Wallace, who won in 1976?
Why not Bill Clinton, whose 1992 victory in South Carolina led to his nomination and election? Cooler heads than mine, like Glenn Greenwald, have drawn the only reasonable conclusion: This was a race-based pitch, and a shameful one. Imagine if the Obama campaign had responded to the New Hampshire results by saying that Hillary is merely "the woman candidate." I would have slammed him. So why aren't we seeing a backlash from Clinton backers?
Some of his defenders will say he made the comment to point out that Obama can only win black voters. But guess what? Obama won with women, too - and Edwards won the white vote! If the racial mix in South Carolina had been that of voters nationwide (11.6% African American in 2004), this primary would still have been a devastating rejection of Hillary's candidacy. But somehow Bill didn't manage to mention that. Still think all the racial comments are just an innocent mistake?
All this talk about race-baiting is probably serving a larger Clinton strategy. It's distracting us from a stunning defeat, one in which Hillary lost almost all demographic segments in a state where she once led the polls by 20 points. But isn't it profoundly unethical to use race for such a partisan purpose?
And it's odd: When Edwards campaign advisor Dave "Mudcat" Saunders seemed to imply early in this race that a woman or minority couldn't win, he was showered with criticism. Yet some of the same voices that skewered Saunders are strangely silent now. Why? Have some Democrats decided winning is everything? How far down that road are they willing to go?
Hillary supporters - and closet Hillary supporters - should be especially outspoken in their rejection of this kind of politics. These kinds of comments will only add to her negatives. And if South Carolina's results are any indicator, they won't help her win any new voters.
Even if winning were everything, this isn't the way to win. If independents, disaffected Republicans, and moderate Dems perceive enough ugliness behind the eventual nominee, they'll go elsewhere. And if stalwart Democratic progressives believe their candidate won by using dirty tricks and cheap shots, they won't work very hard for the party in November.
That's something to think about now, before it's too late. It would be ironic if frustrated Democrats, eager to win back at any cost what was stolen, wind up sowing the seeds of another defeat.