"Oppo Piece" -- or Just an Off-Base, Ad Hominem Attack From a Clinton Advisor?

Sean Wilentz is a fine scholar, and I have genuine respect for his work. When I devoted three sentences in a 600-word piece to some recent quotes he made regarding Barack Obama, I had no idea it would unleash a fusillade of insults, slurs, and distortions that made his original comments about progressive Democrats sound benign -- and would reflect so badly on the team he so prominently serves.

First, he puts words in my mouth to suggest I've made a false accusation. Then he says I'm an Obama "hitman" (I don't support Obama or any candidate) who makes "phony and infantile distinctions" (ones I explicitly refused to make.) I'm a "perfectionist poseur," too. But keep reading - he saves the best for last.

If I had really written what Wilentz says I wrote, I'd owe him an apology. As it is, he owes me one -- but I'm not holding my breath. As for the Clinton campaign, I've heard about their rumored "oppo attacks." I don't know if this is one such attack, but I began to wonder when Wilentz said decisively my work is being posted on Obama websites. I didn't know that, so why would a Princeton prof -- unless someone was feeding him info?

But there's no direct evidence for that (and I've asked the Clinton campaign to verify it's not true.) If this is Wilentz's rant alone, the campaign should distance itself from its more off-target and eccentric statements.

Let's start with that alleged "accusation." After quoting a fellow Clinton supporter's scathing statements about "self-righteous" idealists, I cited Wilentz' comments during the same week describing idealistic Democrats as "beautiful losers." I went on to write:

I began to wonder: In a campaign as well-known for message discipline as this one, could this represent a deliberate theme? ... Does this tendency in the Clinton campaign represent a deliberate strategy? Or does it reflect a mixture of contempt, hostility, and frustration ... ? (Emphases mine.)

Yet in his response, Wilentz said that I "charge(d) that (his) recent interview ... was part of a coordinated campaign." As you can see, I specifically said that was only one of two equally troubling possibilities. The comments that follow strongly suggest that at least in Wilentz's case my second hypothesis -- "contempt, hostility, and frustration" -- was correct.

I also said this in my original piece:

We all understand real life, negotiation, and the many compromises that make up daily existence. Many of us face the same issues in our own lives ...

Yet Wilentz says "Eskow draws an infantile and phony distinction between 'pragmatism' and 'idealism'" - which is the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. I said that I, like many others, make compromises every day. Does that sound like the "self-righteous perfectionist appeal" Wilentz describes?

But he isn't even warmed up yet. Wilentz goes on to say that "Eskow's false accusation is a projection of his own role as a regular hitman for the Obama campaign, which instantly posts his negative pieces about Hillary Clinton."

Wilentz (or an "oppo researcher," if one was involved) did another sloppy job here. While I have been critical of Sen. Clinton's campaign, I published a piece two weeks ago called "In Fairness to Hillary" that pointed to her essentially progressive voting record. I wrote another this morning called "How Hillary Can Turn Things Around." And in my alleged "Obama hit man" piece, I wrote this: "One would think that some level of idealism continues to guide Sen. Clinton and her supporters." If that's Wilentz's idea of a "hit man," there are some serious gaps in his historical understanding of the term.

And while as a health policy analyst I prefer Obama's "no mandate" approach, I've criticized the Senator from Illinois too.

Whether or not it's one man's work, Wilentz' piece seems to reflect public perceptions and reports about how the Clinton camp thinks: You're either unequivocally for us, or you're an enemy. And if you're an enemy, you' must be an Obama hit man. It's a tawdry way to treat the people - and the party - that your candidate looks to for support.

Wilentz goes on to attack Obama as a false idealist for two endless paragraphs, assuming (based on his false assumption about my loyalties) that by discrediting Obama he discredits me. There's no need for me to rehash his diatribe, since the Obama/Clinton conflict is not my fight and Wilentz says nothing new or interesting on the topic. But I will make a comment about health policy: Wilentz repeats the Clinton talking point about Obama's plan leaving "15 million Americans uninsured" - but there is no research to support that number.

I doubt Wilentz even knows where his campaign came up with this figure, but I'll clue him in so he can be ready for his next ad hominem attack: A fine journalist named Jonathan Cohn, who wrote a very good book called Sick, made a very rough guess ,based on previously published reports and some analyst's assumptions. That's it. There's no data to support the figure. The difference in uninsured between the Clinton and Obama programs could be far less (or far more, for that matter.) Wilentz is is simply repeating numbers he's been fed and doesn't really understand.

But as I've said, Wilentz saves his best move for last. I had written that the Clinton campaign was correct to say that "the perfect should not be the enemy of the good," but then added that "the opposite is also true." Wilentz reaches a fever pitch over this : "The ignorance here (he writes of my 'perfect/good' statement) is frightening because that slogan or something like it has lurked behind every totalitarian government of modern times."

Get it? People like me (and you, if you're think Hillary's compromised too much on war issues) are laying the groundwork for totalitarianism. And this is in reaction to my having written the following:

Reality will always be with us, and sometimes we have to settle for the best we can get. But sometimes we do get ... the 'perfect' outcome - if we have the guts to dream, and to allow others to dream.

Apparently that's incipient fascism to Wilentz. Nice people in this Clinton crowd, huh?

I am asking a contact in the Clinton campaign if they will distance themselves from Wilentz's piece and confirm they didn't assist Wilentz with it. They deserve the benefit of the doubt until then.

As for Wilentz himself, he's confirming the worst suspicions many people have about the Clinton team: that they hold themselves in excessive (and perhaps undue) high regard, with a corresponding contempt for people of different views and approaches. There are any number of terms to describe that kind of person, but "pragmatist" isn't the first one that comes to mind.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

R.J., I wouldn't worry too much about Wilentz's attack. It was so obviously over-the-top in its reaction to your piece (which gave constructive advice to Clinton's campaign) I could hardly believe what I was reading.

(By the way, I'm not a "Hillary hater" though I do hate thatterm as much as I hated "Bush hater"-- I'm against war, deception, incompetence and if Bush avoided those things I might like him.)

So more advice for Hillary's campaign: the negativity you see on Huffington Post is an accurate reflection of the overall problem you have with the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" (to quote Wellstone-- then Dean).

Hillary can either dismiss liberals as dragging the party down, or try to do more to appeal to us. In the past the Clintons have treated liberals with a kind of disdain, especially on such issues as globalization.

But at least in the primaries Hillary has to sell herself as more of a liberal. All the "I'm tough" hawkish stuff may help in the general, but right now I don't want to see another attack piece from a Clintonite-- I want to hear Hillary explain her liberal ideals.

After all, Obama is *barely* liberal enough for me.

[thicky]

the phrase "Hillary-hater" is a misnomer.

like me, i believe most people who oppose Hillary Clinton for president(she is a decent senator) do so for several reasons:

1) America is not a monarchy and was founded in direct opposition to any monarchical rule. there are over 300 billion people in this country and if we cannot find a qualified candidate other than someone from either the Bush or Clinton dynasties(or Kennedy or Romney dynasties for that matter) than America deserves to go the way of the dodo.

2) Hillary Clinton is less electable than the either Edwards or Obama(or Biden for that matter). recent polling shows Clinton doing worse and even losing to republican presidential candidates. down-ticket democratic candidates across the country(but particularly in red or purple states) are terrified of having Clinton at the top of their party's ticket since it will bring out republicans to vote against her and them.

3) she is too pro-war.

4) the Clinton sect not only believes Clinton deserves to be president but demands all Americans crown Hillary queen and worship her.

it is the last reason that many people hate the Hillary CAMPAIGN. we don't hate Hillary, we hate the fanatical acolytes who worship at Hillary's feet(avert one's eyes! do not gaze upon the mighty queen lest her magnificence blinds us!). they act as if we OWE Clinton our support. sorry, a candidate has to EARN my vote!

and worst of all, while an Obama or Edwards supporter will argue and try to convince an opponent of their candidates presidential qualities, Clinton-worshippers viciously and cruelly attack anyone who dares question their dear-leader, Hillary(smearing any opponent or perceived threat was a sleazy part of the Bill Clinton administration).

we don't hate Hillary, we hate the crazed mudslinging Hillary-supporters!

[martinchill]

"they hold themselves in excessive (and perhaps undue) high regard, with a corresponding contempt for people of different views and approaches. There are any number of terms to describe that kind of person, but "pragmatist" isn't the first one that comes to mind"


sounds like folks in the current administration.

[2LaneIA]

Campaigns are extensions of the candidates, just as companies have "company culture." The candidate is very aggressive, secretive and a trifle paranoid. Who could blame her? She was correct when she identified the vast right-wing conspiracy that sought her husband's political demise. But these are not necessarily the qualities we want in a president.

I see in the comments thus far that the epithet "Hillary Hater" has made its usual appearance. Even the mildest criticism of Clinton results in aggressive ad hominem comments, no matter which blog it is posted on. As she said, it's the "fun part."

I am not an Obama supporter either. I will caucus for Biden, as the most experienced and knowledgeable person running for president from either party. I like his personal qualities too: he is open, candid, and kind. When he is aggressive, it is with Republicans, and even then he is nice about it.

If Biden is not viable in my caucus, I do not know who I will support, but I know it will not be Clinton. We do not need another president who is inappropriately aggressive, secretive and paranoid. That is a model that has already failed.

[feelfree]

I don't think you've been objective about Mrs. Clinton. I do think you're a Hillary hater. I began to believe you're biased when you wrote that Mrs. Clinton had a connection to Blackwater through Penn even though there was no evidence that Mrs. Clinton herself had a political, financial or personal relationship with Blackwater. Your negative writing about Mrs. Clinton and Penn outweighs one article on how she can turn it around.

I think Mr. Wilentz was right about the Obama worshippers/Hillary haters and I agree wholeheartedly with him.

[scepticalobserver]

These attacks make me wonder how Hillary is going to answer questions if she gets elected.
We, the public, have a right to know how those who wish to represent us are going to govern and it shouldn't be an adversarial relationship.
We're looking at a financial Tsunami in the near future and I'd like someone to show me a plan that will avert the catastrophe.
Everyone has a health plan and none of them include the hard facts. It's going to cost money that we don't have and won't have, without radical change.
Congress couldn't get Pharma to negotiate drug prices and we're supposed to believe that the Insurance/Health lobby is suddenly going to become altruistic? Get real.

[Lon]

The striking thing about reading posts from Clinton supporters is that they inevitable hit a patch which looks like the wording comes directly from the campaign, and one can lose track of which supporter one is reading.

Early on, I think the Clinton people took this as evidence of the kind of discipline that would win elections, and so a plus for their inevitability campaign. I think they miss how creepy it is.

[MHainds]

Wow. It looks like some of the Clinton Team are getting a little panicked, to unload on you like that. I'd have to guess that ALL of the other Democratic Candidats got a chuckle out of this response.

[Orikinla]

RJ Eskow,
I have read your previous articles and from my own professional experience in the mass media and political campaigns, I can affirm that you have been objective.

I do not think Mr. Sean Wilentz is speaking for the Hillary Clinton Campaign, because from my knowledge of the key persons, they are more enlightened.

Most outsiders are actually ignorant of the nature of Senator Hillary Clinton.

She already knew about the possible scenarios of the rallies in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire even before Lady Oprah Winfrey became the cheerleader of Senator Barack Obama and in her official e-mail sent to me and other supporters, she predicted the revelations of the latest polls. So, she has great foresight. She is more than meets the eye of the ignorant observer. She has paid her dues.

Sean Wilentz and other over agitated fans and supporters of Hillary Clinton are entitled to their personal opinions, views and analyses of news reports and commentaries, but they are not "megaphones" of Hillary Clinton.

We were neither dazed nor fazed by the hype of the Oprah Winfrey Road Show for Barack Obama.
Making the loudest noise does not mean you are wise.

As gentleman Denzel Washington said, "Oprah can bring people into the room, but you have to keep them in the room."
After the hullabaloo, Barack Obama has to face the reality of his elect ability.

As I said earlier in my reply to another report, the millions of dollars he is wasting on publicity stunts would have been of immense benefit to the millions of suffering and starving poor masses in his fatherland, Kenya. I wept whilst watching the documentary on corruption and poverty in Kenya on the CNN last week.

Only the best is good enough for America.

[DasBoot]

While I liked Prof. Wilenz's books, his behavior in the campaign is a bad joke. Yes, politics in this country has always been nasty (something we like to forget these days), but Wilenz is making a virtue out of a vice by saying that it's good for a politician to be nasty.

Oh, but as soon as Obama takes off the globes, Sen. Clinton and her people start whining. Please...

[Doofus]

'As for Wilentz himself, he's confirming the worst suspicions many people have about the Clinton team: that they hold themselves in excessive (and perhaps undue) high regard, with a corresponding contempt for people of different views and approaches. There are any number of terms to describe that kind of person, but "pragmatist" isn't the first one that comes to mind.'

'Pragmatist'? Wilentz used the term 'pragmatic
idealist' to describe HRC. Presumably, that
would be a person who holds certain ideals
dear, but will do anything to get elected,
with special attention to polls & trends.

Are not *all* professional politicos then
'pragmatic idealists'? (Ok, maybe not Bush.)

[literate]

You don't seriously expect an honest response from the Clinton campaign, do you? They're already busy distancing themselves from the remarks (drug dealer)and actions (Muslim e-mails) of others in their campaign. Are we supposed to believe they have so little control over what gets tossed out there about Obama? I hope more and more people can see Clinton's entire operation for what it is, which makes an honest candidate even more appealing.

[Kane]

Touché!

[Zenobius]

My guess is that the health care issue just stirs up too much emotion to be contained.

The problem is that health care is so expensive {14% of GNP, I think} that the problem of how to pay for universal medical coverage brings in the vexing problem of tax fairness. Hillary's mandate amounts to an additional tax on the uninsured to pay for it. Obama's plan is vague on how to pay for it, and will not apparently cover everyone.

Since most of the uninsured are already heavily taxed they don't have the money to pay for coverage, and no enforcement mechanism is described, a lot of mandate evasion will probably occur. So Hillary's plan won't cover everyone either.

To be blunt, we're going to have either buy fewer guns, or go back to a sixties style tax structure, to pay for medical insurance. Neither candidate wants to back down from US "sole superpower" pretensions; or alienate the people rich enough to pay for his or her election.

Of course, no one wants to say any of this. People really do want the health care mess solved. So there will be a lot of denial and anger around this issue.

[ebbtide]

I doubt you will get an honest answer from Hillary's campaign when you write to them. They appear to be in kill mode, poisoning the well however, wherever, they can. I picture them, eyes red, snarling, baring teeth, spitting and lashing out with absurd racist lite accusations against Obama. He, and Edwards have held up with dignity and grace. These are who we want as advisors to our Democratic nominee?
This is what all those millions she raked in pay for?

I will have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and will not hold my nose and vote for her. This clinches it for many people.