Character as Destiny: The Clintonian Narcissism of 2008
There is something stomach-turning about the Clintonian strategy for winning the nomination. Underneath that which is so disgusting, however, there are little passion plays playing out -- about the state of the nation, and the state of its soul-sick psyche. While there is no overt reason to conclude that they are racists, (if that sentence seems luke-warm, take a look at Hillary's own concession that Obama is not a Muslim), there is every possible reason to label the Clintons opportunists of the very first order. Bill Clinton was not a racist when he mouthed off in South Carolina; he was a desperate power-monger, flailing. Bob Johnson from BET doesn't really think Obama is a drug fiend -- it was just "an opportunity". Albeit a rather disgusting one. Howard Wolfson doesn't really think that Obama is like Ken Starr; it was just the sort of blind ad hominem news-cycle nonsense likely to distract from the actual, the real, the true; in other words -- it was opportunism. That is their true, true heartfelt religion. "Campaign" in Florida and then deny it? Fine: It's all fair game. Or the cynical suggestion by Senator Clinton that Obama would be a fine VP while at the same time declaring how unready he is seems to me precisely the sort of cynical paranoid post-modern solipsism of people who will say anything whatsoever to get what they want and then act stung when called on it. It borders on sociopathy. And like all opportunists, those in Camp Clinton have reached the conclusion that even a scorched earth campaign which devastates the party, vulgarizes the discourse even more than it already is vulgarized, and alienates millions of people who actually have come to hope for real change in this country, is worth the cost of a possible win. Personally, I find it far more likely that the only beneficiary of the Clintonian ugliness will of course be none other than that half-mad proponent of hundred-year wars, John McCain of Arizona, swooping in to the circular firing squad after the smoke and blood have cleared, so as to snatch a victory because the Dems cleverly snatched defeat.
Speaking of half-mad, speaking of snatching defeat -- the Clinton surrogacy of Geraldine Ferraro devolved in to an angry whine on the Today Show this morning. Ms Ferraro seems to think that Senator Obama has been the beneficiary of some sort of post-radical-chic "free-ride", a notion so laughable that it flies in the face of every last bit of information we have about what it means to not be white in America. Every single bit. She doesn't seem like a racist either, actually; merely an embittered ex-candidate and an old school feminist warrior whose legitimate passion has hardened into blindness and bile. (How did the Obama camp play "the race card" when it was she who launched into a dismissal of Senator Obama as "lucky" to be African-American.) I found myself telling the TV that Obama is where he is today in spite of being African-American. Still, Hillary Clinton's campaign seems to tap into something very real in this country -- the anger that many women carry over the costs incurred in the fight for gender equality for the last forty years.
Every day, one is struck by the (one-sided) viciousness in this fight. Six bloody weeks of it to go? Six weeks of coarsening opportunistic soulless nastiness. And the effect? Hillary Clinton's unfavorable rating amongst Obama supporters continues to rise according to the Wall Street Journal/MSNBC poll released tonight. The reverse is not true. And her coalition of white women and white blue-collar workers is unlikely to surge the way that young people and African-Americans are surging towards Obama. Those Americans -- the African-Americans who have been turned off by politics as usual and by total exclusion, the young who have been so disgusted by war-mongering and corruption so evident in the smug faces of those in power -- finally see in Obama something of the best in themselves, and something to aspire to: Idealism, dignity, hope, matched by strength and stoicism. Matched by a very keen sense of how to work the system.
In the meantime, the country itself needs to be repaired from inside out. Anti-intellectual, increasingly amoral, broke, and self-obsessed, a land of crumbling roads, crumbling dreams, and crumbling visions of how to care for the needy. A nation filled with invective and rudeness. (Have you ever seen how unmannerly the comments on HuffPost can be? If that is a reflection of how people are brought up today, then what is the point?) At the heart of how to repair a nation -- there is one essential ingredient to examine; and that, of course, is character. Over the next six weeks until Pennsylvania, we must think about that; the character of our leaders, of our nation. Because as Heraclites stated with total clarity -- character IS destiny.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't like to comment on a topic that's been out more than a few days (I missed this blog), but let me just say that what Mr. Baitz has written here is fantastically to the point, just smashingly relevant. "Opportunists of the very first order" is about as apt a description of their behavior as there is. I keep hoping that there will be a change, that at some point there will be some crystallization of realization and they'll turn away from their strategy, but I don't expect it. Like Joe McCarthy, Hillary in all probability will not stop until some fateful event forces her to stop.
I have a question for everyone, because this whole super delegate issue is confusing. Most of Senator Obama's supporters argue that the super delegates should vote the will of their voters. (Of course it doesn't matter to them if that's the case, why even have super delegates? That's not my question but I'm curious about that.)
Let's accept the argument of most Obama supporters and say that they should represent the will of their constituents. On Super Tuesday, Hillary beat Obama by 192,704 votes capturing 56% of the popular vote to only 41% for Obaama. Yet, state wide office holders Governor Deval Patrick and Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have all pledged their super delegate vote to OBAMA. Until Obama requests personally that Patrick, Kerry, and Kennedy give their voted to Hillary, Obama supporters' arguments about super delegates seem to hold very little weight.
Here is a complete list of super delegates from Massachusetts that have "went against the will of their voters" and pledged their d-vote to Obama.
Sen. John Kerry (MA)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (MA)
Rep. William Delahunt (MA)
Rep. Michael Capuano (MA)
DNC John Walsh (MA)
DNC Paul Kirk (MA)
DNC Margaret Xifaras (MA)
DNC Raymond Jordan (MA)
DNC David O'Brien (MA)
DNC Alan Solomont (MA)
I should clarify that Hillary beat Obama by 192,704 votes capturing 56% of the popular vote to only 41% for Obama in Massachusetts -- sorry about that. It's been a long day.
Good post. I'd just like to add "some" to the "white women supporting Clinton" phrase. Since about 50% of women under 65 are supporting OBAMA..
And also add "better educated Americans" to your list of young people and African Americans.
The idea that Hillary is resonating more as an advocate of the poor than Obama is at the moment is utterly baffling. I can only talk it up to her PR attacks, her subtly negative use of race and religion, her fear mongering ("3 a.m." played better with the working class), and much genuine misunderstanding about her actual accomplishments and policies.
Her habit of pandering to the right should be a huge concern. Once she's in office she'll want to prove "just how tough she is". . Even now, after all we know, she seems to have no real FEELING that the war is WRONG--note, last week, her comment that it's the "gift of democracy". And she can talk about wounded veterans with a detachment from responsibility that echoes GWB's.
Where's the responsibility for this (not just one vote, but many)? Where's the remorse and regret?
And I'm still waiting for ANYONE to point to even "one courageous speech" where Hillary has been a strong leader for an unpopular cause that could have ended her career.
Just one. One courageous "risk it all for principle" moment.
Anyone?...
Did the Florida vote of 2000 turn your stomach like it did ours ???
Did the Supreme Court appointing the President make you sick like it made us??
The Hit Man Cometh again.
HuffPost's Pick
All of this can be better understood by looking at the generational context here. Hillary's narcisism can partly be explained by her identity as a Baby Boomer. Relevantly, there is a growing consensus among experts, and in the media, that Obama is not a Boomer, nor an Xer, but instead is a member of Generation Jones (born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Xers). Just in the last month or so, several top media outlets, including The New York Times, Newsweek Magazine, and NBC, have all made the argument that Obama is specifically part of Generation Jones. I also heard a panel of generations experts recently on a national radio show discussing this specific issue, and four of the five experts conlcuded that Obama is, in fact, a Generation
This talk of generation X,Y, Jones, Baby-Boomer, is a bunch of pseudo-science nonsense. It takes the place of real discourse and analysis of positions and issues. There is no science behind any of it so whether someone is in generation X or Y is all just arbitrary. You can define it anyway you want. You may as well chart their horoscopes and use that to explain why they act the way they do. The results would be equally meaningful.
Even if this is true, what's your point? What's the difference between a Jones and a Boomer? Why would someone born a couple of years apart from someone else, have a more narcissistic bent? All this categorization of Jones/Xers/Boomers seems pointless unless there is some common thread or analysis of the differences in behavior, ideals, character etc, proven by large scale studies. The fact is, that Hillary is younger than my mother, but my mother would never vote to send people to their sure deaths or to kill others, for the sake of any type of personal or political ambition. If it takes exploitation of other human beings, and acting like a cold callous calculating corrupt creep to get ahead in politics, then maybe we should be reassessing what we value in politicians.
Jon, if it's political discourse you're interested in, then you need to lift your game.
Less intemperate language and more reasoned argument would be a start.
I am so tired of hyperbole and overwrought arguments by commentators who should know better.
An actual discussion of policy, as opposed to flurries of denunciations, would be nice...but perhaps that is the problem, there really are limited policy distinctions between the 2 Dem candidates, so it leads to the manufacture of division.
The 2008 Dem primaries - on both the MSM and Blogworld has been a process of the over-analysis of the insubstantial by the insupportable.
It's pretty simple, Obama has dignity and the Clintons lack it.
Vote for the person who has the courage to uphold it no matter what "kitchen sink" is thrown at them.
Well said. I support Obama but I don't think he is the next MLK or perfect or really all that different on his positions than Clinton. But he has run a campaign that is markedly different from Clinton's or anyone else that has had a reasonable chance of wining in the last decade. That isn't a huge difference but its a real one.
I think I'll vote for the candidate with the best-thought-out programs and the ability to implement them.
Hint: That's not Barrie.
Question: Why are you less interested in the actions to be taken by the President than in how "dignified" he appears on TV?
Thanks.
mp
Terrific post! I have many of the same sentiments. I don't know if the Clintons are racist, but it would seem they have no qualms about fanning the flames of racism and division. What's the difference between racism and those who would use it to benefit themselves, knowing they are offending and hurting the AA community and possibly creating more division? In many ways, subtle racism, or racism used in such a calculated way only reinforces and legitimizes racism and stereotyping. What's the difference between mocking Obama, and mocking his supporters? Does she want to win over his supporters, or is she just trying to wound Obama against McCain? Only Senator Clinton knows the answer to these questions, but it seems to me that her “ends justifies the means” approach is more indicative of Republican Party ideals, and appeals to the base instincts of voters. That along with the fear mongering, the lies about Obama, and the blatant hypocrisy, leads me to be sure about one thing: This is not someone with character.
The Clinton campaign tactics have a strange parallel to her war votes. Those votes show a political expediency and personal opportunism at the expense of Americans, and America. After more than 7 years of some of the worst times and partisanship in our political history, we simply cannot afford that type of arrogance and moral bankruptcy in the White House again. Character is the critical foundation of great leadership, and character is the hallmark of all great leaders. Character is important as sound character inspires trust. Character is integrity, a seamless consistency between our private beliefs and our public actions.
As a commentator, I would have thought you read Ms. Ferreros comments in fuul. Just as the Obama camp has, you use them out of context.
Out of context? Really? Perhaps someone who is not over 60 and not white would like to explain to us all how Hillary and Ferraro are not predjudiced? Any takers? I'm a white guy in his late 30's, and frankly, I can't see how that argument can be made.
Well, the fact that you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I'm not going to waste a lot of bandwidth on the willfully ignorant. Go read some biography of Hillary Clinton. Even Wikipedia would do. Actually examine her career, instead of taking the word of a bunch of overtly misogynistic Obama-bots, for whom lying is all part of the game -- anything to get Barrie elected.
Now, I understand that in the Obama camp, examining issues and coming to your own conclusions will quickly make you persona non grata. But it is a part of the requirement for being a good citizen. Put your country ahead of the candidate.
Thanks.
mp
No context required, her comments were calculated, divisive and just plain stupid. But we digress from the main point: The pervasive negativity comes first from the Clinton campaign in her shameless quest for power. More and more people are becoming nauseated by these tactics, and will not follow her if she somehow manages to secure the nomination.
Great essay, Mr Baitz
Can I just add that all 'right-minded people' (ie the angry old white women, along with the frightened and not particularly bright who voted for Bush twice already) would love to see the real dream ticket:
McCain/Clinton 08!!!
Yay team!!!
Jon, what a great article. You have an amazing way with words!
I am a 52 year old woman, and a feminist. I still struggle with sexism, ageism, and sizeism. But I treat people as I would like to be treated, with respect. I do have fun flirting with cute young men because now I can do it without fear of rejection as I did when I was their age. (Who's the sexist now??) It's great to be able to engage in conversation with people of all ages.
My point is that Hillary manipulated the voters in New Hampshire, showing a total lack of respect, by pulling out the "Woe is me, look I'm crying" card. Prior to that she hadn't won any of the (3?) primaries, after NH she went on a roll before she slowed down again. When the prospect of losing a primary arose, she tried to pull the "Woe is me" card during the debates; when that didn't work, out came the racist card.
Shame on you, Bill and Hillary! We don't really know what Chelsea has to say even though she campaigns for her mother (I'm not gonna use the "p" word.) She's off limits to the press.
I'm voting for Obama because I'm sick and tired of being manipulated by power hungry people whether they are at the national level or in my own community.
Mean people suck.
Great essay. Thank you. It needed to be said and I am heartened to know someone out there sees just the way I do. I am am ashamed to call Hillary Clinton my Senator. She is giving NY a bad name.
The obvious solution to the current situation is to put the Clintons in the White House to clean up the economic mess that Bush is leaving behind. Obama could be VP and learn how to run the government from people who already know.
Unfortunately, I realize that Kennedy and Pelosi have too much at stake, and insist on supporting Obama even though he has no idea in the world what to do about the economic mess we are in.
If Obama wins the nomination, you will have a split Democratic Party with the Kennedy-Pelosi liberals parading around with the Clintonistas hunkered down waiting for the inevitable failure to pick up the pieces. This can happen in 2 ways: if Obama loses the election in Nov, Kennedy and Pelosi might as well fold up tent and go home because they will be toast. If Obama wins, then we will have a 4 year circus where the economy totally implodes and its anybody's guess who will be left standing. I expect the hunkered down Clintonista will be well positioned to pick up the pieces in either case.
Obama does have one good option, though. Be Hillary's VP, then be a shoe-in for 2016, unless he pulls an Al Gore and runs from the Clintons.
In either case, I fully expect the Clintons in the White House in 2012 with or without Obama.
it's really silly for the Clinton people to be talking this way after the Iowa County Conventions took place on Saturday! In our county Clinton's pledged delegates were down 55% and she barely made up enough from John Edwards' people to edge slightly ahead of the 50% mark. On the other hand, Obama had 100% of his delegates present and accounted for plus added a few more to his total. Are Hillary Clinton delegates having "buyer's remorse" or are they sick and tired of her callous disregard for the party and her opponent? Either way, I see her as having problems ahead....
Too late for that. The Clintons and their mud-slinging have ensured that Obama supporters will never come over to them now. Compound this with the fact they're losing and she should just drop out of the race now, for the sake of what's left of the Democratic Party before it truly IS too late.
Nancy Pelosi was right. Hillary Clinton has only herself to blame for the death of the dream ticket.
Strange. Hillary can't even handle her campaign finances and was in one financial scrape after another, one legal entanglement after another during the White House years.
Only problem with your little plan is that Obama is beating Clinton, will win the nomination, and will pick a VP that actually compliments him. Clinton has done everything in her power to destroy him and the party, lives one step ahead of an indictment, and it would seem that around a quarter of the country actually hates her.
Why in hell, would he he pick her? If she cheats to win, why in hell would democrats support her?
Absolutely. Obama will not pick Hillary as VP and she wouldn't accept even if he offered. The 3 scenarios most likely are:
1. Hillary wins nomination and picks Obama as VP (don't know if he would accept, but my position is it would be smart for him to do. In either case, I expect HIllary would go on to win in Nov.
2. Obama wins nomination - he will not pick Hillary. Hillary remains in Senate building strong base of support for future.
a. Obama loses election: Hillary immediately is top Democrat in almost unchallenged position for 2012: Kennedy, Pelosi, Obama are toast.
b. Obama wins election: Hillary still in Senate building power base. This is the chaos scenario: Obama most likely will totally screw up everything as President because he has no experience and is relying on an assortment of advisor the likes of which we have seen the last couple of weeks. Unless Obama does a great job as Pres. He will be dumped in 2012 and Hillary steps in to clean up mess that Bush made and Obama made worse.
Given this outline of prospects, Obama's best move is to be Hillary's VP.
I know Obama people won't buy it. Don't care. Just mentioning it from a rational strategy point of view, which is generally outside the realm of the comments here, but useful for those who do think logically.
RichLiberal
Where are "honest and forthright" Hillary's tax returns and the Clinton Library Donor List that should have been released months ago? She is a legendary control freak it is laughable that she does not have this information at her fingertips. And ditto for all the slurs and smears coming out of her campaign. That's how the Repbulicans do it and that's exactly why we don't want her as the Democratic Party candidate.
Her supposed support boosted by Republican cross over voters in the primaries and polls and her 6.000 paid bloggers putting out posts just like yours is just smoke and mirrors. Hillary is a very, very weak candidate. The more I see her actions the less I like her.
Great post. Excellent writing!
A person who claims to be a peacemaker and a uniter isn't a peacemaker or a uniter if those who follow him hate those who don't. Obama followers have really shocked most of us involved in activist politics. I was pretty neutral about the 2 candidates and figured I would work for either. Then the vitriolic "our way or the highway" of the Obama campaign began - saying Hillary is evil for saying virtually anything - even for asking who we would rather have answer the 3AM call that every president has gotten many times. The woman who called Hillary a monster is looked at as a sweet little victim and Hillary is somehow even blamed for THAT.
If this is what his leadership leads us to become, no thanks. I don't see any difference between Obama followers and Bush followers. Caling us "unpatriotic" for not wanting war or "racist" for suggesting Obama isn't the best candidate - same thing. Obama talks about hope but inspires hate. Hillary really does inspire hope in those who support her, particularly women and the poor. That's the kind of leader I want to follow. And will.
The "Obama camp" loathing for the Clintons is not a "win at any price" or "my way or the highway" attitude, it's very specific. The Independent voters' loathing for the Clintons is not sexist, it's very specific. Let Al Gore step forward at a deadlocked convention, or Howard Dean, or John Edwards, and the "Obama camp" will unite with the real Democrats to elect him. While the Clintons will sit out the campaign, like they did to prevent Kerry from getting in their way.
Ever heard of "projection"? Loathing sleaze is not "intolerance" or "arrogance
BlogAngel
What channels are you watching? You can't get much sleazier than the Clintons. Why she did not get her coronation out came the Republican attack dog tactics. Republicans are willing to cross over in open primaries to boost her failing numbers because she is so divisive and disruptive!
I agree with what you have said, especially "the my way or the highway" part. After enduring 7 years of that attitude from the Bush Administration, it is even harder to tolerate from within our party and this is only the campaign. I suspect it will get worse if Obama wins the primary and substantially worse if he wins in November. Obama seems to inspire people to fight his battles for him, I wonder why that is.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
