What Hilzoy Said
In catching up on some blog reading today, I noticed that Hilzoy had written a post last week making essentially the same point I tried to make last night (and much more eloquently). The whole post is worth a read, but I'll quote some of the highlights:
[W]hile my main reasons for opposing Clinton involve policy (see above), I also think that to nominate her would be to throw away a political opportunity that comes along once in a generation. . . .I agree with all of that. I also agree with virtually everything Hilzoy says in this follow up post.
I think, not particularly originally, that many voters have become disenchanted with the Republican Party. For this reason, if I had to bet now on the outcome of the election, I would bet on the Democrat. What I'm not at all clear on is how the Democrat will win. And how we win matters immensely. On the one hand, I think this election could genuinely change people's views about the two parties in ways that could reshape the political landscape. On the other, it could not. And a lot depends on how the Democrats play their hand.
When people talk about what would happen if Hillary Clinton were nominated, some of us, myself included, note that a sizable number of voters dislike Hillary Clinton, and will continue to dislike her whatever she does. We could argue about whether this is fair or unfair, but it seems to be a fact, and as such, it should be taken into account, at least if we're serious about winning. . . .
In this context, I think that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a disastrous mistake. Of all the people whom we are at all likely to nominate, she is the one whom people would be most inclined to believe the worst of. Some of those people -- the ones who thought the Clintons had Vince Foster killed and hung crack pipes on their Christmas trees -- are presumably unreachable by Democrats. But others -- the ones who don't pay close attention to these things, and came away from the 1990s with a vague sense that the Clintons were just plain sleazy -- are people we can reach.
If we nominate Hillary Clinton, then I assume that the Republicans will go after her, and that they will not restrict themselves to attacking her policies and her record. When they do, then all those people who are already inclined to think the worst of Hillary Clinton will, for that reason, be prepared to find those attacks believable. Stories about her sleaziness, her underhandedness, her cold and calculating nature, etc., will be a lot less likely to strike them as implausible, overreaching, mean-spirited, malicious, or vile. And that means that the chances that people will see standard Republican attacks for what they are are dramatically reduced.
By contrast, if we nominate someone whom people like that are not antecedently disposed to think the worst of, that will have two good effects. First, those attacks will be less likely to be believed, since the Republican establishment will not have spent the better part of two decades preparing the ground for them. Second, in order to get people to the same point of loathing, they will have to attack harder.
Both of these things -- the fact that any given attack will be less likely to be believed by ordinary, reachable people, and the fact that the Republicans will therefore have to attack harder to produce the same effects -- make it much, much more likely that people will see those attacks for what they are. They therefore make it much more likely that this election will genuinely change the political landscape.
posted by A.L. at 1:11 AM
17 Comments:
Most people familiar with Vince Foster are not aware that his body was found about a mile from Mitre Corporation Headquarters. This is the company that handles and holds White House surveillance tapes such as the ones taken of Foster and the Clintons at the White House. Historical records reveal that before his death Foster was with the Clintons at a Ceremony for Louis Freeh in the Rose Garden. I am the attorney that has made several FOIA requestes for these photos and tapes. Sincerely, Nelson Jacob Baker, Esquire
AL, in spite of the good points in your post (and Mr. Baker's fascinating post above), I think Democrats should focus on fielding the best candidate, regardless of whatever reaction might come from the other side. I personally feel that Obama is a better candidate of the two, but not the best in the field.
Hilzoy's follow up post certainly gives weight to her reasoning. The commenters on the first post, as often happens with Hillary; see her name, the starting gate rises up, the ability to listen turns to mush, reason abandons and a version of hate or distrust races out of the gate. Emotion, fear, distrust - they all need to take a back seat and with Hillary, unfortunately, they will always be the first response.
No matter whom the Democrats nominate, there will be plenty of mud slinging by the opposition, and no matter how much of it is actually based on facts, a large chunk of the population will believe it. It doesn't matter if it's Hilary the sleaze, Obama the secret Muslim, or Edwards the homosexual with expensive hair cuts.
First, let me state that I am an Independent who has already decided to vote Democratic.
AL, unfortunately, I disagree with several of Hilzoy's comments. Hilzoy impresses me as a decent person who still believes that politics is a gentleman's game. That Obama is a "safer" choice because Republicans will have to work so much harder to skewer him than they will in order to skewer Hillary. Look at what Republicans tried to do to Valarie Plame when she was outed by the Republican administration. They threw everything including the kitchen sink at her, a relative innocent. Now imagine Republicans fighting for their political life in Congress and in the White House. Do you think the Republican attack machine is going to hold itself back because Obama is new and innocent meat? Here's a good example of something they will capitalize on. "Do you want to vote for the Democratic candidate Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.? Are you sure he's on our side?" For many uninformed and poorly read Americans (unfortunatey we have our share) the name and implications will scare them off. Hilzoy declares that many people will see through this kind of tactic. I disagree. Many uninformed Americans react to heresay, misinformation, etc. They are, unfortunately, too lazy to make an informed inquiry. I encounter upper middle income people who recite Republican crap believing themselves to be fully informed. Hell, some of them still believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and that he had WMD.
Hilzoy is correct in saying that Hillary provokes bad reactions in Republicans and Democrats alike. So what? Perhaps this presidential election is going to involve picking the lesser of two evils. Look at any of the Republican candidates. It is truly scary to envision any of those candidates as president. McCain is the only candidate remotely sane and he wants to stay in Iraq and coddles up to Bush when the opportunity arises. Remember, Hillary will not be constrained from attacking Republicans and I think she can dish sh*t out with the best of them.
Key issues in this election will be the economy and Iraq. The timing of our economic downturn favors Democrats. Iraq favors Democrats. Hillary will be sorely tested but she has been through it before. Blacks will fall to her because previously Bill showed them heartfelt respect throughout his administration and they have no home in the Republican camp. Women will push Hillary because a woman can finally call some shots with authority. She may split Independents to a degree, but ANY Democratic candidate will be compelling in changing the course our country is presently on.
Hillary will make it. It may not be pretty but no Democratic candidate will have it easy. If she attacks wisely and strongly, stays focused on especially Republican missteps throughout this administration, she will pull through. Hilzoy and I want the same outcome. Unfortunately, I think Hilzoy believes Republicans will behave according to some set of prim and proper etiquette. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Actually, I do not assume that the Republicans will play nice. If I did, I would not be writing posts whose premiss is: they will attack whoever we put up; how can we best turn those attacks to our advantage?
I assume that the Republicans will attack whoever we put up. If you think that those attacks will inevitably be successful, and moreover that there will be no appreciable difference in the number of people who believe them, then you have absolutely no reason to accept anything I go on to say.
But if you think that some people might just accept the attacks they threw at one candidate but not the attacks they threw at another, or that some appreciable number of people might actually see through these attacks this year, then it matters a lot that we do what we can to position ourselves to take maximal advantage of them by running the candidate who will make that seeing through as easy as possible.
It sounds to me like everyone has the same goal, just different ideas on how to get there. The critical thing is no matter who is nominated, the Democrats are going to have to work their butts off to make sure they get out the votes. If there is a large voter turn out in the general election, the Democrats will win regardless of the candidate. But that is a big if and there is a lot of apathy in the country today. Everyone is going to be busy just trying to survive in this economy and the poor working stiff has to be made to realize it is for his/her own good to vote and to vote for their interests not on the basis of some knee jerk issue like abortion or gay marriage. It is not going to be easy.
Unfortunately, I greatly respect the Republican attack machine. Regardless of the Democratic presidential candidate fielded, the Republicans will attack that candidate relentlessly. Both Gore and Kerry, to their great detriment, tried to remain aloof. They seemed to ignore seemingly ridiculous attacks and felt they would fade with time. On the contrary, some of that dirt will stick with various voters. A viable Democratic candidate must have an effective and equally relentless offense to win the presidency in today's political environment. You would think this was as plain to see as the end of your nose but neither Gore or Kerry did and they paid dearly. So, I would say that yes, some of those attacks will be successful. Harking back to the time of Kennedy and Camelot is a dangerous diversion. The key is not to only play defense but exert a powerful and effective offense as well. Republicans, after all, have much to be embarrassed about.
Attacks in politics is a tried and true tactic. Attacks will be made by both sides and some people will believe some of it and disbelieve some of it. A voter's personal biases will be a key variable in that decision. But remember, Democrats need to deal with political animals like Rove. You have to be prepared to deal with that effectively because he will be out there behind the scenes.
I think Clinton, in spite of her issues, is best equipped to deal with the fight over the White House in the forthcoming election. This election will be brutal. I don't think the safest candidate is necessarily the best bet. On the contrary, I'm interested in the meanest Democratic dog in the yard. The one most likely to get a jawful of Republiccan tail in it's jaws. I think Obama is an asset to the Democratic party but at this time and under the current circumstances how about Vice President to Hillary? Then Democrats can set the stage for successive administrations and have the best of both worlds in this upcoming fight? It would take care of Obama's experience issue too.
Republicans are salivating to have Obama nominated. As always, they're counting on the racism of the American people and sad to say on MLK Day, it's always worked for them. So there's a bloc out there who will never vote for him, just like there is for Hillary, only I think his might be bigger and include more Democrats than we'd like to admit. If Obama's nominated, I'll happily vote for him, but look for the Rethugs to turn him into Barack "I'm a Weakling Just like John Kerry" Obama. They can't do that to Hillary and they know it.
I wish you guys would get it straight. I hear the NRO folks salivate at the thought of HRC getting the nomination, now you tell me the GOP salivates at the thought of Obama being nominated, and I'm certain that GOP operatives somewhere are drooling at the thought of playing that hair-brushing video over and over with a voice-over talking about personal injury lawyers getting rich.
Frankly, I doubt most Democrats -- and I'm sure no independents -- will vote for any candidate out of a fear that, if they vote their conscience, the Republicans will undergo a Pavlovian moment.
It certainly isn't something I lay awake worrying about.
Sadly, I don't think Obama will secure the nomination. Clinton has several advantages:
1. She's got the better organization. More people on the ground, better trained.
2. Say what you like about Mark Penn, he knows how to run a good negative campaign. Anything that tarnishes Obama's luster is a win for the Clinton team. Of course, it demeans everybody and will lead to acrimony in the party, they'll get the nomination. And no one will really switch to McCain, like they say they will.
2. Clinton really has "found her voice". In particular, she's learnt how to talk to the working class voters and staunch blue libs. It's the traditional interest groups: women, Hispanics, etc. She may not have the black vote, but she has women and most income groups.
3. She has Bill. He's busy sucking up all the media oxygen, forcing Obama to scrap at the street level and pick over some pretty distasteful oppo research. This detracts from Obama's message. Meanwhile, Hillary's cloistered with voters or reporters, doing substance and doing it well. Never mind that Bill is wasting away any goodwill he might have had as a former president, or that he chose this point in time to spend his political capital and not at an earlier when it might have benefited the party; this is what he wants and this is what he'll get.
I don't like to admit it, because I think we've just thrown away a great opportunity, but dirty campaigning always works, and in the end the advantage of the Big Dog will tip it for Hillary.
Part of me almost hopes that I'm wrong and Obama wins by some miracle. Or that Clinton wins but it savaged by McCain. But that won't happen.
I just wanted to add how dispiriting it's been to see the Obama and Clinton campaigns devolve into petty sniping. Neither camp is lily white here. As an Obama supporter, I've got to admit the Clinton team may have a point about the bullying of the NV Culinary Workers Union on behalf of Obama, and the Obama staffers have blown some offhand remarks by Hillary Clinton out of proportion.
There's a similar list of imagined slights from the Clinton camp. But two things stand out: their (admittedly tenuous) link to the attempt to disenfranchise NV delegates; and -- much worse -- their use of Bill Clinton and the gravitas he brings to every accusation of dirty tricks.
It's Bill's involvement that seals it for me. To think, I've defended this guy ever since the 90s! Hillary will win the nomination, I'll vote for the Democrat on the ticket in the general election, and then I'll wash my hands of it. For the sake of the country, I hope (a) that Hillary turns out to be a good president, and (b) Bill retires early.
Hilary has impressed me as deceitfully anti-progressive (war, globalization, media consolidation), so I would rather slit my wrists (i.e. vote republican) than see her in office. This has nothing to do with a dysfunctional marriage or a land deal. It is all to do with my need to see a balance of powers re-established, in politics, in labor, in the world.
All of these posts are compelling (except the weird one about Vince Foster) . I read what Hilzoy said and frankly I don't think it matters too much who the Democrats pick in regards to Republican smears. I have relatives who believe all the smears and they don't care one bit where the lies come from. You can tell by the emails they send. There have been years of emails about Hillary but as soon as Obama won the emails immediately focused on him. After Nevada they switched back to Hillary. My relatives are rooting for a team and welcome with open arms any slander against the opposing side while they remain completely ignorant of any substantive issues. However, I also believe that there is a finite number of people who are that stupid. In other words, I don't believe the Republicans will gain much when they attempt the same tactics this fall, especially when the attacks are aggressively rebuffed. There are a lot of Hillary haters, but is that number going to grow because of one season of slime? I don't believe it will because independent thinkers are more likely to critically assess their source of information and not just believe any rubbish that comes their way.
It is very hard to fight ignorance but Hillary is a realist having recognized the conservative conspiracy a long time ago. She is probably the tougher of the two but it is what she stands for once elected that is discouraging. We do not need a friend of the corporate world and NAFTA lover. We do not need 4 more years of the same but just with a different person at the controls. I think the real effort should be at gaining much bigger majorities at the Congressional level so that more can be done there regardless of who is in the White House. Dumping some of the Democrats that turned out to be Bush lap dogs and getting rid of Pelosi should really be the number one priority. Just think what a great day it would be to send Joe Lieberman packing.
When Lurleen Clinton begins to throw out the nonstop whoppers about the economy those two crooks bequeathed to the Bush administration, all seekers of truth will want to have at hand the actual record of quarterly GDP growth during the final three quarters in which they ran the executive branch:
2000 03 -0.4582
2000 04 2.0942
2001 01 -0.4886
Anybody here think Bill Clinton might be slightly insane?
Anybody here think Huckabee might win it all?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home