For six months now, partly under the influence of Senator Barack Obama's refreshingly naive
quest
for a higher level of discourse in American politics, we've resisted
the temptation to "go negative" on his arch-rival -- "Sir Hillary"
Diane Rodham Clinton, the relentless one-and-one-third term New York Senator, two-term First Lady, five-term Arkansas Governor's wife, and life-long honorary Queen of the State of Blind, Unbridled Ambition.
Along the way, we've watched aghast as some of our closest
associates -- people who describe themselves as "Democrats" and
"Hillary supporters," but really turn out to be Obama haters who threaten to vote for John McCain in November if Hillary is not the Democratic nominee -- have tried nearly every trick in the book to tear Obama down.
BLACK FACE
For example, on January 4, 2008, just one day after the Iowa primary, one such pundit was overheard suggesting to members of Sir Hillary's inner circle that the best way to undermine Obama's surprisingly broad appeal would be to "blacken" him.
At the time, Hillary's campaign was still reeling from her
third-place finish in Iowa, based on the fact that Barack had done so
well across conventional racial, ethnic, gender, and age boundaries.
Evidently the advice was taken. This explains Hillary's odd, a-historical comments on January 7 in New Hampshire, when she compared Lyndon Johnson's role in securing US civil rights legislation during the 1960s to that of Martin Luther King, Jr. ("It took a President to get it done.")
(Actually it took a mass protest movement, based on years of
organization and lots of blood, sweat, and tears, to get it done.
Hillary's inaccurate recollections about that period may be have been
due to the fact that in 1964, at age 17, she had spent her time
campaigning actively for Barry Goldwater, the Republican Presidential
candidate who opposed the US Civil Rights Act.) 
This cynical tactic also helps to explain Bill Clinton's patronizing
remarks in South Carolina on January 26, when he compared Obama's
campaign to the Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 1988 Presidential bids --
as if Obama were just another "black niche" candidate.
The point is that all these statements were deliberately made, regardless of their merit, because the Clintons wanted to provoke rebuttals from prominent black celebrities like the Rev. Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and Spike Lee.
Bill and Hillary knew full well that this might well cost them votes
in a handful of states like South Carolina, where blacks are a majority
of registered Democrats. Indeed, they were both widely criticized for
their remarks.
However, in their cynical calculus, what really mattered was that the official black response would remind white voters elsewhere that while Senator Obama might seem to be "articulate and bright and clean" (in Joe Biden's memorable description), he's really just (as one anonymous Clinton campaign adviser put it) "the black candidate."
DIE HARDISM...OR WORSE?
In the short term, many observers thought that such cynical tactics
had backfired. Indeed they may have. Contrary to Sir Hillary's best
laid plans, Barack not only survived "Super Tuesday" on February 5, but
went on to acquire a commanding lead in delegates.
Even after last week's machine-state primary in Pennsylvania, Barack
still leads by at least 133 delegates. If the latest polls in the
remaining nine primaries hold up, Hillary would need to capture an
improbable 73 percent of the remaining unpledged "super delegates" to
win. (Click on the chart below.)
Unfortunately, this situation appears to have only redoubled the Clintons' willingness to engage in McCarthyite tactics, including race-baiting and "guilt by association," regardless of the impact on the Democratic Party's chances in November.
The Clintons are notorious for pursuing their own selfish interests at the expense of the Party (just ask Bill Bradley, Al Gore, and John Kerry). But this spectacle is setting new records.
These tactics include trying to smear Senator Obama with the radical views of the Rev. Wright, the Rev. James Meeks, or even the Rev. Louis Farrakhan; reminding people of the Senator's admitted occasional drug use 25 years ago (as compared with Gov. Bill Clinton's denied, much heavier use
of cocaine during the same period); and attacking Obama for having a
few corrupt contributors in Chicago ("...NOT Chicago!!!") like Antoin "Tony" Rezko (compared with the Clintons' legions of corrupt contributors); and associating Obama with former Weatherman and now Distinguished University of Chicago Prof. William Ayers, who was never convicted of anything (while Bill Clinton had sought fit to pardon two former
Weathermen who'd been convicted of involvement in terror-related crimes.)
The smarmy tactics also include promoting the idea that Obama can't possibly appeal to white working -class voters, Hispanics, Jews, or Catholics in battleground states, simply because.... well, you see, the country may just not be "ready" for a "black" President -- whatever those terms mean.
Of course the Clintons argue that dwelling on such material now is justified because Karl Rove and the Republicans would only focus on it later. This is more self-serving flim-flam. The fact is that Hillary & Co. have run a terrible campaign, and are now reduced to throwing bombs rather than talking about real issues.
If the Clintons had not under-estimated Obama so badly, they could have discussed all of this character-assassination material long ago. By mounting the intense diatribe so late, and continuing the race well past the point of diminishing returns, they are wasting precious attention and resources that ought to be devoted to attacking the real enemy.
THE AGENDA
So why are the Clintonistas employing these Die-Hard, polarizing, kamikaze-style tactics?
Well, first, a few hard-core stormtroopers down in the Bunker may actually still hope to achieve a "Hail Mary" knock-out in
the last few primaries, shocking the super-delegates into a
wholesale defection.
Second, they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this battle,
and many of them have been preparing for it literally for decades.
They genuinely feel entitled to reclaim their White House.
Third, many of their (highly-paid) campaign operatives are not exactly looking forward to seeking real jobs in the midst of a recession.
Fourth, key Clinton supporters desperately fear being left out in
the cold if Obama wins the nomination, let alone the Presidency, for as
much as another eight years. Especially for those in Hillary's "boomer"
generation, that's an eternity.
Finally, and most cynically of all, if cancer-prone 72-year old John McCain wins the Presidency, the odds are that he will only last one term. That would give Hillary another shot in four years.
Whereas if 47-year old Obama wins, he might well last two terms -- by which time Hillary will be approaching dotage and Bill Clinton will be in a retirement community for sexual predators.
From the standpoint of naked Clinton self-interest, therefore, the cynical calculus once again prevails.
You see, it is a far far better thing to go after one's fellow Democrat with all the malevolence that one can muster, even at the risk of ruining his chances this November, than to withdraw now and help his chances.
Naturally this kind of cynical strategy has attracted all kinds of
miscreants, Republicans-in-sheeps' clothing, stragglers, pimps, shills,
camp followers, and hangers-on.
There ought to be a special place in Hell for such people.
But if there is not, we shall endeavor to create one right here on Earth.
(c) SubmergingMarkets, 2008
Comments