Hate Springs Eternal
Feb 11th, 2008 at 6:47 am by Susie
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
[...] I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
The blatant sexism against Clinton is turning me from someone who 6 months ago said that Clinton is probably our weakest GE candidate into someone who might vote for her just because I’m so angry at the smug piggishness.
Sigh. So if I decide to support Obama, it’s because 1) I’m a mindless follower of a “cult of personality,” or 2) I’m a Hillary hater? That’s it?
I find #1 amusing, as I supported Edwards and liked Richardson as a second choice, sending contributions to both. I spent most of 2007 arguing with Obama supporters. And even though I still have concerns about Obama, I’m drinking the kool-aid because I prefer him to Hillary Clinton?
Isn’t it possible to not support Clinton because I don’t like her policies? Because I organized against the war and remember very clearly what it was like to have her and Joe Lieberman supporting Bush and Cheney over millions of people in this country and worldwide who tried to stop the insanity? Because when Kerry and Edwards tried to take on the war in the 2004 election, she and Lieberman continued to support Bush and Cheney against her own party?
Isn’t it possible to not support her because I still remember NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the DLC shifting the party over to the right? Because I remember David Broder, founder of the Sierra Club saying that the Clinton administration had been worse for the environment than Reagan-Bush? Because I remember an opportunity to do something about Health Care, only to watch it go down the drain in a muddled attempt?
According to Krugman, this is all emotional and person - slavish following of Obama and vicious hate for the Clintons. Isn’t it possible, even in this climate, for people to prefer Obama over Clinton for long-pondered, long-discussed, and carefully weighed reasons?
votermom,
Is Code Pink sexist? They’ve been slightly critical of Hillary Clinton for the last 5 years.
VastLeft on Correntewire recently posted something similar over the weekend.
Regarding William’s question in comment #2, VastLeft concluded her essay by saying:
It’s not about Code Pink. If you support or oppose a candidate on the issues that’s fine with me.
But for me they’re both deeply flawed on the issues anyway. So now it’s the injustice vote. The way that the rampant sexism is so lacking of any self-awareness has shown me how deep and wide the problem of misogyny is in our society. And on the so-called progressives blogs. There are a lot of issues that can be used to attack HRC, but she’s attacked with sexism instead. It’s bullying. It’s abuse. It’s not ok.
I’ve got daughters. Anything I can do to make their future less painful is worth doing. And that may mean voting for HRC.
I don’t know. I’ve been meaning to still vote for Edwards. I’ll see what happens.
BTW, I wasn’t trying to downplay genuine sexism against Hillary when I made my Code Pink comment. The sexism is out there in various quarters, I know, especially in the media. Just don’t want us to attribute all criticism against Clinton to sexism.
Lis Riba,
I haven’t been to any Obama rallies, so I can’t comment on the glazed look of some of his followers. The people I know who are supporting Obama are mostly ones who supported Edwards earlier. They seem fairly even-keeled.
I have to say, I do find it ironic that when the Democratic Party finally has a candidate generating incredible enthusiasm in the public, he’s criticized for it. I say this after having gone through the Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry campaigns and wondering why the Democrats couldn’t offer someone more dynamic. (Gore may be now, but he wasn’t in 2000.) Whatever my own reservations about Obama, I am impressed by the excitement for a political candidate who is on our side. My cynical side may question the energy behind the enthusiasm at times, but my hopeful side admires someone who’s able to get people excited about the political process after the last 7 years.
Am I understanding this? Obama never passed a bill or held a meeting. He invented some bizarre rhetoric to fool young people, about the red States joining the democratic party, financial interests letting him remake the campaign system, and bringing the country together while he brings republican smear tactics into the democratic party, with ridiculous promises there is no way he can keep. He tweaks and calls his own a large group of policies created by the Clintons when Bill was a leading intellectual in the DLC. He has no legislative record to speak of, but the media throw out a few weeks of adjectives boiling down to Obama Good, Clinton Bad, young people compare him to MLK, LBJ, JFK, and Lincoln himself, and are voting for him because he’s young and gives a good speech.
He might even win against Hillary Clinton, a woman who helped create and pass a national legislative agenda, which reversed the debt and deficit, generated government surpluses, hugely advanced minority rights, and created massive prosperity not by throwing money at the defense industry and running the government into the red as republicans do but by moving the levers of industry and letting the market do the work, all while fending off the worst media smear campaign in history.
[...] Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Kevin Hayden and Susie Madrak agreeing with Krugman to Hilzoy, State of the Day and Ron Chusid pretty much going [...]