Because I am quite certain that both Senators Clinton and Obama read the Situation on a regular basis, I want to urge each of them to read Amy Walter's article entitled "Democrats Should tie McCain to Bush." Walter makes the argument that several of us at the Situation have been making for weeks: Clinton and Obama need to be mindful of the ultimate goal--to get a Democrat in the White House. As Harrogate as poignantly argued for months, this election should be a referendum on the past 8 years; we should be talking about the mistakes that the Bush administration has made and how the Democrats can fix them. Instead, the election, thus far, has been about identity and individual message, both of which are important in an election. But, as Walter reminds us, after a messy run for the Democratic nomination there will be an even messier run for the Presidency. Clinton and Obama need to avoid muddying the waters at all costs. The competition cannot get too ugly between them because any dirt that they dig up on each other will be used as fodder against the winner by John McCain and the Republicans. While they will continue to point out one another's strengths and weaknesses (and rightfully so, it is a campaign after all), I agree with Walter's argument that they need to focus on making a case as to why each is the candidate to beat McCain in a national election.
So here are my instructions to Senators Clinton and Obama: stay on task! Do what you feel you need to do to win, but do it cleanly and fairly. Attack Bush, McCain, and the Republicans at large. But avoid attacking each other. And if you are the winner, be gracious and humble; ask the loser to help you campaign and remind the Democratic voters of the task at hand. If you are the winner, be equally gracious and humble; if the winner asks for your support, give it wholeheartedly and publicly in any and every way possible.
12 comments:
But m, you're missing the point. There is no important difference between Democrats and Republicans. They all exist in the same sandbox.
And then there is Obama, towering above, offering hope from outside the partisan box. See how Positive his politicking Is?
If Obama doesn't get the nomination, many of his supporters take their balls in a huff and go home. That's just the way it is.
Oh Wise Harrogate, supporter of Senator Clinton and, hence, possessor of the truth; teacher of pedagogical lessons; thank you for sharing with Obama supporters wisdom for we only see the shadows....
And, you are correct, one cannot draw any comparisons between Senator Clinton and the Republicans or president Bush in particular on issues of transparency and openness in government. And the desire to use office for personal gain. We Obama supporters, now that we see the light, will flock to the only candidate that can give us the solutions we so desperately need.
As for M's post, do what you need to do to win but do it cleanly and fairly-- This has a wonderful ring to it but alas, is a contradiction in the politics of the new game and it will get much worse between now and the Keystone state. It seems that the gloves are off and the public statements of Senator Clinton preclude any reconciliation of the two candidates.
A call for unity now may not be possible. Unity between the two candidates a few weeks ago may have been possible. However, "shame on Obama," to bring up legitimate points about her health care plan. How dare he...
M, I think your instructions are good, but more than a little optimistic. I can't see how it's going to get anything but muddier in the next seven weeks, on both sides. The lesson that both sides learned after Tuesday is that negative campaigning seems to work. So now, as politicians who want to win their party's nomination, what are they going to do but run with it?
I am not missing the point, Harrogate. And, yes, Solon and Megsg-h, I fully realize that what I ask will not happen. But could you all allow me to be idealistic for just a few moments?
Sure, M. If you need a minute, we can give you one! :)
M:
Harrogate knows YOU arte not mssing the point. It is a large percentage of the electorate to whom you are appealing, that will miss the point.
And so, the need for Harrogatean disclaimers exponentially continues to mount.
By the way. How can any of us with a straight face refer to Clinton's negative campaigning when you've got an entire Obama Narrative, as illustrated by Solon in this Thread, predicated on the Idea: Clinton~Bush, what difference?
That's as specious and as dirty and as misleading as it gets.
Also specious to continue to maintain that because the Dems didn;t stop the Tax Cuits, didn't Stop the War, that they are equally culpable with the Party that engineered such things.
But there is no reasoning with this element. Obama is positive and sweetness and light. The Democratic Party can go to hell if it doesn't anoint him. That's postivie campaigning.
It's like, let's play a game entitled, how much can we lie and pretend we're speaking truth.
"But there is no reasoning with this element." I'm frankly sick and tired, Harrogate, of the near-constant implication that Obama supporters are either idiotic sheep or cult-like maniacs. Can I just say enough already? As an Obama supporter who is neither of those things, may I just point out that I've read the plans, statements and ideas and I think his policies are sound? Yes, there are a lot of similarities to Clinton, but I even like him when they differ. Is it so hard to believe that someone whose informed opinion differs from your informed opinion could possibly exist?
As Frank Barone would say, Geez-a-Lou.
The claim, "there is no reasoning with this element," is specifically referring to those who think there is no difference between the Democrats and the GOP. Tha failing to stop the GOP President is the same as what the GOP did.
And Harrogate sticks to this warrant. There is no reasoning with that element, no amount of evidence to the contrary will be perceived as wnything but "wonkish."
There are plenty of good reasons for supporting Obama. And Megs, you would do well to remember, and even if the Spirit Moves You, For God's Sake Acknowledge, that Harrogate has said this many times. And, in response to your final question, will say it Yet Again:
Obama almost won Harrogate over when he challenged homophobia in the black community. it was the best approach to that issue, especially given the context, that Harrogate has ever seen a Democrat perform.
Obama also almost wins Harrogate over every time he reminds us that there were plenty of people against the War from the beginning, and that he was one of them.
But damn it, What we are discussing here is a particular Meme to be found within Camp Obama. Again with feeling, the meme that there is no substantial Diff between GOP and Dems. This is a lie. There are a hell of a lot of Dead People, for example, that would be alive had Gore been sworn in in 2001.
Oh Wise Harrogate, supporter of Senator Clinton and, hence, possessor of the truth; teacher of pedagogical lessons; thank you for sharing with Obama supporters wisdom for we only see the shadows....
Au Contraire.... Harrogate
There many many who believe that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats (Chomsky, Nader)because there will ewill be no radical changes in either of their policies or political styles. Likewise, there any many who believe that there are no differences between political styles between Clinton and Bush (on lack of transparency, commitment to complete practices behind closed doors, disregard to the rule of law, use of rendition). If you do not choose to accept the evidence, that would be fine. But, to categorically denounce any connection as thee authority figure seems quite odd.
Further, to take the comments of some supporters and to make them the official position of the Obama campaign is a fallacy7 of composition (a fallacy on the basis of the relation from the part to the whole). Some Clinton supporters , especially at your favorite progressive site, will not support Obama. That is their right but not the position of the Clinton campaign.
And to conclude your comments with the appeal to pity about Iraq does nothing to help the conversation as no one will know how a Gore presidency would have acted. President Clinton possessed a plan to go into Iraq and did not hesitate to strike Iraq or Afghanistan while in office.
As you said in another post, staying on topic would help.
I find it highly interesting and incredibly ironic that even my fellow Situationers missed the point of my post--save Megsg-h; thanks for willingly indulging me!
To recap, I think my point is pretty clear: avoid name calling, avoid mud-slinging. Run as clean a campaign as possible from here on out, remembering that the purpose is to put a Democrat in the White House, to correct the policies of the past four years. You all seem to get that, but then, no, you all start (especially you, Harrogate) fail to actually take me to heart, even for the length of my message. Yes, I realize what I am asking is naive, idealistic, and not at all likely to happen. But, my good friends, would it have been too damn much to ask to for you all to uphold the true feeling behind my post? Apparently yes, as you all (again, especially you Harrogate!) took my well intentioned post and turned it into a mud pit! Shame on you all!
But thank you for making it clear within just minutes of my post that my dream is an impossible one.
Solon:
Chomsky, and Nader, are right to point out there are things the Parties share. For example, all THREE candidates standing have lobbyists around them. For Nader, the corporate connection is huge.
But those and Other who argue the differences are neither Vast nor Important, are simply Wrong. There is no other way to say it.
But it is not some silly Appeal to Pity to argue Gore would not have reacted to 9/11 by invading Iraq. Nor would have any Democrat worth the title. The GOP does indeed have blood on its hands. That has nothing to do with Pity. It's Actual.
Having plans to invade, contingencies, is one thing. All presidents should and do have such things. Starting a War is something else altogether.
But, has it come so far that you cannot even acknowledge this?
M:
Contrary to what you are insisting, Harrogate never missed the point of your post. Harrogate wishes just as fervently as you do, indeed as you state, he has been vocalizing the wish far longer than you: the wish that this election would be the referendum on GOP Rule that it By all rights ought to be.
Harrogate's comments above, as well as solon's from another angle, simply argue that at this point, we may well have slid far from the Clean Water Wish, however much we may prize it.
Why this is, is worth debating. And relevant to this thread.
Post a Comment