Increasingly, some of the pro-Hillary participants on his board have resorted to one of the following two messages when their candidate is criticized:
- "Let's not weaken the Party for the general election"
- "Let's not mimic Republican talking points"
Let's briefly examine why these arguments should be rejected.
1. This message is anti-democratic. To me, the single most objectionable thing about the Hillary campaign is her complicity in hijacking the democratic process. The most obvious example of this is her campaign's planting questions in "town-hall" events. However, there are other examples too. The way that her campaign threatens the media, most recently revealed in her apparent pressure on Wolf Blitzer to go soft on her in the Nevada debate, is highly undemocratic, and eerily Bushian. Likewise is her refusal to answer some questions on the basis of some kind of presumptive presidential privilege (see for example her campaign's statement that: "Senator Clinton is committed to vigorous diplomacy but understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America's presidency years ahead of time by making such a blanket commitment".)
2. This message is hypocritical. I've written before about the Hillary Trap. It is a remarkably convenient argument for the frontrunner to make that her rivals should give her a free pass; if everyone takes a leisurely jog to the finish line, the frontrunner is liable to win. Moreover, Hillary's campaign has had little trouble with sharp criticism of her opponents when they think it's warranted. Remember "Irresponsible and Frankly Naive?". Ever read a Mark Penn memo, which invariably criticizes her rivals for making a "desperate" attack on the basis of sagging poll numbers -- as though Hillary's opponents aren't even worthy to debate her?
3. There is no evidence that Hillary is the most electable candidate. There is some evidence to the contrary. Recent polling averages have Hillary faring percentage points better than Obama against Rudy Giuliani, but Obama faring percentage points better against both Mitt Romney and John McCain. John Edwards' head-to-head numbers are generally slightly stronger than either those of Hillary or Obama. Moreover, the blanket nationwide numbers may ignore the importance of electoral math. Both Edwards and Obama do significantly better than Hillary in comprehensive polls of swing states.
4. The "Republican talking points" are already entrenched. Hillary has been a focal point for Republican criticism for at least 15 years. If elected, she will be a bigger target for partisan attacks than any nominee in electoral history. Republican feelings about Hillary Clinton are already entrenched. In fact, this is one of the reasons that Hillary is not the most electable candidate; it is going to be extremely difficult for her to get much above 51, 52% on election day. But it is not like we are exposing any new fault lines, or giving Republicans any new ideas.
5. The purpose of the primary process is to vet candidates. Hillary's ability to win over a skeptical electorate has yet to be tested. As mentioned above, Hillary is going to get a hell of a fight from the Republican nominee. Certainly, her toughness is an asset (even if this meme is somewhat overstated). However, she is not someone who has particular experience in a down-to-the-wire election. Her only previous elected office is as the Junior Senator from New York, where she's won by 12 and 36 points respectively without enduring a tangible primary fight and in a highly Blue state. If the end result of the criticism from Obama and Edwards -- and their netroots sympathizers -- is that Hillary has to develop skills like improving her damage control, reaching out to her opponent's supporters, and trading on some theme other than inevitability, this will be nothing but helpful to us in the General Election.
6. A Democrat in the White House in 2009 is the thing, but it isn't the only thing. I'm in the midst of reading Ronald Brownstein's "The Second Civil War", which I'd recommend to all of you. One of Brownstein's central points is a highly intuitive one: partisanship begets partisanship, in a sort of positive feedback cycle. Whether or not you buy into Barack Obama's "post-partisan" rhetoric, there is good reason to think that Hillary's election would be a sort of Pyrrhic victory. Her fault or not, Hillary is someone who triggers almost carnal partisan instincts, and her election will tend to perpetuate the Hatfield-McCoy types of feuds that have characterized the last couple dozen political cycles. Hillary will begin her term with an inherently limited amount of political capital, and to the extent she as able to achieve victories, the Republicans will be hellbent on reversing them in 2010, 2012, and beyond.
7. There is indeed a time for unity: after Tsunami Tuesday. This should be relatively self-evident, but it's especially true given the early primary calendar. Since the nominee will likely be decided by early February -- and if not then, after states like Texas, Ohio and Massachusetts vote in early March -- there should be a minimum of seven months to rally around the nominee. Most nomination fights have gone much deeper into the election year calendar. I think we can agree that if we get into about mid-March and we've reached a point where someone like Barack Obama retains a mathematical chance to win the nomination, but not a material likelihood of doing so, it may become time to give up the fight and support Hillary. I would hope that Hillary supporters will extend the same courtesy if the reverse holds true. We are nowhere near that point now, however, a year away from the election. Let's remember that the party was trigger-happy to rally around John Kerry after Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004, and we all know how that turned out.
8. "Swift-boating" should be off-limits. But this isn't swift-boating. What I would not support from Hillary's Democratic rivals is aggressive opposition research, or hypermanipulative framing of bygone issues, a la Al Gore bringing up the Willie Horton issue against Michael Dukakis in the 1988 primary cycle. These things could bring up new issues that could be problematic for Hillary in the general election. But so far, there has been no drudging up of dirt from the Obama and Edwards campaigns; it's rather been pointing out the manifest inconsistencies and judgment issues that Hillary has brought upon herself. Note: fell victim to a conservative meme on Gore/Horton here. Thanks for nothing, Wikipedia. See here for details.