Here is one of my favorite quotations, from Ted Hughes' "Famous Poet" (1957):
Stare at the monster: remark
How difficult it is to define just what
Amounts to monstrosity in that
Very ordinary appearance.
Yes, I'm going to play the "monstrosity" card. But I want to talk about the moment that the Clinton campaign's "very ordinary appearance" morphed into monstrosity for me. And that time was when, beginning March 3, the Clinton campaign went beyond negative campaigning and embarked on a deliberate strategy of coercion directed at the superdelegates and the leaders of the Democratic Party.
My one-man quest to follow in the footsteps of Samantha Power below the fold:
Underhanded. Desperate. Unfair. Successful.
These are four words that are often associated with negative campaigning. That term refers to running on negative aspects of your opponent's character or policies, rather running than the positive ones of your own. There is no question that to some extent the campaigns of both candidates, when they were behind in the nomination race, have gone negative. I don't like negative campaigning, and I don't like that it is often successful. But that's not what I'm talking about here.
What I am interested in distinguishing between negative campaigning and what the Hillary Clinton campaign is doing by defining the choice of a president in terms most favorable to John McCain, and then saying John McCain is superior to Barack Obama on those terms. I document three specific instances of Hillary Clinton herself doing this: here, here, and here.
This is not just negative campaigning. People keep scratching their heads about it, saying "what is she thinking?", etc. There's no mystery, and we should just come out and call it what it is: coercion.
This tactic is clearly directed at the Democratic Party and the superdelegates, and the message is this:
"Only you can stop me from taking down the Democratic Party, and the way to stop me is by using your power to force a Clinton/Obama ticket."
It is coercion because it contains the very real threat of destroying the Party's chances in the general election, and most of the superdelegates' chances for re-election. Mark Penn has already sent us the party's ear: here. Metaphorically, of course.
The Clinton campaign is now like an artist who threatens to destroy all the paintings in the Museum unless his is displayed. It is like the mother who threatens to get the soccer coach fired and end the team's season unless her kid plays more. It is like the guy who threatens to pour paint on your car if you don't give him $20. It is not equivalent to any of these things, but its actions are on a different level from saying your painting is better than another painting, than saying your kid could outpitch the team's starting pitcher, or that you need that $20 more than the carowner does. That's how I'd illustrate the difference between negative campaigning and coercion.
A personal note at the end of this diary. Some of you know me as one of those annoying people who has been critical of fellow Obama supporters who crow or insult supporters of other candidates (and I have hide rated people who call her a "bitch"). Yeah, I've done that. My sig line used to be: "Before trashing another Dem, say something worse about John McCain."
Have I changed my view? Well, the Clinton campaign has just violated the spirit of my old sig line in the deepest sense that it could be violated. So it is exactly that same annoying sense of fair play that has animated my comments in the past that is pushing me in this direction.
I don't claim to know what is in Hillary Clinton's heart. But where I used to see the deliberate banality of her self-presentation as quaint -- I now keep hearing Ted Hughes, and it dovetails with my realization that the Clinton campaign has become a monstrosity.
As Gary Hart recently wrote: "One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned." The last two weeks, the Clinton campaign's conduct has been different in kind than current or previous campaigns, and its use of coercion to get its way is something that needs to be front and center, and something that all Democrats should condemn.
Stare at the monster: remark
How difficult it is to define just what
Amounts to monstrosity in that
Very ordinary appearance.