Americablog just touched the third rail in Democratic politics. In the past few weeks it's become clear that the entire rationale of the Clintons' continued presence in the campaign is "vetting." They're the self-appointed pledgemasters, and the Democratic primary is one long hell week. In between flippant threats to nuke Iran, Hillary Clinton performs a public service to all Democrats by slinging meritless personal attacks Barack's way -- racially loaded innuendo, implying on "60 Minutes" that his religion is an open question, mentioning Farrakhan appropos of nothing, and going the Saxby Chambliss route in advertising Bin Laden.
It's to Obama's great credit that he's not performing the same public service. The Clintons believe that to be a good Democrat, you must employ discredited GOP talking point to slime your opposition, since the GOP is run by professional kneecappers in any event. This is how your party nominee is "vetted" and "tested." It's not intraparty cannibalism, you see, but simply tough love.
What would it look like if Obama adopted the Clinton Rules? As Americablog points out, if you want a sense of how constructive and disciplined Obama has been in the face of an onslaught of Clinton filth, it begins and ends with the words "Monica Lewinsky."
According to Americablog, Claire McCaskill said the following on MSNBC today:
MCCASKILL: Well, it's a really difficult decision. I mean, no one in the Obama campaigns wants -- I mean, Senator Clinton talked about her baggage in the debate last Wednesday. And everyone is very respectful and deferential to the Clinton family in our party and we don't want to do that. But, frankly, they keep throwing nails in front of the bus. And as voters are considering whether or not some of the controversies around Barack Obama will be an issue in November, people do need to remember, there will be controversies about the Clintons that will also be an issue in November. And I think that's what we hope superdelegates also focus on.
To which blogger Joe Sudbay observes:
Any time any of the previous controversies or indiscretions of the Clintons are raised by anyone, her campaign gets all indignant and appalled -- like it's all some well kept family secret. (It's not, p.s.) But, all those Clinton scandals MUST never be discussed, it's too mean or too personal or too dated or something like that. Yeah, and the Republicans will accept that standard, right? We're not sure we really know how Hillary Clinton can handle those attacks because no one on the Democratic side will make them -- but we'll all be expected to defend her if she does steal the nomination. (And who knows what else is lurking out there.) That's something the superdelegates need to keep in mind. Do they want that Clinton baggage -- again?
John Aravosis observes:
See, even when discussing what a frightful, awful, nasty mess Hillary has become, how she's even willing to race-bait Obama a la willy Horton, Joe is still too nice to use the M-word. Lots of Democrats are too nice too. Obama is too nice. His staff is too nice. His surrogates are too nice - note that Claire McCaskill didn't detail even one Clinton scandal (but you'd better believe the Clintons will flay her alive, nonetheless). Hell, even the blogs supporting Obama, and Netroots groups like MoveOn, are too nice. None of these people want to mention Monica Lewinsky even when they're talking about the kind of nasty issues that Republicans will throw at Hillary in the fall. That reticence, that decency that comes naturally and innately to non-Clinton Democrats is what Joe is talking about.
Hillary hasn't had to defend herself in years against all the Monica Lewinsky crap, against rumors about her husband, rumors about herself (see, even I'm being nice and hedging here by not giving you details about the rumors - but you can bet they're gonna go public in the fall), about Whitewater, Travelgate, Filesgate, cattle futures, and on and on. When Hillary is pulling racist crap on Obama, trashing black churches, comparing him to Jesse Jackson, she likes to talk about how she's really doing it to help him and help the party - you see, she's preparing him for what's coming in the fall. She's "fully vetting" him. But who is fully vetting Hillary? The last time she came under the full onslaught of the right-wing conspiracy it destroyed her likability in the public eye, and made her one of the most hated Democrats in America. And she's still paying a price today with horrendous disapproval ratings that she's been carrying for a decade.
When Hillary claims to be a veteran of brass-knuckle politics, a survivor of Republican onslaughts, a tested leader, this is what she's talking about.
Hillary has never run against top-flight opposition. Her 2000 opponent, Rick Lazio, was a one-man farce. Her 2006 primary opponent was an obscure anti-war activist, and her general-election foe was the ex-mayor of Yonkers whose name I just had to look up. Obama has at least ran once in his life against a skilled politician, in his unsuccessful race against Bobby Rush in 2000. If either of the two Democrats needs to be tested as a candidate, it's Hillary Clinton.
So when she claims to be "tested" and "experienced" and "tough," she's sure not talking about her own elections. Largely, it's code for the battle scars she suffered during her husband's administration. Maybe that's an asset, or maybe that's mildly disturbing. We don't know, because she hasn't been tested.
Under Clinton Rules, the Democratic primary would, in fact, be about Monica Lewinsky, and Travelgate, and Whitewater, and who stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom, and Marc Rich, and the donors to the Clinton Library, and any number of rumors (regardless whether they are discredited or just "questions") afloat in media and political circles about Bill's post-2000 peccadilloes.
Under Clinton Rules, Barack should be willing to suffer any backlash for breaching the M Word. This is for the good of the party, after all. No one wants to go there, but surely the Republicans will "raise questions" about what went on in the White House and the risk of a repeat.
Under Clinton Rules, Bill's tomcatting antics with Ron Perelman would be the opening question in a debate moderated by ABC. After all, they're a possible liability in the fall, and the Republicans surely will be interested in discussing them. Besides, if the First Gentleman's best friend is a billionaire playboy, wouldn't that indicate that his wife is elitist?
But Barack hasn't played by the Clinton Rules. And for better or worse (but mostly for the better) neither do the rest of us. Each of these issues and more would be perfectly fair game under the Clinton Rules, where the entire point of a primary is to vet your opponent for the good of the party, damn the consequences or fallout.
We do not play by the Clinton Rules. The Republicans will. And Hillary Clinton is the only one who'll be vetted for the first time in a general election.