Must-read post from Matt Bai at NYT: Open Letter to the Clintons

Matt Bai has been blogging at NYT's "The Caucus," and he just posted a thoughtful, insightful piece about decisions the Clintons need to make in this campaign moving forward. He's not biased toward one candidate or another (as far as I've been able to tell) and the piece is not polemical. But he clearly states that the Clintons are at a crossroads: Do they continue allowing the lowest level of political campaigning in order to win at any cost, or do they care about their legacy in this party?

The most dangerous place to stand in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a bank of television cameras.

Well, that may be, but it seems to me that the most dangerous place to be in the rest of the country is between the Clintons and an elected office.

Just this weekend, after all the recent attacks against Barack Obama involving his kindergarten essay and cocaine, the "fairy tale" of his antiwar stance, we found out that the Nevada teacher’s union with ties to the Clintons is suing to keep workers on the Vegas Strip from being able to caucus in their workplaces, since most of those workers belong to unions that have endorsed Mr. Obama.

[...]

I wrote last week about how Mr. Obama was facing a perilous moment in his campaign. It seems to me that the same is true of the Clintons, and they may need to step back and briefly reflect. Both Clintons now find themselves in an unfamiliar reality, the kind of all-out war for the nomination that Bill Clinton twice managed to avoid. They will get all kinds of advice from people whose career opportunities are at stake and who will do or say anything to win. They are surrounded by overzealous politicians and interest groups willing do whatever it takes to shut down Barack Obama and deliver their states to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[...]

No one expects Mrs. Clinton to stand down and let Mr. Obama make his case unchallenged. She could, however, send a clear message to the cogs in the machinery she’s built that there is a line she will not cross. She could tell her Nevada allies that the job of the Democratic Party she grew up in is to make it easier for people to caucus, not harder. She could tell Robert Johnson that he needs to apologize, the same way she forced Bill Shaheen, her New Hampshire co-chairman, to resign last month. She can make it plain to all those people trying to get jobs in the next Clinton Administration that there is way to win—a rough and combative way, even—that nonetheless won’t destroy all the good that the Clintons, at least for a lot of Democrats, have come to represent.

•  I doubt they will have Johnson apologize

  It is too late for that. He already made his ridiculous denial that NOBODY outside the Clinton supporters are buying (and even they offer only lukewarm support). This has completely blown up in their faces...again.

  by turneresq on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:37:45 AM PDT

  •  I'm sure they won't

    and I'm not sure an apology is necessary or would help. But Bai's point about the tone she sets and the overall message she gives is dead on -- is this the campaign she really wants to run?

    by lapis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM PDT

    •  I can't tell at this point

      Honestly, I can't. The drip, drip, drip continues. Tomorrow's debate should be instructive, however.

      by turneresq on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:49:47 AM PDT

      •  I wonder

        if Edwards will weigh in on Obama's side again.

        by nisleib on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:55:57 AM PDT

    •  Her campaign's actions speak for themselves

      The Clintons aren't rookies--this is their 3d national campaign.  They know exactly what they're doing.

      The 1 thing that they're inexperienced at is a tough intraparty fight.  Their leading opponents in '92 were Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown.  They faced no primary challenge in '96.  They've never had to use these tactics against another Dem before.

      If the Clintons didn't like the way that their campaign is being waged, it wouldn't be waged that way.

      by RFK Lives on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:55:22 AM PDT

  •  Asdf...

    This has completely blown up in their faces...again.

    Yeah, and Bill Clinton telling us to just accept Johnson's obvious bullshit explanation about his Obama comment is really a new low. Boy, am I losing respect.

    by assyrian64 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:46:20 AM PDT

    •  Condescending, patronizing

      And so completely dishonest. A new low indeed.

      by turneresq on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM PDT

      •  But wait, there more

        the campaign is young still, just you wait and see how low they can go!

        by nisleib on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM PDT

      •  Yes...

        Condescending, patronizing And so completely dishonest. A new low indeed.

        Like many other Democrats, Bill's fibs regarding Monica meant nothing to me on a personal level, it's an issue between him and his wife.

        But Bill Clinton telling us to just ignore Johnson's recent lie, or Clinton's own lies about Obama's opposition to the war, are lies that do matter to me.

        I thought he was better than this. Silly me.

        by assyrian64 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:06:23 PM PDT

  •  Turns out, the black establishment is

    establishment.  Johnson's going to be putting New Jack City and misogynist hip hop on his BET today.  He's going to apologize for sneering at Obama's youth and youthful drug use never.

    by Inland on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:46:26 AM PDT

•  I agree

  this crap has to stop. The Clintons are really starting to disgust me, and any favorable opinion I ever had about WJC is dissipating rapidly.

  by charlestown dem on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM PDT

•  Poor Matt Bai

  He either wants to believe that there is a core of human decency to which he can still appeal, or feels it is necessary to at least behave as if there is a core of human decency to which he can appeal.

  This is the same mistake that the Democrats have made with George Bush from the outset.

  This is the fundamental weakness of the political/personality type commonly labelled "liberal."

  by greenskeeper on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM PDT

  •  See my comment below. nt

    by Inland on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:43:40 AM PDT

  •  greenskeeper...

    That is an extremely thoughtful comment.  I don't know whether to take it as you being cynical or sad, because there is such a grain of truth to it?  Can you elaborate?

    by Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:51:50 AM PDT

    •  Those Who Would Dismiss It

      ...will say it's cynical. If I were feeling sorry for myself, I would say it's sad.

      But really, I think it's pragmatic. As the Buddha once taught:

      "Suppose, Malunkyaputra, that a man has been wounded by a poisoned arrow, and his friends and family are about to call a doctor. ‘Wait!’ he says. ‘I will not let this arrow be removed until I have learned the caste of the man who shot me. I have to know how tall he is, what family he comes from, where they live, what kind of wood his bow is made from, what fletcher made his arrows. When I know these things, you can proceed to take the arrow out and give an antidote for the poison.’ What would you think of such a man?"

      "He would be a fool, Blessed One," replied Malunkyaputra shamefacedly. "His questions have nothing to do with getting the arrow out, and he would die before they were answered."

      "Similarly, Malunkyaputra, I do not teach whether the world is eternal or not eternal; whether it is finite or infinite, whether the soul and the body are the same or different, whether a person who has attained nirvana exists after death or does not, or whether perhaps he both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not. I teach how to remove the arrow: the truth of suffering, it’s origin, it’s end, and the noble eightfold path."

      I just want the arrow removed.

      by greenskeeper on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:57:06 AM PDT

      •  Thank you for your kind reply to my question

        Well, I for one, feel sick and sad.  I want to do a diary on this and probably will, but there are so many already.

        by Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:00:06 PM PDT

        •  And...

          To add:  Pragmatic is the last thing I feel right now.  This is not leadership.  This is nothing but hunger for power, power attained at any cost.

          by Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:02:18 PM PDT

        •  If The Fire is Too Hot & You're Burning

          Don't add fuel.

          Also, don't tell anyone I'm kind. I have a reputation to protect. ; )

          by greenskeeper on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:07:03 PM PDT

•  Hah!

  They will get all kinds of advice from people whose career opportunities are at stake and who will do or say anything to win.

  Oh, yeah....HRC better be careful about those people.  I hope someone warns her that those people are putting ambition above what's right.

  by Inland on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM PDT

  •  You think there aren't people like that

    around just about every campaign?  I'll name you one:  Terry McAwful McCauliffe.

    It's the candidates job to set the tone.

    by jrooth on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM PDT

    •  You missd my point.

      My point was that Hillary is that person in her campaign.  

      by Inland on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:12:48 PM PDT

  •  I don't

    know is she would survive the shock of such a warning!

    by nisleib on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:10:09 PM PDT

•  Open Letter to the Clintons

  is what it should have been called.

  by Hope08 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:44:28 AM PDT

  •  thanks

    I used your suggestion for my headline -- you're right, it's what it is.

    by lapis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:50:24 AM PDT

  •  Except the letter-writer is a tad naive

    He writes :

    the job of the Democratic Party she grew up in

    Hillary grew up in a Republican household, canvassed in the Chicago area on behalf of Nixon after the 1960 election to find evidence of election fraud by the Kennedy camp, was a 'Goldwater Gal' in 1964, and attended the 1968 Republican National Convention.

    To be fair, she became a Dem after that but she did not 'grow up in the Dem Party' unless she was a really late bloomer.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:08:41 PM PDT

•  It's so much easier and works so much

  better if you just issue an apology after the fact, and maybe even fire the person who was responsible even though it was done with her knowledge.

  by nupstateny on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:47:15 AM PDT

•  that caucus thing really is unfair--

  why do casino workers get to vote where they work, but teachers can't do so? and what about mall employees? and factory workers working shifts during the caucus, and all the others in Nevada?

  caucuses are entirely unfair and undemocratic anyway--they should not be allowed at all--we need all day primaries everywhere.

  Bai is against Clinton entirely, and shows it in that piece. Obama's campaign is sending a ton of emails to all media all day long about race and are ensuring that the issue stays alive. They think it hurts Clinton, while Clinton thinks tying Obama to race as a "black candidate" hurts him.

  A pox on both of them. Go Edwards.

  by amberglow on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:51:10 AM PDT

  •  Wrong

    Obama didn't even comment until yesterday, a good week after this stuff hit the fan. And I haven't seen any of these emails you reference.

    by turneresq on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:52:35 AM PDT

  •  It wasn't unfair last month

    and that raises a red flag for me.  My guess is the Democratic Party in Neveda was trying to encourage as many people to show up as possible, and structured the event the way they did because of the large concentration of people working on the strip.  

    by hollywood politcaljunkie on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:54:14 AM PDT

  •  The reason they chose a Saturday

    was so that teachers, for example, could attend more easily. These sites on the Strip were agreed to at the time the caucus date was set as a compromise with the Culinary union because Saturday is the worst day of the week for them.

    by lapis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:00:36 PM PDT

•  affecting the general election

  For no other reason, you'd think HRC and BC would care about how it would affect the general election (should she be the nominee).

  Ben Smith reports that Hillary Clinton wasn't met with much enthusiasm at a NY event:

  Hillary's speech to a labor rally on behalf of largely black security guards in Manhattan this afternoon offered a clear sense of the challenge she faces wooing black voters -- even in her adoptive home of New York.

  Clinton's introduction was met with applause, but also with a few boos, and her speech was received largely in silence, with occasional, polite applause, one round of which came when she hailed "the day when a woman and an African-American are running for the presidency of the United States of America." A man near me called out "Obama" at a couple points in her talk.

  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/A_lukewarm_reception_in_New_York.html

  And an op-ed in the Washington Post warns

  Racial innuendo, whether used by those on the left or the right, is unacceptable. Democrats may think themselves protected against allegations of playing the race card because of the party's reliable past support from black voters. Those Democrats would be very wrong.

  My generation of black voters is politically savvy and well educated. We couldn't care less about outdated notions of party loyalty. We are not our grandmothers, and no amount of candidate appearances at black churches is going to influence how we vote. We will certainly not sit back and allow Democratic candidates, or Republicans for that matter, to engage in Willie Horton-style tactics, even if the tactics are Willie Horton lite.

  If Hillary Clinton competes against Obama fairly and without resorting to covert race baiting, large numbers of black voters will surely embrace her should she be the party's nominee. If she relies instead on racial fears and stereotypes, we should not give her our votes.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  by maineiac on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:53:20 AM PDT

•  I don't trust Matt Bai.

  Ever since he wrote the piece on Kerry that Bush used against him in the '04 Campaign, the one about treating terrorism as a criminal matter, and putting Kerry in an effeminate, pink tie on the cover of the NYTimes magazine, it's been fairly obvious that Bai enters his interviews with an agenda that he deftly hides from his subjects until the piece is written.

  Bai has been rightly characterized as a "Democrats are so pathetic, when will they ever learn?" sort of petulant whiner, and I think, rightly so. His piece on Edwards, again for the NYTimes magazine, was equally dismissive. I did not read his piece on Hillary Clinton because I've come to the conclusion that he does not have the interests of Democrats  in mind even in his "concerned, helpful" suggestions.

  His famous reply at Yearly Kos to the statement that the blogosphere's purpose was to "help" journalists do their work better (probably a conceit, but an innocent one) was the sneeeringly condescending "Based on what?" read--where are your credentials to deign to challenge me in my mainstream perch?   I don't know how Bai got that perch. I don't think he deserves it. But whether he does or not, he is not our friend. While he pays lip service to admiration for the "netroots," he can't hide his contempt.   So when he's making seemingly innocent, from-the-heart observations, what they really are is criticisms. He is not here to be helpful and we should not be fooled.

  by Dartagnan on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:58:26 AM PDT

  •  Totally agree

    Wrote about a disingenuous column of his:

    Your traditional press, "trying" to get it, and failing
    Wed Dec 26, 2007

    and reported this from YearlyKos 2006:

    Political Journalism: Problems and Solutions - Atrios, Matt Bai, Jay Rosen, Christy Hardin Smith, Paul Waldman

    Professional journalists and bloggers are still talking past each other, and it was there for all to see in this panel.  Matt Bai, whose New York Times weekly commentary the panel merrily recommended, took offense with bloggers associating him with the "cocktail weenie set."

    And I'll say again:

    Why exactly did we have this guy "moderating" the Democratic Presidential candidates' debate at YearlyKos 2007?

    by Simplify on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:38:16 PM PDT

•  some of us

  As Hillary Clinton says,

  Some of us are ready to race-bait
  and some of us are not

  Some of us are ready on day one to attack and divide
  and some of us are not

  Some of us are ready to slime our opponents
  and some of us are not

  by maineiac on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:41:13 PM PDT

  •  Clever! n/t

    by oxon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM PDT