Blurring the Lines Between Clinton and Obama
Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:58:43 AM PDT
I don't have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he's going to vote with us to organize the Senate. I'm interested in getting one of these houses back, because that's the only way, I think, we can move away from the philosophical and political and economic direction the country has taken in the last five years. So I'm doing what I can to help the Democrats win the House and the Senate or both.
Bill Clinton, September 20, 2006.
You should recognize the tactic by now. It's the one that's pulled the wool over the eyes of quite a few in the netroots. It successfully derailed Ned Lamont's candidacy for Senate in 2006. It's the same tactic all incumbents and frontrunners use when they are threatened by a challenger. They blur the lines. They blur the lines until the distinction is negligible between the candidates, and then they run on "experience."
Joe Lieberman used this to great affect in 2006. Bill Clinton's quote above certainly helped blur those lines, but completely misrepresenting his own position on the war in Iraq, ("No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do...") played a large part. Make no mistake that Hillary Clinton is trying to blur the lines right now.
An informed electorate, or an honest media, would call them on this. At the very least, the blogosphere would recognize this. Chris Bowers wrote about this strategy months ago:
I dug up this quote as a way to expand upon Matt's question from Saturday, where he asked why Clinton seemed to be gaining support within the progressive blogosphere and open left. Matt's instincts are the same as mine, that "all the campaigns are blurring their messaging," and so "if everyone is pretending to be the standard wordprocessor, why not just choose Microsoft Office?" Blurring is very much a problem other candidates are facing right now, and the Mark Penn quote shows that blurring is actually a key component of Clinton's strategy. If all of the candidates seem the same on major issues such as Iraq, then why not just choose the most stable, long-term brand? In Democratic circles, that brand is clearly Clinton.
It's unfortunate that even among progressives who can recognize this strategy, there's still a disconnect. See Matt Stoller:
Meanwhile, I see limited or marginal reasons to care who wins the primary. I respect supporters of every candidate. Still, if you want to persuade me to drink your kool-aid, get your candidate to help Dodd protect the damn constitution already. And then I'll drink a big cup of whatever it is you're offering, and so will lots of us.
Barack Obama never fit their perfect model of a progressive candidate. For whatever reason, call it cynicism if you must, many failed to see that Obama was the natural successor to Howard Dean's movement. He was the one who incorporated internet activism directly into his campaign. He was the one who organized at the grassroots level. He was the one who captured the imagination of young voters. Most importantly, he was the one who could defeat Hillary Clinton.
Dean's revolution was about taking the party back. Unfortunately, that battle was lost. And while Howard Dean is now DNC chair, don't think for a minute that he'll remain there for long if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. The battle was not won, and the small battles, important though some of them may be, can't distract us from the large ones:
This is about the future of the Democratic Party.
It couldn't be more clear. Watch Barack Obama speak, and watch Hillary Clinton speak. Pay close attention to the pronouns they choose.
Hillary Clinton is the "I" candidate.
Barack Obama is the "We" candidate.
It may seem like a small distinction, but it tells you volumes about what their style of government will be. We deserve a President for all Americans.
Permalink | 26 comments