Which Stage of Grieving is This?

Sunday's New York Times:

[T]here is something more wrenching at work as well, a reckoning of whether the Clintons, on balance, have been good or bad for the party. It has the feel of a very personal testing of loyalties to a former president who once always seemed to be adding to the "Friends of Bill" list, and to a sitting senator who, if not so driven as her husband to win over everyone, used her fame to help elect other Democrats.

But one person’s "disloyalty" is, to another set of eyes, well-deserved "comeuppance." And there is no shortage of powerful Democrats who are quick to accuse the Clintons of defining loyalty as a one-way street, with little regard for the sacrifices they have made for a couple whose own political needs seem to their critics always to come first...

[T]he anger felt by the Clintons and that directed at them goes to what many see as deep fractures and unresolved tensions within the Democratic Party.

"There is a lot of Clinton fatigue in the party and in the country today, and many people are reacting to that," said Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader in the Senate, who is supporting Mr. Obama.

By the same token, "There is clearly a high frustration level among campaign types and from the Clintons themselves," said Leon Panetta, a White House chief of staff under Bill Clinton, who is backing Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

It is partly reserved for former Clinton administration aides who are now with Mr. Obama: Greg Craig, who served as special counsel to Bill Clinton during his impeachment saga, former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, and Mr. Reich, who even before his formal endorsement Friday had spoken approvingly of Mr. Obama and critically of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

"These are people that the Clintons gave an opportunity to serve," said Mr. Panetta, speaking generally. "They helped give them the titles they now have, and made them a lot of money. I think the Clintons probably feel they are owed something."

There's no "deep fractures" in the Democratic party, not like there are in the Republican party, or the way there were in the Democratic party of the 1980's.  There are, however, increasingly strong feelings felt by many people who are deeply impressed by Barack Obama, and who are also upset with the campaign run by Hillary Clinton.  

The bedrock of the Democratic party is the African-American vote.  African-Americans vote nine to one for Democratic candidates, and Democrats would not win statewide elections in most of the country were it not for that support.  Bill Clinton himself never came close to winning the white vote.  In fact, not since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 has a Democratic candidate for President won the white vote.  African-Americans are at the core of our coalition, and many see the actions of the Clinton campaign—through surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro and even, prior to the South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton himself—as disrespectful or worse toward African-Americans.

The activist base and the small donor base is also abandoning the Clintons, and is it any wonder why?  When Hillary Clinton lies about and insults the activists of MoveOn—an organization created to support her own husband during his bogus impeachment—you know you've entered in to some kind of crazy zone.  You also recognize a factor for why, as the NYT is also reporting tomorrow, Clinton appears to be running out of fundraising options; you can't insult activists and the small donor base of the party, and then expect them to give you money.  

On first glance, I thought Panetta's quote suggested that the people whose opportunities came via the Clinton presidency had served the Clintons.  In fact, he didn't say that.  But just to be clear, most of the people discussed in that article didn't just serve Bill Clinton, they served the American people.  As such, they owe appreciation to Bill Clinton, but not necessarily loyalty.  I also highly value loyalty, in my friends and definitely in my politics.  But ultimately, the highest loyalty is to the American people.  There's something disturbing about this article, because while nobody says it, there seems to be a current of thinking—feeling, really—among some of the Clinton team that people owe the Clintons, but without pondering that many of the people now supporting Barack Obama might have decided to support Barack Obama because they think he's a stronger candidate, and out of their greater loyalty to the American people.

It seems as if the Clintons can't understand that people could have multiple loyalties, not just to them.  And they don't appear to realize that loyalty can be abused, and many of us who were loyal to the Clintons during impeachment and other times feel that they have abused our loyalty.

This article read to me like the Clinton team is starting to enter that anger stage of grieving.  I hope that soon we all get to acceptance, and then to healing.