It sounds ominous I know, but Hillary Clinton does actually seem to be making the same mistakes in 2016 that she made in 2006. Mistakes that cost her the nomination and likely the Presidency. And folks, that is troubling. Troubling in part because the fact that these mistakes keep coming up means two things, A) that they aren’t mistakes but rather character flaws and B) they indicate, pretty strongly that a Hillary Clinton Presidency could be a problem for the Ds and for the constituents that comprise the core Obama Coalition. The other part of the trouble is that the inability to change, to progress, to adapt to the world as it is rather than as we want it to be, further indicates that the Hillary camp is suffering from a type of myopic group think that, while it might not cost them the Nomination in 2016, would be absolutely disastrous in the next President.
This post was published to Critical Blackness at 4:05:47 AM 2/13/2014
(I apologize for the lost links. For some reason none of the ones on the original blog post transferred when I cut and pasted. You can find the piece at CriticalBlacknessBlog.com with hyperlinks intact. I'm not trying to drive traffic, I just can't figure out the Kos system even with the Link button. lol, so much for my tech skills. If I can figure it out today I'll repost it intact. Again, sorry about that)
To fully grasp what is going on and why I am a little panicked this AM, let me first state that one of the knocks on the Clintons is that they are always, ultimately, about self. That by itself isn’t catastrophic – most pols are about self. It takes a crazy kind of narcissism to believe you should be in charge of the entire world and then to work to make it happen. But in the best pols, that narcissism is never, by itself, solipsistic. It is never defined by the idea that ones insular world is the only thing that matters. That the Clintonian world, for example, is the only real world, and everyone else’s viewpoint, needs, desires, etc., is somehow less real, less necessary. That type of narcissism is dangerous. That type of tunnel vision is how the Ds lost the House for the first time in almost 40 years when Bill Clinton was President in the 90s. How, after the best economy of the modern era a trickle down economic tax cutting anti science, anti-rational thought administration took over the nation and almost wrecked the entire world.
The Clinton machine, much admired, much feared, is one of cannibalistic appetites. It is one of exquisite control and rapacious gluttonous, greed. It is one of ultimate calculation but ultimately also bravado rather than swagger. It is the Presidency of the hyper-rational. But the problem with the hyper-rational is that they can justify anything. It is what makes those brilliant individuals so shockingly dangerous. The hyper-rational mind is how we ended up with DOMA and DADT. It is how we ended up with a repeal of Glass-Stegall. It is how we ended up with NAFTA, how we ended up with Welfare Reform. Conversely, it is how we ended up with massive investments in education, peace around the world, the IRA-British Peace Plan, stability in the Middle East, and a wildly growing economy.
Don’t get me wrong. I respect the hyper-rational. I share some of the same traits, and so too does President Obama. There is a ruthlessness to the hyper-rational mind, and a Way of Seeing that empowers an individual with clarity and focus. But as I state above, there is a danger. A real one. Because anything can be justified and rationalized. Anything is possible and acceptable to the hyper-rational mind, from NSA Surveillance, to remote control warfare. For the Clintons that manifested in personal conduct that was unbecoming as well as a ruthlessness in their political world that was at times unnecessary.
John Dickerson over at Slate asked this week, whether Hillary is ruthless or vindictive. An interesting question, but one that ultimately is perspective. Further, it is also a gendered question. When was the last time you heard a man referred to as vindictive? Ruthless yes, vicious, even petty. But vindictive is a term that seems reserved for women going through a divorce or women in positions of power. Ignore for a moment the gendered speech Dickerson choose to use and focus on the question itself. Is Hillary Clinton ruthless or vindictive? Both. She is ruthless but we know now that she kept a hit list or an enemies list like Nixon. Ruthless in how she answered questions about then Senator Obama’s religion… ““Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that,” she replied.
The two of them had sat together at prayer breakfasts for a year. She knew he was a Christian but the ruthless, hyper- rational moment was to take a shot. People were angry, I know I was. But why was it her job to clear up the GOP started rumors that Sen. Obama was a Muslim. It wasn’t.
Also in the campaign, during a debate, a moderator asked Hillary how she felt since people didn’t like her. Sen. Obama answered, “You’re likeable enough Hillary.” It was a misstep of tone, but it was a ruthlessly cut throat comment designed, at least in part, to make every highlight reel for all time. It was one of the defining moments of Hillary “finding her voice,” and Clinton showed she was able to throw and take a political punch with the best of them.
In fact, because of circumstances she throws better punches than President Obama. It is attractive, in the abstract, to have a President who is going to pummel the GOP. Strength speaking to strength seems to be the only language the GOP understands. I get it. But the Clinton’s in the defensive crouch during Bill Clinton’s Presidency, accomplished so little compared to what President Obama accomplished that a dispassionate examination of the strategy favors Obama’s style. Fight or avoid conflict? Can you ignore insults, even massive ones, and simply win each inch of ground, each contested area with an eye to the long term strategic value of conflict. Obama’s seems the better way. It is less sexy. It is harder to understand but it is the winning perspective. The Chinese said of President Obama: at first we thought he was lucky, then we though he had good advisers, now we realize he is brilliant. (Paraphrase) It is that kind of respect Hillary Clinton wants, that she’s earned, and that ultimately will allow her to forge an amazing legacy. If she can get out of her own way.
The problem for Hillary is that she has to actually get to that point where she can use what she’s learned from Obama and win some of these knife fights. Hiring Jim Messina was a moment of great hope for the Obama wing of the party. Messina isn’t just an Obama strategist, he is an architect. He is someone who embodies those traits President Obama values most. Calmness, strength, intellect, and incredible foresight. He is exactly who you want running Hillary’s campaign.
Which is why it is troubling in the extreme that rumors are starting to surface that Hilary Clinton is going to sit out the 2014 election cycle. It is a mistake of such epic proportion, it is a repeat of one of the worst decisions of her political career, and it is a disaster wrapped in a clusterfuck. It is absurd. There is absolutely no reason for Hillary to sit out the election cycle. She is raising money hand over fist, and sitting on it, is insane.
Let me explain what happened in 2005/6, Hillary was about 3 years away from running for President and she had one hurdle to face. Re-election in NY. Not much of a hurdle. She was wildly popular in the state, and she raised about 40 million dollars, back when 40 million in a state wide race was unheard of. Honestly, she could have raised 10 and won the election. Her opponent raised less than five, and never ended up within 20 points of her. But Hillary’s camp wanted to run up the score to announce her presence with authority. It wanted to prove her viability by massive fundraising and massive wins. Sounds familiar? That’s what Christie did in NJ. Ran up the score on Buono, attempted to prove the concept of his viability by his huge win. It is a tried and true method. But like Christie’s apparent bullying to get endorsements this last cycle, Hillary’s attempt to run up the score came at a cost. She didn’t help anyone else get elected. She cut bait on Lieberman when he lost the nomination, she stayed home and stayed focused on her own race, and sat on a massive amount of cash. More importantly, she was and is a superstar. Her presence at a fund-raiser, her participation at a forum, her parachuting into a state to raise money could have made a world of difference to candidates. But Hillary had tunnel vision. Win big in NY, run up the score, and spend that money making myself look unbeatable --inevitable.
Meanwhile a freshman senator in 2005 was traveling around the country raising money and helping as much as he could. He went everywhere people asked him to show up. He was eloquent, and hopeful and raised money by the truck load. His name was Barack Obama, and come 2007/08 the new senators and new people in the house that he elected almost all backed him. He was generous with his time and money, he was generous with his celebrity, and when he announced he was running he had a national network of people who had seen him in out of the way caucuses, in small state primaries, and he had elected in all those places who owed him, and loved him, and went to bat for him. Sen. Barack Obama made her wear that inevitability like an albatross around her neck.
It wasn’t an accident that he wiped the floor with Hillary Clinton. In their rush to declare Hillary the nominee, the media missed the larger more comprehensive story of Obama’s good will and hopeful message. 2006 was a wave election remember. We took back the House and the Senate. People didn’t see it coming, but Obama did. He was already running for President though no one knew it. He was setting up an alternative to the inevitability of Hillary Clinton. She had her own race to run, so no one would have expected her to travel as much as Obama. But she had unlimited money. She raised 40 million for a race that should have cost 10. She spent it all, running up the score instead of being generous with it. And in contrast was Obama, with the easy smile, and the swagger for days. The question isn’t how Obama won it is why Hillary Clinton couldn’t see the blowout coming.
Guess what folks, 2014 is a wave election. The GOP has been so ridged, so unyielding, so cruel and vicious that there is going to be a revolt. The Ds are going to hold the senate. I know the common wisdom is that we’re in trouble, but we’re not. My assessment, which I’ll go into next week in a long piece like this, is that the Ds are going to win the Governor races in IL, WI, MI, OH, FL, PA, ME, CO, CA, and WA with a chance at GA. Further, that we’re going to win red state senate races in KY and GA. The problem for Ds right now is that the President is popular in some of those states and he is terrifyingly unpopular in others. President Obama can’t help Grimes in KY who is up 4 pts. on McConnell, or Nunn in GA who is basically tied. He can help in North Carolina with turnout. He can likewise help in the Gov races in WI, OH, PA, ME, MI, and FL as well as the D holds in IL, CO, CA, and WA. In those states O is golden. He’ll do great. But that leaves a window of opportunity for anyone capable of helping Ds in the Red. Enter Hillary and Bill Clinton. Sec. Clinton and Former President Bill Clinton are a devastating duo. They are, in their own rights, massively popular and powerful figures in the D party. But on the campaign trail, they are almost unstoppable. If the Clintons spend money and give generously of their time, if they fully engage in the senate and Gov races, they have the chance to win Red States.
And they absolutely should. It is essential that Ds hold the Senate, not simply for President Obama but for the good of the Party with a capital P. For Hillary it is a wash. If Ds lose the senate Ds will be motivated when she runs and will look at her as a sure thing. She basically is. In the general election Hillary Clinton is unbeatable. The math just doesn’t work for the GOP. But the problem for Hillary in 2005/6 is that she didn’t think about getting to the general. She assumed she had it. Once again she seems to be thinking and acting as though the nomination is hers. It is not. It isn’t even close. Her support is a mile wide but it is an inch deep in some places. In progressive circles, in the African American community, in the independents who became Obama Dems but are more likely to shift back to Indy or R with a Clinton run. An inch deep.
One of the worst things that you can do in politics is confirm the stereotype. Al Gore, “I invented the internet. Love Story was about me.” John Kerry, “I voted for it before I voted against it.” Hillary Clinton, “I left the chopper under sniper fire.” Dan Quayle, ‘it is a terrible thing to lose one’s mind, Potato with an e, Murphy Brown and single moms.” George Bush, “Mission Accomplished. Stategerie, and dozens of other mistakes.” There is a legitimate explanation for most of those moments. Al Gore was the chair of the subcommittee that funded the DARPA project that became the internet. No one else on the committee grasped what the wonks and nerds were talking about in terms of cyberspace, but Gore did and he hand walked the funding through. Love Story, which was a wildly popular book and movie, was written by his college roommate and the main character was based on Gore, Tommy Lee Jones and a third roommate.
John Kerry voted for a bill that was changed in committee and again in conference. By the time it got to the floor the most important parts were gone. He voted against a bill he initially sponsored. Hillary Clinton, a month before she landed in Bosnia, the area where her helicopter was scheduled to land was the single worst sniper spot in the country. But the US military and NATO, through sheer force of will had not only ended the sniper threat, the area was safe enough that the first lady was able to land and bring Chelsea with her.
Those three explanations are fine, but the statements, oft repeated and looped on CNN, Fox and MSNBC, destroyed the candidates. Those statements confirmed the worst thoughts about them. Much the same way “cling to their guns and religion,” did for Obama. Much the way, “no new taxes,” did for Bush I.
The unpardonable sin in politics is confirming the stereotype, and if Hillary Clinton sits on a horde of money and support and we lose the Senate she’ll be blamed. People will say, “See, the Clinton’s can’t build a party.” It is a disaster for her. Conversely if she tries and loses in some of those red red areas, no one will blame her. No one. It is Obama’s Presidency, it is his responsibility and his burden to bear if we lose the senate.
The only way Hillary Clinton loses here is if she does exactly what it appears she will do. Nothing. Sits on her money and on her hands and does nothing to help Ds all over the country that would benefit greatly from her support. She should be offering to co-ordinate with the President, with the DSCC, with the DCCC, with the DGA. Instead it seems that we are all beggars in the Clintonian world. I hope she wakes up. I hope the rumors are just that, rumors and that she participates fully and aggressively in 2014. If she doesn’t it is going to haunt her in 2016. It is déjà vu all over again.
Peace,
J. Christian Watts
Follow me @JCWPolitics on Twitter
Tweet us at #Critical