How Can Democrats Screw This Up? You're Witnessing It

This doesn't quite rise to the immediate level of Wall Street's activities looking like something straight out of "Independence Day," but a lot of very serious people are becoming very seriously worried, as you know, about Bill Clinton's role in the presidential campaign.

The reasons are varied, but taken on the whole, I think it's fair to say they largely represent the clash of long-term concerns and short-term interests; in the broadest terms, the personal versus the public good. There's also the internal matter of the party good -- which for most politicos reigns supreme -- but to date, the disgruntled have been mostly unwilling to fan the discordant flames out of fear they'll only blow things up.

What they have offered, so far, is what Richard Nixon would label as "candyass politics." They're pulling their punches, telegraphing rather than slamming.

Nevertheless the party's discord and disgruntlement have become a booming journalistic enterprise. In recent days, as just two examples, Dan Balz of the Washington Post and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek have funneled into the public arena the outlines of private worries.

"Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest," writes Alter, "have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama." Their official reasons: "There's concern that in hatcheting the Illinois senator and losing his temper with the news media ... Clinton is drawing down his political capital and harming his role as a global statesman."

Says Balz: "Bill Clinton's actions have caused consternation inside the party, even among those who are not publicly committed to either candidate. His 'fairy tale' remark about Obama's Iraq war position sparked a sharp reaction [from the African-American community] ... [and] his heated objections to a reporter's questions about the caucus rules in Las Vegas showed a petulant side of him that was highly unflattering."

A far more amusing characterization came from the Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel last Sunday on "This Week," when she related that her friends are now saying that Bill is looking like an overheated Little League dad, always interfering in the game to protect his helpless charge. The often unstated resentment among feminists? Hillary doesn't need Bill's help. She's a big girl and can take care of herself -- yet she's allowing an altogether different picture to emerge.

Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's communications director, defends Bill's role matter-of-factly: "The Obama campaign has passionate supporters who make a strong case for his candidacy. We have passionate supporters, first and foremost [Bill Clinton], who makes a strong case for her candidacy," which is true. He then added, "Everything the president has said is factual," which is patently counterfactual.

But even that's as irrelevant as all the off-topic hand-wringing about Bill's increasingly "unflattering" image. I seriously doubt the previously quoted pols give a hoot about his legacy. Not right now, anyway. They just want to get through this presidential campaign victoriously, and that means with the party intact and unified. And so far Bill is doing his best to upset just that.

By inserting himself -- that is, by a former president and head of the party inserting himself -- in the nomination process, Bill Clinton is well on the road to accomplishing what many Democrats regarded as an impossible mission: a loss in 2008.

He has, of course, revved up "Clinton Fatigue" once again, but far more threatening is this: By converting his wife's candidacy into a protection of his legacy and ultimately what's referred to as the "Clinton Restoration Project," he is also converting what could have been an easily achievable, condemnatory referendum on George W. Bush's reign into a referendum on more distant, bygone days. That does not bode well in an election pumped for "change."

And that's precisely why former presidents have traditionally stayed the hell out of primaries. Their immensely influential interference stomps the evolutionary insurgencies that are vital to any party's vitality. Parties require fresh blood, fresh ideas and fresh leadership, otherwise they rot like compost.

In addition, party supporters resent 800-pound insider gorillas hand-picking their successors, which only perpetuates the stale and dynastic and leaves the primary-voting electorate feeling as though the game is rigged. As a former party head, a former president can disproportionately manipulate the party machine's power -- hence the contest is perceived by many among the assorted bases as The Machine vs. The People. And to these many, insurgencies such as Edwards and Obama's are then seen as having been doomed from the start. It turn, the many stay home.

In this week's debate Obama quipped, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes." See above, Mr. Obama. It ain't Hillary.

The machine is driving the wedge deeply. And its emotional effect could, in time, answer that quadrennial question so beloved by Democrats: How can we screw up this almost surefire victory?

But it would also seem that that answer is coming into focus for many of the non-aligned pols. Hence their "candyass politics" may soon come to an end. Then the real fireworks, as they say, shall ensue.

Comments

[judec]

Thank you... you've nailed how I've been feeling in a way that I could never articulate it. I've been around to various blogs ranting in my comments about the inappropriateness of Bill Clinton's behavior.

I agree that the party needs fresh blood, and I am a supporter of what Barack Obama is trying to do for the party. He is absolutely right, that this is the perfect time to create a larger majority consisting of Democrats, Independents, and ex-Republicans. I know some of the latter, who are strongly attracted to the candidacy of Barack Obama. This larger majority, though, is something that the Clintons can not give us.

Both Clintons have lost my support forever. They are a team, after all. Neither would be where they are without the other. I don't doubt that Bill Clinton still has enough clout with the party faithful, that if he continues to travel around the country talking-down the party's brightest star, Hillary is likely to win the nomination... but she may lose the general election as a plague of renewed "Clinton fatigue" sweeps the nation.

Obama could still win it... he'd have to make an appeal to the nation in which he speaks bluntly about the Clintons and a new majority, among other things; like in his Iraq speech. He'll have to stop speaking in code about Reagan and "re-fighting the battles of the 90's".

Hillary could act truly presidential and rally the troops with one simple act: she could fire Bill from her campaign.

[smchris]

On the bright side, if Hillary and Obama chew each other up, we might get Edwards.

[Gail]

I think it is crazy to blame Hillary for this. For god sake this is a primary. I want to see it all and know that when I vote for the candidate that they have the strength, guts and experience to take on the Republicans. So far Hillary wins this round. Barack looked befuddled and weak - confused in that last debate. We need a strong and confident leader. This is no time to take a gamble on a novice. We all know that if Barack doesn't make it this time he will definitely be our President in the future!

[judec]

If Hillary is so strong and confident, why is it that she needs Bill to do the heavy-lifting for her; to the detriment of the party?

Obama is hardly a novice. If he were, he probably wouldn't be giving Hillary such a hard time. Is her experience as first lady necessarily more relevant than what the others have done? I'm not so sure. She is smart and a good debater, but I hated her vote on the war... I feel she did it because she thought it would be best for her politically, with her intended run for president in mind. Edwards has the same issue.

Obama has not mastered the 60-second soundbite answer, which means he doesn't debate as well... I'm not sure that makes him a novice. Presidents only need to debate during campaigns. The rest of the time, Obama's oratorical skills would be of more use to the country, I'd think.

[Alex]

Yes, it seems that the only thing that the clintons care about is winning, for themselves of course and are not considerate of the long term health of the country or whats best for the common good, only the CLINTONS common good. Looks like we might have another four years of bush/rovian political tactics and division in the white house ala the clintons.

[Lars]

There are more ways for the Democrats to lose this thing than what Dr Carpenter has outlined here. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to win an election since Jimmy Carter in the 70s, which tells me he knows a thing or two. Whatever his fine qualities, Obama has never been tested in a general election against a white man where ruthless and well-funded Republican flying monkeys (who keep winning elections) will hit real hard and real low and who have no qualms about cosmopolitan manners or political correctness. We may well lose this thing by putting up another noble nice guy who won't or can't fight back at the libelous slime hat will be heaped upon him. Question Clinton's actions if you wish, but I question the over the top reactions of Obama supporters, who decry any challenge to him as racist -- it's reminding me of voices heard early in the Duke "rape" case, which bodes ill. If they can't handle the Clintons, wait till their noble man of change and promise gets scrambled and eaten alive by the Republicans, who actually want to win this thing, whereas Democrats are always satisfied with a noble and purely pc loss by a nice candidate.

[notjohnhancock]

(Exceedingly long rant alert – sorry. BTW, excellent article.)

Funny, it seems to me that back in 2000 all it took was a single reprimand from George Bush, Sr. for Bill Clinton to shut up after he had publicly mocked George W. Bush once with his “my daddy was president” remark. In fact, as I recall all Bush Sr. had to do was merely threaten to say publicly what he really thought of Bill, whatever the hell that was supposed to mean (although I suspect it would have had something to do with “Slick Willie” – minus the ‘s’) and, just like that, Bill clammed up. Now here’s Clinton, eight years later, blithely ignoring pleas from within his own party to stop interjecting himself as his wife’s hatchet man in a closely contested Democratic primary and he won’t STFU.

So, in my discouragement and exasperation, I’m telling the Internet tubes what I think.

First, a Hillary Clinton nomination probably will, IMHO, be an unmitigated electoral disaster. My sense is that if you’re looking for the one Democratic candidate who’s most likely lose in the general to John McCain’s Straightjacket Express (and here I’m referring to his insanely straight jacketed Iraq policy, not the rumors that have circulated about his mental health), Hillary’s your woman. Second, fairly or not, the Clintons have come to symbolize not only the dysfunctional politics of brand identity, but also the asymmetrically partisan manner in which that dysfunction is expressed by the corporate media. Anyone who’s paid any attention at all knows that there’s a fully prefabricated, thoroughly market tested “Clinton fatigue” shit storm that the mainstream press will unleash the moment she’s nominated. Those who don’t believe that are, in my opinion, are simply either deluding themselves or have woefully short memories. For her part, Hillary apparently wants to assure us that her experience being on the receiving end of said media flak will somehow enable her to shout above the wind. Well, I’ve had experience too, watching eight years of that crap, and I call bullshit on that.

So, to Bill Clinton I would say that if it’s your legacy that concerns you, I would suggest that you find some contentment in knowing that over the course of your chronologically short but experientially interminable ex-presidency you have apparently secured a level of paternal approval from Bush Sr. that his lesser soon-to-be ex-president son may only dream about. Congratulations. That should make for some interesting Thanksgivings at the Kennebunkport Bush family compound for some years to come. But please, in the interest of whatever’s left of the republic, abandon your campaign for dynastic restoration for monarchal reign was neither the intent nor consensus of our constitution’s framers. And in the unlikely event you should find yourself once again in close proximity to another White House intern pool (for it is unlikely that your wife with her nearly universal name recognition and 40-something public approval ceiling will ever be elected president), I would urge you to heed the advice that is these days so ubiquitously televised, “Be sure to ask your doctor if you are healthy enough for sexual activity.” While that may seem ugly, unnecessary and gratuitously vituperative, I would point out that it is largely thanks to your wife’s politically ham-fisted semi-competence and your subsequent capitulation during the healthcare reform debacle of your first term that the pharmaceutical industry has, through its copious advertisement expenditures, since seen fit that I should have that one pretty well memorized. And I’m still among the ranks of the uninsured despite having voted for you -- twice. Thanks for that, too.

[serena1313]

PM Carpenter hit the nail on the head.

Hillary cannot inspire people like Obama does, so as long as he is busy defending his record the less time he can use his oratory skills to unite the country and convince voters to vote for him. In doing so Bill & Hillary are reminding the country of what we went thru in the 90s.

That tactic is likely to backfire not only on them, but likewise the democratic party. Pity!

I cannot help but wonder if in the long-run Bill Clinton is not hurting Hillary's campaign? It makes her look weak rather than "above" the fray. Worse both her and her husband appear to be gutter-snipe politicians, certainly below the stature of a former beloved President.

A majority of independents, moderate republicans are likely to not vote for Hillary. Even if she did win the election, it will be fifty-percent-plus-one! [ugh!]

[David]

Sorry sir disagree whole heartedly and I support Senator Edwards and after the Black man decided to play the nasty little white southern male joke to John Edwards it showed me more about Obama than anything Bill Clinton could ever say and Reverse Racism is just as ulgly so if obama with his homophobe hatemongering supporters are ok with him so be it but as a Southern white male and lifelong liberal Gay Democrat for 33 yrs who has worked tirelessly for Equality for all people not just race find I will not and cannot support an Obama for president the man needs to grow the hell up and give people a reason to vote for him (wheres the Beef) and as far as his broad support yeah right I'm sure they will flock to the Polls to vote for him. independants and repulicans will not vote for any Democrat and if you think so look at this mans mentor Liberman and how supportive he is of this party and he can drag out the former senator tom daschel from south dakota and now Lobbyist as well as John Breau another paid lobbyist they sure showed how win to elections did'nt they so for those that think this is harming our party than look at the man who's whinning the loudest its no John Edwards or Hillary Clinton! Edwards/08

[Thomas J. Pennington III]

Bill Clinton wouldn't have won in 1992 had Ross Perot not drawn 17% of the conservative vote from George H.W. Bush. Clinton campaigned against NAFTA, then signed it into law immediately as president. Nobody with any sense wants these people anywhere near the White House.

I won't even go into Vince Foster...

[chanceny]

If only Bill would vent his anger toward the policies he implemented that were dismantled, the warnings on AlQueda he advised bush to heed, the ineptitude on protecting our ports,etc. against terrorism, and the calamatous inaction after Katrina decimated the Gulf Coast, he would be acclaimed for his red-faced angry diatribes. Instead he wastes his time, and ours, demeaning a fellow dem that could very well be an inspirational and succesful contender. I hate friggin politics.

[Mooser]

Will the Dems so slice each other up the nominee will arrive at the general election half-dead? And in this of all elections.

[Brian Curley]

What I find most interesting is that everyone keeps telling us that "this bickering between Obama and Clinton is going to hurt the party." Who says? Is there any objective proof that the heated contest between the top 2 Democrats is turning off Democratic voters? I thikn this is the tail wagging the dog. Republican strategists want that to happen, so they plant the idea that it *is* and folks like Alterman, Crawford, and you yourself Mr. Carpenter, pick up their script and parrot it.

If there's actual proof that the Clinton/Obama clash is anything more than the normal primary process, I'd like to see it, not just hear someone tell me that's the case because they *say* it is.

[Davol]

I don't know if this is a valid critisism of Bill Clinton or just more of the incessent Clinton bashing that used to piss me off, and made me the anti-Republican that I am. I'm indifferent about who gets nominated, but one thing I always liked about Bill was that we both have the same fowl mouth enemies.

[BrianNJ]

Well, Brian, I am proof that the Clintons are tearing the party apart with their sleazy, Rove/Bush-style campaign. I have been a lifelong Democrat and supported the Clintons throughout the 90's. Over the past few months, I have been so disgusted by their campaign, that I will NEVER vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I will vote for Bloomberg or stay home. And, I have spoken to HUNDREDS of Democrats across the country who feel the same way! Hillary will divide the party, further divide the country, cause Bloomberg to enter the race and split the Democratic vote, bring down many congressional candidates in "purple" states, lose our majority in the House & Senate, and LOSE the White House for the Democrats!!! Mark my words...

[S Williams]

What I wrote to the Democratic National party and EVERY News source, tv, radio, and newspaper!

I am writing you today out of my DISAPPOINTMENT by the MEDIA, The Clinton's (Billary), and the National Democratic party. I can PROMISE you I am NOT alone in this. There are MANY who have become litterly SICK to out stomachs over how Sen. Barack Obama has been treated. I see why they call CNN (Clinton News Network) Fox News (Bush and the Republicans) and MSNBC, CBS, ABC ( Are RACIAL and VERY divisive. I see why they call the Democratic party the "group of Jelly-backs" because there is NO way on EARTH the the NDP shoud allow Bill or Hillary Clinton to BASH and LIE and RACIAL divide this Party and this Country.

I am a PROUD College-graduate with a sucesseful job and income that was raised to be a Democrat my ENTIRE life. After this situation if Sen. Obama is NOT elected as the Democratic Nominee I will OFFICIALLY change parties!!!

Atleast with the republican machine, they are honest to let African - Americans know that they don't care about us. After this situation it is my belief that The Clintons were intimidated with Sen. Obama's win in Iowa, with not only African-Americans, but older and younger white voters and women and they saw their "Entitled Presidency" being threated that they decided to LIE and bring up RACE to make "White" voters leave Obama and "black" voters doubt him.

This ENTIRE process has been AWFUL!! The news lies and twist the stories, the Democratic party does not stand up for the RIGHT canidate, and the Clinton's only care about themselves.

If Sen. Obama does not get the nomination not only will I LEAVE the democratic party but I will PERSONALLY talk to ANY and EVERY news media, person whether they are black, white, latino, old, you, low income, middle income, or high income as to the LIES that the Democratic Party and the Clintons embottle.

Only Sen. Kerry has stood up for him b/c YOU have done him the same way. We stand by you as you LIE year after year to get elected, NEVER passing bills or raising pay, but ALWAYS take millions of dollars for YOURSELf. YOU don't stand for the PEOPLE or the TRUTH you ONLY stand for LIES, MONEY, RATINGS, and Personal gain.

I PRAY God have mercy on your soul and the reason we have SO MUCH PASSION for Sen. Obama is b/c he seems to be the ONLY one left in Washington that care about the truth, the common man, and making the world better.

Everyone talks about Pres. Bush, but TODAY Pres. Clinton is NO BETTER and Bush lied about the War, but Pres. Clinton LIED about SOOO many things.

I don't understand how you can sleep at night with yourselves. One day the world will end and YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER for EVERYTHING you've done!

TODAY is the Time to stand up against LIES of the "Clinton" Dynasty!!! 28 years of Bush/Clinton are ENOUGH. I am convienced that they are ALL in on it together and there is NO real problem between "democrats and republicans".

If you DON'T stand up TODAY for Sen. OBAMA, you will pay later because I PROMISE the Democrats WILL not have the White House in November and there will be A LOT of NEW Representatives and Senators. You must have forgot YOU WORK FOR THE AMERICAN people, NOT the other way around!!!!

Al Gore, Ted Kennedy should STAND up. What's so SAD to my heart is that not only will this tear the party up, BUT it WILL turn people off from the political process and the news and WE ARE NOT BETTER than IRAN, IRAQ, or anyone else we like to point the finger at. They kill people, but WE CHARACTER kill people as you have done with Sen. Obama and Sen. Kerry.

AMERICAN as whole wants CHANGE but the powers that be DOESN'T!!!

Sen. Obama's campaign is not just a Campaign BUT A MOVEMENT that regardless to what the MEDIA says is beyond, black, white, lation, women, men, old, young, rich and poor. I have SOOO much love for my Obama "brothers" and sisters". WE ARE THE NEW AMERICA whether you like it or not and the people are to the point that WE WILL NOT let you win this time and CHANGE WILL HAPPEN whether you like it or not. Look at ALL of your positions closely today, if you are not HONEST in this WE will elect you ALL out and write to the news stations until we get NEW Anchors that are JUST and FAIR.

Do you think Bill Clinton cares about people???

[sholinda]

If the traitor Clinton is the Dem candidate, I'll be giving my love and money to whoever runs against her/him. Oh God, I hope Bloomberg runs in that case! I really don't want to have to support a Rethug (unless, of course, it's Ron Paul). But I will if the only choices are Clinton and whatever criminal the Repubs put up.

[Jentutsy]

Our party has a former, very popular President who is actively campaigning using the Karl Rove play book to lie and smear another Democratic candidate for President. Bill Clinton isn't running for office, and needs to stop campaigning as if he were. The Clintons are dividing this party in the same way I fear they will further divide this nation should Hillary Clinton win the nomination. Based on her conduct over the past month, I will NEVER vote for her. And I will encourage any and all who will listen to me to do the same.

We finally have a serious contender for the Democratic nomination that is moral, full of ideas and hope, and APPEALS to a broad coalition of voters - not just dyed-in-the-wool Dems such as myself, and the last Democratic President to do the same is actively trying to destroy this man's character by LYING about him. Does this make any sense?

The Dems have the opportunity to nominate an inspired and inspiring candidate - one that the press and people all over the country are comparing to JFK. Are they seriously going to be the Party that instead nominates the candidate that thinks she's somehow entitled to the office because she was married to the last Democrat who held the office? The Dems may go down in history as the Party who couldn't get their candidate elected after 8 years of George W. Bush - possibly the worst President in history. Sweet Lord A'mighty.

There are 300 million people in this country. Does the DNC realy want to be a party to this Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty? What's next? Jeb Bush and then Chelsea Clinton? Enough! The Clintons' time has past.

If the Democratic Party is interested in encouraging a third party to rise in this country, nominate Hillary Clinton. And we'll watch Mike Bloomberg enter the race, and have another Republican in office come Jan. 20, 2009. UGH.

We have the opportunity to change this Nation for the better. To restore our image around the world. The Democrats do. But not if the Clintons ruin it for all of us.

[Lordgodamighty]

We have to reform the Democratic Party before we can reform the country. If you think the Democratic leadership has been doing a great job over the last few years, running congress, squandering the last two elections, appeasing Bush, failing to take a stand on almost anything, then Hillary Clinton is definitely your candidate. If we want things to be different in 2009 then we have to wrest control of this party away from the pushy power couple.

[Linda Timbs]

At what point do you all quit with the poor Obama stuff, I am sick of hearing it, Really if he can't take it from the democrats, maybe some of those Reagan republicans
will sway his way, but I doubt it. This whole thing is being run by Republicans, I would bet if I knew the people writing these things it is Republicans, You won't be hearing this same thing come national election time in November, so just keep going. Some of us with an education and a brain can see right through the I know that anytime I see Fox & all of the conservatives for one person and against the other, give me the other, they play this game too much. Obama said what he said, don't spin it, read it, HE said it, get over it. If he likes these last few years with the republicans become one, if not then join Joe Lieberman and at least become an independant. I just don't see what everyone is talking about with Obama, tell me something he really stands for???

[ras]

Bush ~ Clinton ~ Bush ~ Clinton...

No thanks! Hillary will be no change, but more of the same corporate greed and nonsense. Obama is much too full of himself.

Guess I'll have to write in Jimmy Carter again...

[Andy]

The only time the Democrats DIDN'T screw it up was when they nominated Bill Clinton. So if they don't nominate his wife they will screw it up again.

[Edith M. Conrad]

I am writing this as a progressive fan of Sen. Russ Feingold and Congressman Dennis Kuchinch--a disappointed fan.

The congressman is supposed to be fighting for our progressive values, but only if he can see himself as the lone warriar. He not only choses to support Sen. Obama, a fine man but not progressive, but attacks Sen. Edwards who is the progressive candidate other than Kucinch. How are ever going to make any progress this way?

Sen. Feingold complains that Edwards was not this progressive when he was in the senate. Should we not have hope that politicians can grow in our direction? Feingold further complains that the Edwards platform is what his would be if he were running. This is his second reason for not supporting Sen. Edwards. Heavens--how could he ever support someone with these ideas who is not Sen. Feingold.

As I said I am so disappointed in these two egos--I might not ever support them again since they choose not to support we fellow progressives.

Edith Conrad
Asheville, NC

[Bobby Decker]

I was 23 years when the Reagan
Dynasty started this will be the only? time in my life the party
of the most unpopular incumbent President in history's retains the white house....THANKS HILLARY!.........SOMEWERE ROD SERLINGS LAUFING TILL HE PEES HIS PANTS!

[groundhog]

People WAKE UP!!! Hillary is Bush and Bush is Hillary. It's all the same. This administration needs Hillary badly to make sure all the crime stays hidden. Karl Rove is out there shouting Hillary's praises for gods sake! If Hillary is voted in, we will have what we have now for another 4 years, 8 years. Election rigging is only the beginning. All of congress is paid off. Pelosi is paid off or threatened with something nasty or both. Do some internet research folks and uplug your TV's and don't waste money on newspapers full of lies.

[snork]

This is missing the point. Clinton may have been one of the nails in the coffin, but they will not get re-elected because of the general failure to act on the part of those given a chance to do so in 2006.

The republicans fare no better.

So what it all comes down to is we don't care about any of the choices doled out to us, and we are sick of being told who we are and what we believe.

And so we react. It was inevitable. As is the control of the powers that be over all of us.