Scorched Earth
Affirming her critics’ worst suspicions about her ruthlessness, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has undertaken a “scorched earth” strategy in her pursuit of the Democratic nomination for President. In addition to telegraphing a willingness to throw out her earlier promises to comply with party rules barring delegates from Michgan and Florida, the Clinton campaign last week promised to frustrate elected outcomes with so-called “super-delegates” and today floated the notion of even trying to strong-arm or corrupt Obama’s elected delegates.
If there is any principled underpinning behind the Clinton campaign’s moves, it is difficult to detect. The “let every vote count” meme that has persisted in the Democratic Party since 2000 has morphed subtly into “let every vote count for us“. And the Clinton campaign is being remarkably shameless about it, undeterred by the prospect that such tactics would inevitably alienate critical portions of the party. The word of the day from the campaign itself is viciously blunt: “All the rules will be going out the window.” Imagine how such a campaign or administration will act when the enemy is not in their own party.
On paper, Clinton’s policy positions sometimes appear moderate and pragmatic, open to broad consensus-building. But in style, the campaign promises to be a stepped-up version of the kind of demonization and bare-knuckles “war room” divisiveness that characterized the first Clinton administration. No dissent is tolerated and beating the other side is seen as more important than making substantive progress. Carried over to difficult issues like foreign policy and health care, it is not hard to see what moderates fear from a putatively “centrist” Clinton presidency.
Many — including some other contributors to this site — have lamented that some moderates seem willing to support Obama over Clinton in spite of Clinton’s supposedly more centrist views. If they truly wonder, however, they need only look at what Clinton’s campaign actually does as a demonstration of why those pro-Obama moderates might see a wolf in sheep’s clothing in Clinton’s “centrism” and the promise of a real and important difference with Obama.
UPDATE: Kevin Sullivan disagrees, arguing that the no-holds-barred fight for delegates is par for the political course.
UPDATE: Like a busted Mission Impossible mission, the Clinton campaign is disavowing this strategy.
Well, not so much a disagreement, I just think that this is the way the party rules work. I do agree, however, that Clinton has a running contradiction here–when the rules favor her, she is rather brazen about it. However, when they get in her way–like in MI and FL–she loses patience for them.
There certainly is a problem of tone and tactic with her campaign, but this is the Clinton M.O. I don’t know that it means she’d be a bad president, it just kind of makes you pity the people who would have to work for her.
More more important than issue positions to presidential leadership is adherence to some kind of principle and loyalty to one’s subordinates and allies. At the point that Clinton keeps showing that her adherence to principle and her loyalty to others is 100% contingent upon personal convenience, I think that IS relevant to what kind of president she would be.
And they all do it so I don’t quite understand how people can get upset by stuff like this. As an aside, I find it rather amusing to hear people who believe that Florida and Michigan should be stripped of their delegates talk about respect for voters, every vote counts, etc.
If (some of) the Democrats don’t like superdelegates than change it for the next time around. As is they are part of the system and it seems a little rich to complain about it because it doesn’t help their preferred candidate. The drive to get rid of the superdelegates is every bit as much of a bid to "throw the rules out the window" as anything else. I’m not saying the Clinton campaign is any better, I just get sick and tired of seeing Obama get a pass when he pulls the exact same crapola.
I actually don’t think that Florida and Michigan delegates should have been stripped. I thought it was an anti-democratic way for the party to deal with the problem. But I also take note of the unprincipled and opportunistic way that Clinton played the issue. She had ZERO complaint about it when it was decided. Indeed, she committed IN WRITING to support the process of stripping delegates. Then she dishonestly went back on her promises not to compete in those states and undertook contortions to try to change the rules after she "won" in contests without competition.
Seriously, can you not see the gross dishonesty in such machinations? Her machinations do not change that the rules themselves were unfair and improper, but her selective support for such unfair rules combined with her opportunistic opposition reveals that her stance is purely self-serving and is bereft of principle.
Might Obama have done the same thing? Perhaps. But all we know for sure is that Hillary Clinton IS doing it.
"Seriously, can you not see the gross dishonesty in such machinations?"
Just wondering…has Obama (re)accepted the pledge to use public financing in the general election?
Integrity is a two way street and Obama and Clinton are on a collision course. I wont condemn one and not the other.
At the point that Obama actually goes back on his prior pledge, I’d be happy to criticize that as well. I don’t think we are at the point of decision regarding anything for the general election yet.
And since when is “the other guy did something bad too” a responsive answer to any charge of misbehavior?
There’s a serious folly in comparing the general election vote to primary contests. They are not the same thing, Michael.
The Democratic party is a club, a club that can set its own rules for procedure and membership. There’s nothing governmental really about them or the convention. Both parties are essentially a reflection of how private citizens choose to organize in order to elect a president. MI and FL broke those party rules, because they wanted to be more relevant, thinking that the whole thing would be over by February 5. No matter WHO won the states, those delegates should get secondary treatment. Senators Clinton and Obama are running not for the right to run, but for the right to run as the Democratic nominee. It would seem logical to expect such a person to follow that party’s convention rules, or at least stick to their own pledges, no?
Ah but Jason isn’t this whole thing an excercise to show how "despicable" the Clintons are so that Obama can be seen as a innocent little doe by comparison? For example, the thought of superdelegates deciding the election in favor of Clinton is greeted with cries of dismay, shock and horror, but news that Obama’s people are seeking to "turn" superdelegates so he can secure the nomination is greeted with hurrah’s for his "political savvy."
Face it. In the political season any beating up of a particular candidate is DESIGNED to show them in a bad light compared to another candidate. If you put the added restraint that folks can no longer paint the other side in a bad light because "you cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior" than you are setting up a grossly unfair situation where the Clintons have to "take it" and not try to hit back.
Only if you first make some rather presumptuous and offensive assumptions about my intentions, Rich.
I wrote the piece based on my own thoughts and assessments, not part of a broader program to smear Clinton. I might even wind up voting for her in the end, if she gets the nomination and if McCain continues to disappoint with his dead-man-walking style of presentation. I am not a tool of any campaign. And the perpetual assumption that anyone who criticizes a candidate must be a hatchet man for the other candidate is toxic to political discourse. I’m hoping that your comment was just poorly worded and you meant something else.
Anyway, I already said that I would criticize similar behavior from Obama just as much as from Clinton. Are you calling me a liar on that?
My point was that a candidate’s behavior is not made right simply by virtue of the fact that another candidate also did something bad. And with Hillary Clinton’s campaign at this point in time, we are talking about a PATTERN of back-room machinations indicating a win-at-all-costs strategy that seems to me either far beyond “normal” politics or, at least, a depressing indication of what “normal” politics has become since the Clintonista politics of the “permanent campaign” and the “war room” debuted in 1992.