|
Edited on Sat May-24-08 01:21 PM by Prophet 451
I came to the Obama camp late. Obama was my fourth choice in this race and for a long time, I didn't have a preference at all. I was for Gore (who didn't declare) then for Kucinich and then for Edwards. When Edwards dropped out, I spent some time thinking that either of the remaining contenders would be decent presidents. Neither were perfect, both were a long way from my kind of progressive but they were good enough, they would "do". Obama hooked me late with his speech on race relations during the Wright fiasco. That hooked me. Not because it was a "moment of truth" or anything like that. I'm British and our attitude to politicians is, largely, "don't trust the bastards". Here, we know that with a few notable exceptions like Tony Benn (imagine Paul Wellstone in his seventies and you have Benn), all politicians are motivated, at least in part, by self-interest. No, what got me about that speech and caused me to support Obama was that it was the first time in a long time that I can remember a politician speaking to the populace like they were grown-ups. Like they could appreciate nuance and subtlety. For around thirty years now, US politicians have largely addressed voters as if they were small children, explaining why they would benefit you, not the nation; why their opponant was a bad person. Remember that scene from "Wayne's World" where Wayne is doing an interview with someone and holds up cue cards which include the line "He blows goats. We have proof"?. That's largely what US politics reminded me of. A gotcha game where vision mattered less than getting in a zing line before the commercials. That's what sunk John Kerry. A serious, thoughtful man, he couldn't express himself in soundbites. So when Obama came along and made that speech, addressed the voters as adults, capable of thinking about things and reasoning for themselves, I was sold.
Just.
Like I said, neither Hillary nor Obama were ever as progressive as I'd like. Both of them had some ethically questionable incidents in their past, neither said enough about what I considered (and still consider) the greatest danger to the US, unrestrained corporatism. Of the two, I felt Obama was marginally better, largely because he was willing to try engaging voters as adults. For his policies, I simply hoped that the base he'd built, which was very progressive, would hold his feet to the fire and either he'd listen to them or he'd provide an opening for a genuine progressive. Still, the primary dragged on. It was interesting at first. We don't have primaries here and I didn't pay much attention during the 2004 primary so watching it unfold was fascinating. Hanging out on DU though, I noticed a nasty undercurrent of divisiveness and hatred. First, there were the accusations of cult-like adoration of Obama. No doubt, a certain number of Obama's supporters did act like cultists, so did a certain number of Clinton's supporters. That's what happens with personality politics, a certain amount of supporters turn it into a personality cult. The closest thing we had here was Blair in 1997 and that was less about love for him and more about revulsion to the Tories. Slowly though, I noticed that one side of the crazies was actually acting worse and for all they protested, it was the Clinton supporters. Understand, it was never a large number of supporters from either side who were throwing verbal grenades. It was always a fairly small number of crazies in either camp. Still, of what I was seeing, the Clinton supporters seemed to be doing it slightly more often and slightly more viciously, even if there wasn't an awful lot to choose between them. Well, that was regrettable but ultimatly, no big deal.
Over the next few months though, it got worse. Although there were always a few Obama alligned crazies (who I choose to call "bots"), the Hillbots seemed to become the dominant, or certainly, the most vocal part of the Hillary supporting camp. There was the furore over "Bittergate" when Obama again tried to talk to voters as adults and the Hillary camp pilloried him for it. There was the accusation of seeing Obama as a messiah. True of a few Obamabots but equally true of about the same number of Hillbots. There was, and still is, the projection, the accusations that Obama had played the race card on every occasion, that he had run a dirty campaign, that he was an arrogant egotist. All accusations that, from my point of observation, fit Senator Clinton far more easily than Senator Obama. And always and everywhere, there was the accusation of sexism directed at anyone and everyone who did not support Senator Clinton's bid. To be sure, there was sexist language and actions from parts of the media (Chris Matthews being especially guilty) and from some Obama supporters. No-one's questioning that but the cries of "sexism" became so overused, so universal as an explanation and an excuse, that it devalued the term itself. When a Hillary supporter expresses outrage over genuinely sexist language, it's difficult to take it seriously when you've heard the Hillbots screaming the same thing at absolutely everyone for months. Not very rational perhaps but human nature. We all learned the story of the boy who cried wolf as children; the Hillary campaign became the story of the campaign that cried sexism. So many accusations, in fact, that no-one bothered to point out that if it was sexist to say that someone shouldn't vote for Senator Clinton because she was a woman, it was equally sexist to say that someone must vote for her due to her gender.
Then the crazies coined the term "Clinton Derangement Syndrome". Since the crazies had started to strongly remind me of Bush apologists, it seemed to fit. The insinuation that anyone who couldn't see how wonderful the "Goddess of Peace" (a nickname made for mockery) was must have been mentally ill. I actually am mentally ill. I suffer from what is in the US called Major Depressive Disorder (here, it's called Type III Clinical Depression). I'm not sure if that makes me more or less likely to spot mental illness in others but looking around, most of the Obama supporters (that's most, never forget the crazies) seemed relatively sane and well-balanced whereas the Clinton supporters I was seeing increasingly struck me as unbalanced, not because they were Clinton supporters but because the Hillbots seemed to have drowned out the more reasonable supporters. It probably reached it's ugliest point with the demonising of Keith Olbermann. Now, Olbermann's not perfect either. He's sometimes blustery, often pompous and probably thinks too highly of himself. He is, however, the veritible island in a sea of dross. As one of the very few liberal commentators on TV and the only one in such a prominent position (Stewert and Colbert are satirists, they don't count), he gives us some kind of voice, however imperfect, in the mainstream media. Plus, I have to love a guy whose main hobby is annoying Bill O'Reilly. Olbermann's Special Comments have always been framed forcefully as his personal opinion. If he uses facts to back them up, all well and good but he has never pretended they were anything other than his own opinion. So watching the reaction when he criticised Senator Clinton was nothing short of surreal. Suddenly, Olbermann became a sexist nazi, a failed sportscaster, Bill-O with better hair. I think that was the point where I realised exactly how cult-like the Hillbots had become and, like any cult, anyone who criticised Dear Leader was to be demonised. Yes, there were and still are Obama supporters who fit the same description but the contrast between actual offence and punishment was so extreme, so disproportionate that it forced some rather uncomfortable questions about the mindset of HRC's supporters. Olbermann expressed an opinion they found distasteful so they verbally eviscerated him in the same tone and with much the same language as the Bush apologists had always done.
By this point, the persecution complex had gotten wildly out of hand. Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Hillary-hatred and sexism had become the excuses for everything. Any fault of Hillary's, no matter how major or how clearly her own fault, was ignored. Any fault of Obama's, no matter how minor, was exagerated. To the Hillbots, this had become less a campaign than a crusade and like a crusade, any tactics were excusable. Most glaringly, the exploitation of the Florida and Michigan primaries. That's not to say that the contested primaries weren't a mess, nor is it to say that the "solution" reached didn't unfairly impact the voters in those two states but it was the flagrant dishonesty of the Clinton campaign that sticks in the memory. The blaming of Michigan's disenfranchisement on Senator Obama even while the Hillary campaign shut down one of the only two fair solutions, giving Obama the "Uncommitted" vote, despite previously stating that Obama had campaigned for that vote (the other, a re-vote, was shut down by the Michigan legislature). As I said, I'm British and we don't expect politicians to be honest but we do expect them to at least be convincing liars. Despite the Clinton campaign's now habitual portrayal of itself as the outraged victim, they had become the victimisers.
And then came the assassination remarks. I've listened to that five times now, I've tried to see how it could be interpreted any other way. I've tried to place myself in Senator Clinton's now exhausted shoes (how long must it have been since either of them had a decent night's sleep?), I've tried to see how it could be justified. The remarks about her husband's campaign were fair comment but, try as I might, I can't come up with another interpretation of the RFK reference than "I'm staying in just in case Obama gets shot". I'm sure that to Senator Clinton and her more mindless supporters, that makes sense or can be excused. To the rest of us, it looks vaguely akin to a vulture. I'm sure Senator Clinton doesn't wish to see Obama cut down but much like a drunken Henry II crying out in frustration "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?", sometimes words have consequences their speaker did not intend. In a lesser politician, it would be easy to write this off as a gaffe but Senator Clinton is an extremely bright person and she has alluded to this scenario three times now. Her apology, if apology it was, was misdirected and insincere. Yes, politics is hardball. Yes, Senator Obama requested Secret Service protection due to the death threats he recieved as soon as he declared his candidacy (although I would be surprised if Senator Clinton didn't have such protection as well). Yes, this is a vicious and bruising campaign but there is a line. Unseen it may be and it is seen as much in the breach as the observance but there is a line which those of us who like to think of ourselves as moral or ethical people do not cross. To raise the specter of assassination, to point it's finger at the first black man with a shot at the presidency like some demented Banquo's ghost, that is a step too far. Once would have been too far but forgiveable but the three times Senator Clinton has alluded to the same thing, that is, at best, irresponsible, insensitive and callous. At worst, it is the reprehensible machinations of an immoral human being and in neither case, should the speaker be allowed near the levers of power.
Oh, that won't challenge the Hillbots of course. They will defend Senator Clinton's comment endlessly, they will mock us for our outrage and/or dismiss it as feigned. That's not surprising because the Obamabots would do the same. They will tell us that we should be nicer to them if we want their suppoort in November, returning again to the political model of quid pro quo; unable to put aside their hurt feelings or wounded pride for the greater good of nation and world.
Hillary Clinton's campaign for president did not fail because of sexism. It pains me to write this because I used to respect both Clintons and may well do so again but it failed because of Senator Clinton. She hired some staff who were truly diabolical (Penn being prime example); she misjudged the public mood badly by campaigning initially on a "back to the '90s" platform when the public wanted to move forward. Her cries of victimisation, true or not, backfired as anyone should have seen they would, confirming the sexist's prejudices and annoying the non-sexists. The complacency of assuming Super Tuesday would end the campaign and poor money management hurt her badly. She underestimated Senator Obama's appeal and then struggled to adapt quickly enough when he proved to have legs. She calculated and recalculated increasingly bizarre metrics to explain the math of the campaign. In the process, she squandered a huge campaign war chest, name recognition, a good senatorial record and the impression of inevitability. To be sure, sexism played a part in that but it was never as large a part as the Hillbots liked to claim and it could easily have been overcome if Senator Clinton had run a better campaign.
I don't know what Senator Clinton will do now. I imagine she'll go back to her Senate seat in New York and perhaps, given hard work and a little luck, she can re-earn our respect because she has been a very good senator. Perhaps she will retire, that would be fine too. But this race must be over now. The Hillary campaign has crossed the Rubicon, there can be no turning back from this. It's over now.
|