It looks like the column of the day comes by way of the NYT’s Paul Krugman, at least with regard to the piece everyone is talking about. There are plenty of competing opinions out there, but I thought I’d add my two cents.
Krugman gets started arguing that Hillary Clinton got a raw deal on Friday over the Bobby Kennedy assassination remarks. I think Krugman’s right on this, and am already tired of the “controversy.” The Obama campaign has argued that Clinton apologized and that the political world should move on, which strikes me as an eminently good idea.
Krugman also argues that an issue-driven, substantive presidential campaign should give Barack Obama a considerable edge over John McCain. After noting in passing his concerns about Obama’s healthcare plan — the Times columnist has now criticized Obama’s healthcare proposal in 12 different print columns since February — Krugman argues that Obama’s agenda should be able to bring together disparate voting coalitions that will produce a victory in November. This sounds right to me, too.
But Krugman notes that campaigns “always involve emotions as well as issues,” and Obama “has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.”
So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?
Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.
It’s here where I think Krugman’s argument runs into a little trouble.
I don’t doubt for a moment that many Clinton supporters “feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment.” In fact, I think those supporters are largely right and have every reason to be offended by some of what we’ve heard during the campaign.
Remember all the media scrutiny about Hillary Clinton’s laugh? And news articles from major news outlets about her cleavage? And Chris Matthews casually dismissing Clinton’s record and credentials as a sham, insisting she owes her success to her husband’s infidelity? It’s been both offensive and ridiculous, regardless of which candidate or party one prefers. You don’t need to support a Clinton rival to recognize she’s received plenty of unfair criticism (just as, I hope, you can be a Clinton supporter and recognize the absurdities of some of the criticism Obama has received on everything from his lapel pins to his bowling score to his former church pastor).
The problem, I think, is that it’s a little too easy to misidentify the source of the problem, and I think Krugman may have been a little too quick to mention “Obama and his supporters.” There’s a difference, and it’s important.
Have some Obama supporters been quick to denigrate Clinton? Absolutely. But I’m not sure it makes sense for Clinton supporters to help John McCain — either directly (by voting for him) or indirectly (by staying home) — because some Obama fans were intemperate towards their favored candidate. Obama and Clinton have had a few dust-ups between them, but nothing outrageous or even unusual in the midst of a competitive process.
Krugman mentioned a “lingering bitterness” among Clinton supporters. I think that’s understandable, in part — bitterness towards media outlets seems rational, and perhaps even bitterness towards individual Obama supporters who were impolite. But a large number of people are going to undermine their own political party — and their own country — out of spite? Obama deserves to be punished because a few of his fans can be rude and because Chris Matthews can be a jerk?
Krugman’s broader point is not without merit. All Dems, regardless of favored candidate, should reject the notion that other Dems are the enemy. For the Democratic candidate to win in November, the nominee is going to need plenty of support, which will no doubt have to include backers of rival Dems.
But this also has to be a two-way street. The Obama campaign isn’t demonizing the Clinton campaign, but some of his supporters might be. As the nominating fight wraps up, and Obama solidifies his role as the party leader and nominee, it obviously makes sense to start bringing factions back together. It’s just common sense that Obama will want Clinton backers behind him.
But I’m not sure if Clinton has been upholding her side of the bargain lately. Krugman wrote, “Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it.”
I’m not sure. Last week, Clinton traveled to Florida to tell Dems that the party’s nominating process is not only illegitimate, but reminiscent of slavery, Jim Crow, and Zimbabwe. The message was divisive, misleading, and hypocritical. As Ezra, hardly an Obama cheerleader, put it, “As a message, it’s a mixture of toxic lies and scorched earth campaigning. It doesn’t help her win the nomination, but it makes the nomination worth a little bit less for the likely nominee…. She shouldn’t leave the race. But she should stop using her presence in it to rip apart the party and try to push major states out of Obama’s column.”
Precisely. In fact, it ties into Krugman’s concerns — Clinton says something irresponsible and damaging to the party … Obama supporters criticize Clinton … Clinton supporters get offended and push back … Obama supporters respond in kind. It’s not a helpful cycle, and it’s a lot easier to put fires out when Clinton doesn’t play with matches.
At the risk of sounding all Kumbaya, Dems can just get along. Supporters of both Clinton and Obama want the country to go in the same direction, and see the Democratic Party as the vehicle to get us there. Krugman was right to criticize Obama backers in February when a few too many said they wouldn’t support the party unless he were the nominee. Now, some Clinton supporters are saying the same thing (Krugman, for reasons I don’t understand, isn’t critical of them at all) and they’re wrong, too.