Expect to hear this phrase a lot: The ‘Tonya Harding Option’

Way back in March, Carpetbagger regular Jim Benton encouraged the Clinton campaign to “stop with the Tonya Harding tactics.” Apparently, it’s a comparison that’s catching on. Jake Tapper reports:

I just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.

The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it’s not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is — what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it? What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to “break his back,” the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

“Her securing the nomination is certainly possible – but it will require exercising the ‘Tonya Harding option.'” the official said. “Is that really what we Democrats want?”

In late February and early March, when the Clinton campaign’s offensive began in earnest, staffers told reporters they were calling it the “kitchen-sink strategy.” That seemed apt, though the “Tonya Harding option” certainly has a bit more flair, doesn’t it?

As for the question from the party official, I suspect most Democrats are saying, “No, this isn’t what we want.”

I suppose there was a point, maybe eight or nine days ago, when Clinton supporters could reasonably make the argument that the Jeremiah Wright controversy was so explosive, and the media was playing edited versions of Wright’s sermons so frequently, the party should wait to see if Democrats and voters in general repelled from the Obama campaign in disgust. Maybe, they thought, this was the break they’d been waiting for.

Except that hasn’t happened. Obama has rebounded from the controversy, has retaken a slight lead in the polls, and the overall campaign dynamic is not significantly different than it was before the Wright issue landed on front pages. Worse, it’s Clinton, not Obama, who’s been stuck with an awkward controversy (the flap surrounding her false claims about her 1996 Bosnia trip) that undermines her credibility.

So, we’re left with the “Tonya Harding option.” And what does that include? Clearly, Clinton’s attack on Wright yesterday is part of it, but that’s not all.

The Clinton campaign is distributing an article in the American Spectator (!) about Obama foreign policy adviser Merrill McPeak and his penchant for.. well, the article accuses him of being an anti-Semite and a drunk. Principally, the author takes McPeak to task for supporting a Middle East map that would require Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 border. It also makes the case that McPeak supports the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the influence of the Israeli lobby on foreign policy.

The author’s sudden conclusion: “Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak’s bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel’s right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama’s sincerity and judgment will remain open questions.”

As one keen observer pointed out to me, if advocating the pre ’67 border map makes one an anti-Semite, just about every iteration of the U.S. government since 1967 would qualify. Tony McPeak’s verbal gymnastics do not make a “Jewish problem” for Obama.

Let’s put it this way: when Hillary Clinton is sitting alongside Richard Mellon Scaife and on the same day her campaign is distributing an article from the American Spectator, you know there’s a problem. (What’s more, the Clinton campaign responded to Bosnia questions by releasing a memo documenting various misstatements from Obama, including his May 2007 gaffe overstating the death toll of a tornado in Greensburg, Kan.)

Considering all of this, Atrios noted, “Remember back in junior high, when you had that friend that the bullies picked on all the time? And you defended that friend, who really never did all that much for you, which led to you getting your ass kicked a few times yourself? And then you got to high school and your friend joined up with the bullies? It’s kind of like that.”

Kevin added, “There are already an awful lot of reasons for me not to bother defending Hillary even tepidly, and I hardly need another one. She’s been voted off the island. It’s time for her to go.”

It’s fair to say that Atrios and Kevin are not sycophantic Obama cheerleaders. When they’ve reached this conclusion, the “Tonya Harding option” is probably doing more harm than good.

Allow me to toot my own horn a bit here, but I used the Tanya Harding analogy way back in January.

http://stateoftheday.blogspot.com/2008/01/tanya-harding-of-presidential-politics.html

  • Clinton is giving Obama a vetting he’ll never forget. And neither will we. She’s broken her own back by trying to break his. But Clinton’s campaign is an almost perfect model of how the Republicans will act in the GE: the identity-attacks, the litigiousness, the pandering, using the powers that be that she is a part of. To parphrase Kill Bill: Did I think she could do this. Yes. But I didn’t think she would do it to her own Party.

    Hillary has taken me on what is now a ubiquitous journey from supporting her, to defending her, to supporting Obama, to finding her despicable. If she wanted to devalue hope, she’s done it.

  • Andrea Mitchell and Mark Green were just discussing HC’s connections to the Fellowship over on MSNBC. Played the clip of her saying you can choose who you worship with, and then dove into who she was spending time with — Santorum, Brownback, etc. The tide’s turning on her after last week’s brief respite.

    And as I typed this, the words “Tonya Harding option” just came up twice.

  • One difference between Hillary and Tonya is that before the whacking Harding actually had a shot at winning.

  • It is Time to Shut Down Hillary Clinton
    With Democratic race getting nastier by the day and Republican nominee wandering the world looking Presidential, it is time that Democrats brought an end to the nomination race.

    Hillary Clinton is stretching her experience claims each day. She and her camp are trying to dig up dirt on the front runner so much so that it could damage the Democrats in fall. Hillary’s trip to Bosnia under hail of fire has been discussed much in the media. Last night on Larry King Live, the renown journalist Maureen Dowd who accompanied Hillary put paid to Hillary’s peace claims in Ireland. She said that apart from having tea with old ladies, Hillary had no contribution towards the Irish peace on that trip.

    There is no mathematical possibility of Hillary Clinton winning the nomination. She is likely to win Pennsylvania, but she is 21 points behind Obama in North Carolina according to latest opinion polls.

    It is time that a large number of Democratic Senators, Congressmen/women and party officials step forward and endorse Barack Obama in order to shut down Hillary Clinton before she does more damage to the party. Perhaps this is what Harry Reid was talking about yesterday.

  • Some images I just don’t want to have rattling around in my head and Tonya Harding is one of them. What’s next, a Mike Tyson chunk of ear?

    This is no way for adults to behave, much less a self-proclaimed person of faith, much less someone who wants to to be president. And while Clinton has been embarrassing herself for a long time, she’s now become an embarrassment to the democratic party and the country.

    I just saw some Clinton staffer (Jamie something) on CNN, and amid all the projection, baseless charges, stubborn denials and general bullshit, all I could think of was Dana Perino.

    Whatever the source o that smirk on Harry Reid’s face yesterday when he assured reporters this would be settled before the convention, it’s time, Harry. Do it now.

  • I just can’t get over how insular the commenters on this and so many other blogs have become. There’s a world outside the blogosphere, full of people that want to vote for the candidate they favor. You know, the ones that comprise the majority who feel the Democratic primary race should continue. The ones who don’t, on the one hand, demand that the will of the people be heeded, and on the other hand say the race is over. The ones who do not – necessarily – think that Clinton is the antichrist or Obama is a well-practiced poseur, that “the Tonya Harding option” is so very clever and worthy of so much examination and self-congratulation. You know, the ones who have lives and whose lives will be affected by the outcome of the race and want to participate in it without being demonized.

  • The Clinton campaign is distributing an article in the American Spectator (!) about Obama foreign policy adviser Merrill McPeak and his penchant for.. well, the article accuses him of being an anti-Semite and a drunk.

    I never thought I see the day where three exclamation points might be considered grammatically correct punctuation.

  • Hillary attacks Obama under the auspices of Richard Mellon Scaife, she echos attack lines promulgated by Pat Buchanan, and she squeaks by in Texan with the help of Rush Limbaugh. And she wants the support of Democrats. Hello??

  • angus, there’s no reason the contest can’t go on. But if Hillary Clinton goes relentlessly negative on Obama, it’s not a net gain for the Democrats. How the contest goes on matters very much.

  • I guess Angus had decided that we’re just like the Red states and the small states and the caucus states and the one that didn’t vote right – we obviously have no concerns – we’re latte-sipping SUV drivers and everything is hunky-dory for us – it’s only white Clinton supporters who are allowed to have a dog in this race…

    His candidate has gone over to the dark side – BECAUSE SHE IS LOSING!!! That’s why more and more people, including Clinton-supporter-until-a-few-days-ago Kevin Drum, are coming to the conclusion that it’s time to end this thing.

  • You know, the ones who have lives and whose lives will be affected by the outcome of the race and want to participate in it without being demonized.

    Did you just — in one sentence — snidely suggest that Obama backers have no lives and then scold them for demonizing others? Wow.

    With that kind of either-and-or approach, you may really be a McCain man.

  • I have long liked Hillary (and Bill, for that matter); I think she would do many things very well as President, and make important history in the process.

    But there is no reason to think Obama doesn’t fit that same description, Clinton likely cannot win even with a Harding model (although the tempting part for me is that if she makes Obama radioactive and no one gets to 2024 delegates instead of picking her the convention likely turns to Gore or Edwards), and if this gets much more contentious or protracted it will only help McCain.

    To those arguing “but every vote should count,” be realistic: more states have counted this year than pretty well any prior year in the last 30. This has been the most competitive race we’ve had in a long while, but every race, competitive or not, ends before the last state.

    The Supers need to show some leadership and make their move. Sorry, Hils, I voted for you but that was not enough – the reality is that it is time to bow out and recommit yourself to the work that needs done in the Senate.

  • Couple of thoughts:

    Hillary might think she’s immune to rightwing attacks, but she is creating many new occasions for ridicule with her Bosnia comments, and her CiC claims. And don’t think the Republicans wouldn’t love to have the “she stole the nomination” thing to attack.

    If the primary goes to the convention, Clinton will be renounced and rejected in a very public way. Does she really want that?

    Moment of silence for Richard Widmark

  • Since none of the Obama supporters among you have the decency to criticize Obama for his false attacks, and since none of the Obama supporters among you have the honesty to check the factual accuracy of the anti-Clinton media information on which you thrive, it would seem that all you want is for the anointment of your candidate while blocking the votes of those who differ.

    Obama has equivocated on withdrawing from Iraq:
    “Let me be clear: ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure.” – Obama.

    That is channeling Bush pure and simple.

  • I caught Andrea Mitchell and Mark Green on MSNBC at lunch and man is that guy is in full-on Rove mode, repeat and repeat and repeat the lies. Yes, when videos prove you did more then misspeak or embellish, it’s called a lie. Then he went after Obama claiming his tactics reek of desperation. He hardly let Andrea speak and IMO he was the one looking pretty desperate.

    Will someone please ask HRC to reconcile the ‘will of the people’ and going after pledged delegates. It’s starting to really wear on me only because I have heard it like a million times in two days.

    Dale #2 is exactly right:
    “Clinton is giving Obama a vetting he’ll never forget. And neither will we. She’s broken her own back by trying to break his. But Clinton’s campaign is an almost perfect model of how the Republicans will act in the GE”

  • Dale is right on. HRC, following Bill’s most excellent example, has foolishly given new ammo to her opponents (who hardly needed any). The right will have a field day with her courage under fire at the airport, and her claim to have “looked into” serving in the armed forces, armed with a law degree and thick glasses. Remember Dukakis and the tank? To paraphrase their exaulted one, “there they go again.” (Whatever that means, I don’t know, but the faithful thought it was brilliant.)

  • On March 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm, TR said:
    “You know, the ones who have lives and whose lives will be affected by the outcome of the race and want to participate in it without being demonized.”

    Did you just — in one sentence — snidely suggest that Obama backers have no lives and then scold them for demonizing others? Wow.

    No.

    With that kind of either-and-or approach, you may really be a McCain man.

    Never.

  • Slip ’em a Mickey @ 19:
    That is channeling Bush pure and simple.

    Either you don’t understand “channeling,” or you don’t understand “Bush,” or you are a pure example of simplemindedness…

    For edification purposes only– this is an example of “channeling Bush”:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

    Disclaimer:
    Since she says AQ is in Iraq, perhaps she is really channeling Cheney.

  • “Obama has equivocated on withdrawing from Iraq… That is channeling Bush pure and simple.” – Mike

    Okay, granted, saying “I can’t exactly be sure of what I’m going to do until I have all the information” is somewhat of an equivocation, but given the situation it’s also a reasonable claim to make.

    Hillary’s insistence that she’ll start pulling people out within 60 days regardless of the situation on the ground comes off as an attempt to draw a stark yet insincere distinction between her and her opponent. She won’t challenge the “guns-first” mentality which resulted in US financing for Saddam, Osama, and human rights violators around the world. She maintains that “diplomacy is for suckers” (I’m paraphrasing) and doesn’t offer an alternative to the stubborn “might makes right” and “best defense is a good offense” mindsets that drove us into Iraq.

    Also of note. Her website claims: “During the Cold War, with missiles pointed at us, we never stopped talking to the Soviet Union. That didn’t mean we agreed with them or approved of them. But it did mean we came to understand them — and that was crucial to confronting the threats they posed.”

    So if she actually believes this, why the hell is she bashing Obama for suggesting that diplomacy with our “enemies” is somehow naive?

    Okay, neither candidate is perfect:

    Both want to increase the size of the military. Neither has so much as cosponsored or mentioned S.2130, the non-binding resolution in support of a “Diplomatic Surge” in Iraq. I could go on, but I’m feeling lazy.

  • Any bets on how long it will take for someone to ask Tonya Harding what she thinks about the ‘Tonya Harding Option’ and who she supports.

    Where is Jeff Gillooly when you need him, Hillary ??

    Slow day at work….

  • I’ll write in “Obama” in the November election if he’s not the Democratic candidate.

  • Thanx, Steve, but I stole the phrase from another commenter on the blog, as I admitted. (I don’t remember who, and don’t have the time to check back over a month of comments to find it. I love getting credit, but this time I can’t claim it.) I think it is more and more accurate though.

    And, slanted tom, this time you beat me to it. I will be writing in Obama’s name myself if he isn’t the candidate. (See the comments — I’m just about to write them — on the Scaife/Spectator linkup that has finally made it impossible for me to use the ‘at least she’s better than McCain’ mantra any more.)

  • Jim Benton, @30

    It was me — a day? or two? before (but I, too, am not inclined to dig through all the comments then). Skating is the only sport I ever watch, so the name — and the story — was familiar. Even so, I had to check it on Google because, like Creature @1, I thought it was “Tanya”, not “Tonya”

  • As someone who defended Clinton here just yesterday, after reading today’s revelations (from this post and that this article linked to in a later post, I have to say I’m right along with Atrios right now. WTF.

  • The hysteria is really getting oppressive. My question is, if Senator Obama is so strong, why are his partisans so rabid to say anything and do anything to destroy Senator Clinton? In fact the two candidates are just a few percentage points apart. Neither one of them is going to win enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. Their differences on issues are slight. And most Democratic voters are very happy to have a real contest going between two popular candidates.

    I am not crazy about everything the Clinton campaign has said or done, but nothing equals the degree of hypocrisy and Clinton-hate that is spilling these days. The Tonya Harding smear is just the most recent, coming after:
    1. Senator Obama’s snide, sexist put-downs in the early debates, while he was telling the mass rallies that he stood for a new, “higher” kind of politics.
    2. The deliberate injection of race into the South Carolia primaries, based on distortions of what President Clinton actually said, and carefully coordinated “outrage” by Obama supporters. Senator Obama could probably command 40-50% of the African-American vote just from the thrill of seeing a viable African-American candidate running for President. But evidently that was not good enough. To get 85-90% of the A-A vote, they needed to smear the Clintons as racists. After 30 years of supporting and advancing racial justice, the Clintons did not deserve that.
    3. The Obama campaign’s repetition of the McGovern strategy of 1972, concentrating on small states with caucuses, more amenable for takeover by smaller numbers of highly-motivated activists, but disastrous in the general election. It was the 1972 experience which haunted the Democratic Party for decades, and the primary reason the Democrats instituted proportional representation of delegatess and added another tier of superdelegates to the nomination process.
    4. The creation of a “narrative,” supported by the adoring media and most of the male netroots, that Senator Obama is a sure winner, and Senator Clinton is a sure loser whose only hope is to be a spoiler. It is all based on a selective, and invidious, manipulation of the polls, the states, the votes and the process. The campaign also has unleashed and cynically manipulated an avalanche of hysterical Clinton-hate, obviously sexist at base – like conflating anything that Bill Clinton has ever said or done as attributable to Hillary Clinton.
    5. The Obama campaign obstructed all efforts to resolve the Michigan and Florida issues in a way that would allow voters from Michigan and Florida to participate in the process. The inside obstruction was accompanied by a well-coordinated, sanctimonious hypocrisy about Clinton’s failure to “play by the rules” while trashing the superdelegate rules as anti-democratic.
    6. Now, in the wake of the Wright controversy, it’s a full-press, bare-knuckle “surge” to destroy Senator Clinton’s campaign before Senator Obama is further damaged. The specter of “Tonya Harding” is making an appearance, and commenters above are boasting about who thought of it first. A pretty sorry spectacle.

    Here’s the thing. Senator Obama’s charisma and oratory made an early impression on a lot of voters, despite the fact that his resume was thin and his background left a lot of questions unanswered. It’s called “not vetted.” He is currently the front-runner, and the unanswered questions may not prove an unbeatable obstacle, but what if something unforeseen happens? What if the people who were so enchanted with the “promise” of Senator Obama become worried about the reality? I’m not talking about the hard-core Hillary-haters, but the idealists who believed that he really did mean to bring “change” to a broken system. What if they see through the media propaganda and decide that Senator Clinton is more sinned against than sinning, and Senator Obama is not the high-minded idealist he portrays on TV, but just another ambitious politician? What if the machinations around Michigan and Florida redound against him? What if another bombshell comparable to Rev. Wright should burst on the scene? And if any of that happens, why would it not be for the good of the Democratic Party and the country to have Senator Clinton right there behind him?

    I believe that Senator Obama’s campaign is based on hypocrisy, and the “change” that he cannot seem to describe operationally, “bringing us together,” is not real. I have seen a few movements, but never a movement that was initiated by a charismatic leader. Movements make leaders, not the other way around. I also believe that Senator Clinton’s strategy is based on the fundamentals, in her nature (President Clinton reportedly called her a “sticker” and she does seem to cling to her commitments, including her people, more than most politicians do) and in a realistic understanding of the nomination numbers and the role of public opinion. FWIW, the Clinton haters need to accept that in the end the nomination will be based on where public opinion comes down at the time that the decision must be made – when all the votes are in, and when the effect of the Obama “issues” on public opinion is known. And I believe that Senator Clinton is enough of a “sticker” to stick with this campaign until then.

  • Kevin added, “There are already an awful lot of reasons for me not to bother defending Hillary even tepidly, and I hardly need another one. She’s been voted off the island. It’s time for her to go.”

    Voted off the island? Are you serious? This is so, so, so junior high I don’t even know where to start! It says much about the level of intelligence among the left hemisphere (aka the blogosphere), which purports to ‘speak’ for America!

    It’s fair to say that Atrios and Kevin are not sycophantic Obama cheerleaders. When they’ve reached this conclusion, the “Tonya Harding option” is probably doing more harm than good.

    Not sycophantic Obama cheerleaders? You’re kidding, right? Pretending to be honest and objective and actually being honest and objective are two different things (and two different worlds). Apparently, they’ve been living on “Survivor Island” too long.

    So much for the tee-vee, ADHD generation.

  • Let me get this straight: Barack Obama says he wants to work with Republicans and be SUPER bipartisan, and you all adore him — and ignore the fact that he has failed to do so. But Hillary Clinton ACTUALLY wins over one of her nastiest Republican foes and you condemn her for it?

    And you idiots wonder why those of us who are Clinton supporters think you’re a bunch of morons duped by Obama’s style-over-substance campaign. Unbelievable.

  • One small problem. Tonya Harding was framed. Set up by her ex and I wonder who else? Come on, I just realized it today myself because of an interview I heard on the radio. Was it Jim Rome I believe? Come on lets start a whodunnit. Golly! gee! this is gonna be fun!

    To all the mommys and daddys that care about their little girls, ITS NOT JUST TANYA THAT IS BEING ROBBED…ITS MUCH WORSE

    Hey Jim, where do you think he is? Certainly you asked out of genuine concern. Being the man you are you must be hooking up with your posse…TO GO HUNT THAT SNAKE DOWN.

  • Comments are closed.