I’m perfectly content — delighted, in fact — to move past the recent race-based unpleasantness between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Reasonable people can disagree about the specifics, most notably about whether the Clinton campaign intentionally coordinated a series of racially provocative comments, but I think most would agree that it’s best if the campaign(s) move on.
But before we do, there was one other point I’ve been mulling over. Is it possible the Clinton campaign is indirectly making a point about general-election toughness?
This probably seems silly at first blush. Indeed, it probably is silly upon further examination. But one of the underlying criticisms of the Obama campaign is that Obama, to borrow John Edwards’ word, is “nice.” Clinton, in contrast, is saying she knows the Republican Attack/Smear Machine all too well, and she’s willing to play rough with the GOP if she’s the nominee.
Now, consider that narrative in the context of the last week or so. As Matt Yglesias put it:
I won’t even pretend to be appalled by Clinton’s cynicism — the disenfranchisement gambit and all the rest — because, frankly, the idea that Clinton would use dishonest political tactics to beat the GOP is, in my view, probably the most appealing thing about her.
Now, Matt concludes that he thinks “Obama is clearly the better option,” and in all likelihood, he was probably kidding, at least a little, about the Clinton campaign’s “most appealing” feature.
But is this a point that might actually have merit?
Put it this way: how rough and tumble is Clinton willing to play in 2008? So much so that she supports a lawsuit in Nevada that would make it more difficult for working-class union members, many of whom are minorities, to vote in a Democratic caucus. She’s playing is so rough that her campaign can reasonably be accused of sparking an ugly and divisive dispute over race — in a Democratic primary.
In other words, the Clinton campaign might subtly argue right now, “If you think we’re taking some cheap shots with Obama, just wait until we’re taking on the Republicans in the fall.”
To be sure, I really doubt the Clinton team would ever make this argument, even privately, even in jest. But the thought has occurred to me, and apparently Ygleasias, and I doubt we’re not the only ones.
After the Robert Johnson nonsense, Ezra noted a possible Clinton strategy.
It’s hard to imagine this many sophisticated, liberal political operators making this many mistakes, of this type. Not saying it’s impossible, merely hard to imagine. And so it’s worth wondering if there’s not a coordinated strategy among the Clintons to force a conversation over race. Not a conversation that will be harmful to Obama — the Clintons have, after all, had to spend a fair amount of time apologizing, and clarifying — but a conversation that will be harmful to his message. If Obama has to spend a lot of time talking about race, it’s hard for him to be the post-racial candidate. If he has to spend a lot of time on divisive topics, it’s hard for him to make an appeal for unity. And if he gets thrown off message at this point in the campaign, it will be exceedingly hard for him to blunt Clinton’s momentum. And, whether it’s a coordinated strategy on the part of the Clintons or not, it’s definitely what’s happening.
It prompted Kevin to respond, “Yeah, it’s worth wondering, all right. And the ‘coincidence’ theory is looking pretty ragged. All I can say is: from where I sit this looks both deliberate and revolting.”
Yes, but what if the Clinton campaign is somewhere thinking, “But we want to be revolting for you!”
For what it’s worth, Isaac Chotiner notes that if this, even accidentally, is part of Clinton’s thinking, it’s probably a mistake.
If Clinton is indeed cynical, and has no qualms about depressing caucus turnout and using other unsavory means to beat Obama, the rational assumption to make is that Clinton will do almost anything to get elected. Since, I would assume, one of Matt’s main hopes for a Democratic administration is that it will be tough and ruthless with Republicans on policy, surely this sort of cravenness is exactly what he does not want. People who blow with the political wind are much more likely to compromise and find a perfect “middle-ground” on every issue. If he thinks that the Clinton campaign’s “toughness” with Obama is a sign that it will be tough on ideological or policy matters, he has things completely backward.
Food for thought.