A Bridge Too Far, Senator Clinton

I've tried to stay out of the primary pie fights this year, I really have.

At first I remained neutral because I just couldn't pick. I loved Edwards' unapologetic economic populism, Obama's visionary leadership, Clinton's command of policy detail.  I may have leaned a bit towards Obama initially but I wouldn't have had to hold my nose to vote for any of them. It was an embarrassment of riches: three great candidates, all of whom I would be happy to pull the lever for in November.

Even as Obama's win in Iowa put to rest my fears about his electabilty in Middle America, I still wasn't ready to count the others out; certainly not Senator Clinton. She beat back a strong media stampede for Obama to chalk up a convincing victory in New Hampshire. When it appeared that he had put all of his eggs into the Iowa basket and didn't have much to follow up with, I wrote Edwards out of my personal list of choices but hoped that he would stay in the race. He was driving the policy debate; forcing the other candidates to focus on economic inequality and the moral travesty of American poverty. But now I really was torn. Two very electable candidates, each with strong campaigns and broad constituencies; both with a better-than-average chance to beat the GOP in November.

Then we hit Nevada and when the race proved closer than expected, the caucus rules-- rules that the Clinton camp had had previously found agreeable when it looked like the unions were going to be firmly in her camp-- were suddenly "disenfranchising voters". It was a bit distasteful and wholly unconvincing but, hey, all politicians try to spin things to their advantage.

Then we get to South Carolina. What an ugly mess. I don't want to pick the scabs of that race. Whether or not former president Clinton went over the line and how far, and effect his comments and the coverage of them had on the race is debatable. One thing was clear, though, Camp Clinton had given up on the African American vote. Worse, they tried to minimize Obama's victory by suggesting that it was no big deal because black candidates always do well when there are lots of black voters-- In other words, those black voters are somehow less legitimate than other voters because they are only voting based on their ethnic affinity, not on the issues.

Fast forward to Supercalifragalisticexpialituesday. It was a chance for both candidates to deliver the coup de grace and neither did. But still, as the dust settled and everyone started to come to grips with the fact that the primary season was going to go on far longer than most had predicted, the message from Senator Clinton's team was clear: the states where Hillary didn't win don't really matter. When the Super Tuesday results undermined their narrative that African Americans were Obama's only durable constituency the Clintons added "highly educated voters" to the list of voters whose vote somehow matters less than others. (You know, because having smart people reliably on your side is a bad thing, evidently.)

Following Super Tuesday, as Obama has racked up an unbroken string of victories from coast to coast, in primary and caucus alike, Camp Clinton has expanded the list of voters who don't really matter. Come from a small state? You don't really count. Live in a state with a large black population? Your vote doesn't really matter. Did you caucus instead of pulling lever in a private booth? Why did you even bother, it doesn't mean anything anyway.

Which brings us to last night. Asked by a reporter during her tour of a GM plant if she was worried about Obama's string of victories Senator Clinton gave what has sadly become her campaign's predictable answer: those voters don't really matter:

"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

Yep, we got the message before, Senator, having a lot of black voters and/or voting via a caucus means a state matters less. What else do you have for me?

"my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

I see, so we can add Democratic Party activists to list of voters whose votes matter less in the race to nominate the candidate to represent the Democratic Party. Triangulating against the party base-- its not only insulting, its hard to imagine a more braindead primary strategy.

Worst of all, it is clear that these aren't a few random off-the-cuff comments. In addition to the Senator's own maddening words, all you have to do is turn on any of the cable spin shows to hear one of her staffers or surrogates push the same trope: Only blacks and rich Liberal eggheads vote for Obama, not the real Democrats.

Its a despicable and stupid argument on its face but what makes it a bridge too far is that this is exactly the same trope that the GOP used to sink both Al Gore and John Kerry-- only the minorities and those effete limousine liberals like them, not the good down-home real Americans-- and its the same ass-backwards argument they will use on Obama, should he win the nomination.

Democrats have had a hell of a time beating past Karl Rove's "latte liberal" smear. We arguably lost two elections over it. To see Senator Clinton playing that card against Obama in the primary proves to me that she is now running a scorched earth campaign. Surely she knows that, if Obama wins, every instance of her (or one of her staffers) implying that Obama voters are somehow insufficiently representative of "real America" is certain to be picked up and amplified by the right wing during the general. Apparently, she doesn't care. She'll do whatever it takes to try to win the nomination and if it takes cribbing her talking points from Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, then so be it. The fact that she might be undermining Democrats' chances in the general if Obama is the nominee doesn't matter, its all about her-- her win, her voters, her dogeared and divisive strategy.

My question to Senator Clinton's supporters here is simple: are you okay with this? Doesn't it bother you that your candidate is triangulating against the party base in the freakin' primary? Doesn't the fact that she dismisses those Democrats who didn't vote for her as somehow less than real raise a red flag? Doesn't it give you pause that she is using right-wing smear tactics that may help the GOP in the general?