Over the past two months, I stayed away from discussing PUMAs or the state of the Clinton-Obama relationship. With little evidence that it would impact the election or disrupt Obama’s campaign, there was no reason to. But the risk of disunity is now taking a more tangible form.
Last week, many people from Clinton’s (former) entourage refused to defend Obama when the GOP accused him of playing the race card; some, like Howard Wolfson, implied that there was something to it. McCain adviser Steve Schmidt explicitly compared Obama’s strategy to the one he used against Hillary and compared his campaign to that of a defamed Bill Clinton.
Given that many of the voters Obama could lose if race enters the political conversation are Democrats, this was certainly not helpful and many of these statements appeared in the news stories devoted to the race card back-and-forth. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine Bill Clinton and Hillary’s former advisers, who think they were unfairly labeled as racists and fear that their reputation have been tarnished durably, coming to Obama’s defense on this one particular issue. In an ABC News interview last week, Bill Clinton got defensive, repeating “I am not a racist. I never made a racist comment” and confirming that the racial wounds of the primary have not been healed.
An issue on which Bill Clinton could - and should - help Obama tremendously, however, is experience. Throughout the primary, Obama supporters compared Obama’s experience and his emphasis on change and freshness to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. Now, the experience question is Obama’s core vulnerability, and one McCain is eagerly exploiting in his attack ads with questions like “Is he ready to lead?” or “Is he ready to help your family?” It might be asking Bill Clinton too much to defend Obama from the accusation that he is playing the race card, but asking him to praise Obama’s qualifications is a very different thing.
In that same ABC interview, Bill Clinton was asked about Obama’s qualifications and responded: “You could argue that nobody is ever ready to be President. You could argue that even if you’ve been Vice President for eight years, that no one can ever be fully ready for the pressures of the office.” Clinton continued: “The Constitution sets qualification for the President. And then the people decide who they think would be the better President.”
In the primary, Obama’s argument was less that he had the same experience level as Clinton than that experience had proved to have no relevance to more important attributes, like which candidate has the best judgment. This is the argument Clinton was hinting at in this ABC interview when he dismissed the qualification question (and the argument he used in 1992) and as such his comments were not derogatory. However, they were most definitely tepid. Clinton offered a weak show of support (he did go on to say “I think he should win”) and he could not have ignored how his refusal to directly praise Obama would play in news stories. [Update: TPM provides a bit more context which does suggest that Clinton's experience sentence was meant to dismiss experience as an argument altogether and that his show of support was stronger than I implied: "He clearly can inspire and motivate people and energize them which is a very important part of being president. And he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he can't learn."]
This raises the question of whether Obama can send Bill on the campaign trail at all. It is true that he caused trouble for his wife throughout the primaries, but he also helped her cover more ground, drew big crowds and kept supporters enthused. If Obama needs help among blue-collar white voters in the fall, Bill Clinton would be a strong surrogate - but will Obama trust him with not sounding critical? And even if Bill decides to be more careful, is the media not too committed to getting a juicy quote out of him that it would make all of his appearances risky? [Update: Barack Obama addressed his relationship with the Clintons this afternoon and blamed the media for making up tensions: "There hasn't been controversy other than what you guys are projecting right now." He called Bill "very supportive" and "gracious."]
Hillary Clinton has looked far less bitter - at least in public. In her June appearance with Obama in Unity, New Hampshire, Clinton was fired up and showed no sign that she had just been defeated. She laid low over the next few weeks, introducing Obama to her donors. She will hit the campaign trail next week, campaigning for Obama in Las Vegas (you might remember Clinton won the Nevada caucuses on the strength of the Vegas vote). This at least should reassure Democrats that Hillary will be available as an Obama surrogate over the next few weeks, no matter how embittered she is privately.
And she will certainly be a boost for Obama: While she cannot help him among all constituencies, dispatching her in areas in which she did particularly well (particularly in Ohio and Pennsylvania) could shore up Obama’s support among the groups he is the weakest in. There are other Obama supporters who could help him among blue-collar white voters and downscale registered Democrats, but Hillary Clinton would be a rare surrogate with a national profile and the ability to draw crowds on the strength of her own name.
Finally, there is the question of the convention: Will Hillary’s name be put on the nominating ballot in Denver? ABC News reported yesterday that Clinton was leaving that possibility open. In a clip that has gone viral on You Tube, Hillary says: “I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected.” We have long known that the Obama and Clinton camps were negotiating whether to put their two names on the nominating ballot, but Hillary’s determination to do so in this clip is surprising.
It is also difficult to predict in advance how much of a disruption a contested convention floor vote would be. If it was orderly and the result of an agreement between Obama and Clinton, it could be a show of party force and would not necessarily suggest that the party is too divided to win. But given the apparent intensity of many people’s feelings, the risk of an uglier scene with an open rift for all to see is very real. In recent cycles, conventions have become a celebration of presidential nominees. Do voters remember the time in which that was not the case, and would they understand why the convention floor is so tense?
Update: A bigger problem for Obama at the convention could be what to do with John Edwards.
It seems pretty clear now that Hillary will not be the VP nominee, since she and Bill have exhibited such petulant sour grapes over her loss, which combined with the most recent You-Tube video, makes it clear they have not been able to move on and get over the primaries. Surely if Obama had let Hillary know he was seriously considering her or had even already chosen her (but was keeping it secret), neither she nor Bill would have been as divisive and petty as they have been. Personally, I didn’t vote for Hillary, and originally didn’t want her on the ticket, but recently I felt maybe it would be the best idea after all. That possibility now seems almost impossible after the way the Clintons have been behaving. So sad! They once held my respect and admiration, but no more.
I assume you saw the video of WJC’s comments, and not just the transcript. The man clearly knew what he was saying - he had that intent, focused look he demonstrates when he’s driving home a point. He’s not going to let go of this.
No one’s going to control him, even HRC. He’s got his own agenda, which he may believe is the best thing for her. Still, he never doubts for a moment that he’s the smartest person in the room, and he’ll brush aside all uncertainties about his course of action - including HRC’s - as misbegotten. If I were Obama, I’d rather drink a gallon of Kaopectate than trust this guy out on the campaign trail. You cannot predict what he’ll say at any given moment, and the press knows this, so they’ll be all over him for comments.
Dee Dee Myers had an interesting comment last night on Hardball. She says that Gore is the one person who handles him perfectly. WJC’s first reaction when he encounters something he doesn’t like is to erupt and spill out whatever comes to mind. When he did that, Gore would listen intently till he finished, and then say “That’s brilliant!” Everyone would laugh, including WJC, and then he’d cycle back to the issue and address it temperately and incisively. If he’s allowed to speak in public this Fall, there’ll be no Gore surrogate around to buffer his outbursts, so all we’ll get is pure Id.
Between Obama’s cruising at 30,000 feet and the emanations from the Clinton camp, this has the makings of a difficult Fall. Meanwhile, a cranky relic of the 1960s is allowed to coast along with a campaign that has nothing positive to say about the mess we’re in, besides repeating mantras about drilling oil wells, and keeping taxes low to increase employment and incentivize consumption - which no reputable economist has ever confirmed.
This disunity has really made me worried. I don’t think PUMA is as powerful as they want us to believe, but there is a devoted group of hardcore feminists and others who simply hate Obama and will not let this go. Many of them admit that they agree with Obama more on the issue, but they think the primary was unfair and want to punish the Democratic Party. These people are all over the blogs, and as much as they annoy me, what scares me more is the number of older, lifelong democrats who believe Obama is a muslim. Many say things like they know it could just be a rumor, but they don’t want to risk having a “muslim terroist” as a president.
As one of the 18 million who voted for Hillary in the primary, I am greatly angered by her and especially Bill’s behavior. I think Obama needs to reach out to them more than he has, but the Clintons need to more enthusiastically endorse and campaign for Obama and explicitly denounce PUMA and similar organizations.
If you want to talk honestly about race, lets do it. Race has played a major factor in this election. I say this because Obama would not even be the nominee if he were not an African-American. I say this, because if he were white, he would be held accountable for his obvious lack of experience. He has more experience running for president than he does in the US Senate! Also, look at how many “present” votes he tallied both at the State and US level. Conversely, he has done nothing but provoke race relations in this country. He merely represents “Change” only in the change of color for this position. He is a far left hack, thats why (while i will not be voting for, but..) Mccain will end up winning this election. He is truly considered a “moderate” republican and has a reputation for being a “maverick” do to crossing party lines and working with Dems. When has Obama ever done this, especially with his far left record? Indpendents and center of the line voters win and loose elections. Sorry Obama supporters. I can go on and on, but yeah….thats right, I too am a racist since i do not agree, speak out against, and will not vote for him………
Nathan - first the system in Illinois allows present votes and they ahve a specific meaning not equal to abstaining. I assume you agree with federalism.
Second Obama worked with Senator Lugar (R-Indiana) to help remove the threat of nuclear weapons left from the USSR - an example of working bipartianship.
Third McCain is no longer a moderate republican. He has voted with Bush 90% of the time.
I do not accuse you of racism, just flagrant bias and ignorance.
Guy - well, as president McCain can go back to his “Maverick” roots. Of course he has to pander to the right wing until the election. Then - not so much.
And as for Obama, yes there are a few occasions when he has reached across the isle. But - he is inexperienced. He has accomplished very little yet. Of course he may become a great president nonetheless, but it is a roll of the dice.
Nathan, do you really think Hillary Clinton is that much more electable?
All last year blogs derided her as a hyperpartisan opportunist who was only sought more power. Bill O’Reilly and similar commentators called her a far left socialist due to her healthcare position.
Don’t forget her favoribility rating was ten points lower than McCain and Obama
Obama has major electability issues, but don’t think Hillary would have walked to the white house had she won.
One final note I voted for Hillary because I thought she’d be more electable, but looking back, I’m mad that she didn’t drop out after February. By that point it was too late; even though she ran a very strong campaign, she couldn’t overtake Obama. All she could do was rally her supporters against him. Her insistance that she won the popular vote (she did not) did nothing but convince her supporters that Obama was illegitamate.
barack obama is the least electable candidate for president…other than all the other people running this year - including mccain, clinton, romney, edwards etc.
he’s run a great campaign. his stands on the issues match more closely with americans’. he’s smarter and makes a lot less mistakes than “old dude” mccain and he’s a democrat and mccain is a republican.
what this comes down to is: obama will get at least as many votes in ohio as kerry and there is almost no way that mccain will get as many votes as bush. and that, my friends, is the election.
Urgon you are basically discrediting everything that McCain has claimed to stand for: Straight Talk. What you are saying is that he is going to be one thing on this campaign trail and something different in the oval office. This has been placed against him when looking at the 2000 primary versus the 2008 and how he changed on many positions without giving a clear reason.
And it is a roll of the dice with everybody. People should not just say “well he has been here a long time” and claim that he should be president. And experience is does not have a 100% relation with quality. Look at a few past presidents. Did Richard Nixon have a lot of experience when he was running for re-election in ‘72? He sure did, I mean he was already the president! And I bet every single American was glad that they voted for the person with the most experience.
Nathan: Mccain will end up winning this election. He is truly considered a “moderate” republican and has a reputation for being a “maverick” do to crossing party lines and working with Dems. When has Obama ever done this, especially with his far left record?
I have to admit I’m getting tired of blanket assertions with no supporting evidence.
McCain portrays himself as a maverick, but this season he’s taken the pretty standard conservative positions on most issues. He rightfully criticized the Bush tax cuts as unfairly benefiting the wealthy and irresponsible because they weren’t offset by spending cuts. Now he supports keeping the tax cuts but has proposed just about nothing on spending cuts. Now he says he wouldn’t vote for his own immigration bill.
And as for Obama’s “far left” record, where’s the evidence? He and Clinton were close on just about every major issue, and on their major policy difference–a mandate to carry health insurance–he had the more moderate view. So if Clinton is a moderate Democrat, how can Obama be anything but the same?
Obama’s record shows he’s always been an incrimentalist. I think those who say he’s far left have been listening too much to Republican talking points.
“Do voters remember the time in which that was not the case, and would they understand why the convention floor is so tense?”
Well, the tension would get lots of media attention and therefore attract some viewership beyond the core demographic that was already going to vote for Obama anyway.
I think some tension and even some disruption might be a price worth paying if it gets large numbers of undecided voters to watch the convention, see Hillary and others praising Obama and giving Obama a chance to present his policies to a wider audience that might otherwise tune out.
I am black not afro american . I am black by choice not because somebody told me I was. MY BLACKNESS IS JUST ONE ASPECT OF MY PERSONALITY THAT I UTILIZE WHEN DEALING WITH SOCIO/POLITICAL MECHANATIONS THAT DEPEND ON DIVIDING HUMANITY ALONG RACE GENDER RELIGIOUS AND NATIONALISTIC IDENTIES. THIS WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THOSE WHO CONTROL THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN. IT SADDENS ME TO SEE PEOPLE WHOSE VISION HAS BEEN SO CLOUDED THROUGH THE MANIPULATION OF THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS AND ITS MEDIA MINNIONS THAT THEY DONT RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH.CASE IN POINT GERALDINE FERRARO TOLD THE TRUTH. IF BARRACK WASNT AN ARTICULATE BLACKMAN WITH NO TIES TO BLACK ACTIVISM HE WOULDNT BE AS MARKETABLE AS HE IS. THATS BASICALLY WHAT SHE SAID .NOTHING ABOUT BLACKMEN HAVING IT EAS NOTHING ABOUT HIMM BEING AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CANDIDATE NOTHING THAT YOU HEARD ALL THE MEDIA MINNIONS SAYING TO JUSTIFY OBAMA INFERRING THAT HER COMMENTS WERE RASCIST WHICH IS WHAT IS BEING CONVEYED EVEYTIME HE SAYS THESE COMMENTS HAVE NO PLCE IN THIS CAMPAIGN. IF HE THOUGHT FOR HIMSELF OR IF HE WANTED TO WIN INSTEAD OF PUTTING ON A GOOD SHOW HE WOULD HAVE EMBRACED HER COMMENTS NOTED THE SEXISM IN THE MEDIA AND THE WORLD TODAY AND THEN ONE PEOPLE OVER BUY SAYING HOW HIS CAMPAIGN HAS REACHED BEYOND IDENTITY POLITICS AND HAS ATRRACTED YOUNG AND OLD WHITE AND BLACK MALE AND FEMALE. BUT INSTEAD RIGHT AFTER HE GIVES HIS BIG RACE SPEECH CALLING FOR A DIALOGUE AS SOON AS FERRARO GIVES HIM ONE HE DUCKS AND PLAYS THE RACE CARD ALIENATING A WHOLE BLOCK OF VOTERS HE NEEDS TO WIN.SO IS HE THAT CLUELESS OR IS HE REALLY TRYING TO WIN DID IT LOOK LIKE KERRY REALLY WANTED TO WIN.YOU LISTEN TO ALL THIS NONSENSE ABOUT HOW DIVISIVE HILLARY IS BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING IN A GENERAL ELECTION WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. SHE HAD THE YOUTH VOTE HISPANIC VOTE REAGENAND SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS AND BEFORE OBAMA THE BLACK VOTE.THIS IS WITH THE ENTIRE MEDIA AGAINST HER. OBAMA HAS EQUIVOCATED ON THE IRAQ ISSUE IN OVER 100 INTERVIEWS.HIS WHOLE BOOK IS A FABRICATION. HIS FATHERS FAMILY WERE AFRICAN ARAB SLAVETRADERS AND WEALTHY LAND OWNERS THATS WHY HE HAS AN ARAB NAME. I COULD CARE LESS IMM JUST TRYING TO SHOW YOU THE DEPTH OF THE DECEPTION. STUDY HOOVERS PLAN TO ASSASINATE AND DIVIDE BLACK LEADERS. FIND OUT HOW ROBERT KENNEDY AND JOHN SIGNED OFF ON THE SURVEILLENCE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING IN ORDER TO NEUTRALIZE HIM. LOOK AT THE GENEOLOGY ON OBAMA. DISTANT RELATIVE OF JEFFERSON DAVIES PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY COUSIN OF CHENEY BUSH KERRY GORE. IS THIS ALL COINCIDENCE ABOVE ALL FIND OUT ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS OF WHICH HIS WIFE A MAJOR MEMBER OF. STOP ASKING YOURSELF MEDIA INSPIRED QUESTIONS. IS AMERICA READY GOR A BLACK PRESIDENT? START YOUR REASONG PROCESS FROM REALITY(REMEMBER GENA KATRINA DAFUR RWANDA)ASK YOURSELF WHY DOES THE MALE DOMINATED EUROPEAN CAUCASIAN POWER STRUCTURE WANT A BLACK CANDIDATE AND MAYBEE PRESIDENT. IF YOU HONESTLY DO THIS YOULL COME UP WITH A LOT MORE NEGATIVES THAN POSITIVES. MY COLOR HELPED ME TO DEVELOP MY BLACKNESS WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CONCIOUSNESS. AS I DEFINE IT TRUE BLAKNESS IS A FRAME OF MIND THAT RECOGNIZES THAT THERE IS A WHITE POWER STRUCTURE WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO EXERT DOMONATION OVER PEOPLE OF COLOR AND WOMEN AND WORKERS OF ALL RACES, IM NOT A RACIST CAUCASIANS JUST HAPPEN TO BE BEST POSITIONED TO IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN AT THE TIME ON A GLOBAL LEVEL. IN THE PAST OTHER RACES INCLUDING AFRICANS HAVE DONR THIS AS FOR THE FUTURE WHO KNOWS.PEOPLE HAVE TO THROW OFF THE CHAINS OF RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY RACE IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL IDEOLOGY IN ORDER TO FREE THEMSELVES AND THE EARTH THIS IS WHAT JESUS MEANT BY BEING BORN AGAIN. UNLEARNING ALL YOUVE BEEN TAUGHT AND TEACHING YOURSELF WITH LOVE HARMONY AND UNITY AS THE FOCUS OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING. DONT LOOK BUT SEE AND WITH SOME OF THIS YOU MIGHT AGREE .
good discussion my fellow bloggers, however, you must know… i am much more objective than many of you do to the fact i am not a democrat nor am i a republican. This gives me the unique ability to examine each of these candiates with clear, unbiased eyes. That, my friend, is more than i can say for most! The worst thing that ever happened to American politics is the party system. I, However, against my past voting record will cast a vote for one of the two front running nominees instead of my usual third party canidate………..i regardless of any points above am undecided. I do, however have great concerns about Obama and question not only his intregrity, but his true beliefs and views. On the same side, i am uncertain about Mccain too. As i previously attempted to state in my first post, i beleive Obama is simply a “new, fresh, different” face in our “White” dominated political arena and do not feel he would be where he respectfully is if he were not indeed A.M. The more time goes on in this election the more he appears to be exposed as an empty suit. Have you seen him do an interview or speech that is not directly practiced (questions) or read from a screen? I, too, was sold on him early on, but i am not so sure anymore, my vote will most likely not be solid until Nov.
Oh, yeah, i thought this was supposed to be a Democrat year! What happened? The reality is any Dem nominee should be up in the polls by 20. That, regardless of what i decide to do for my vote is why i say Mccain will actually win in Nov. I voted for Obama in the SC primaries, but he will need to win back my confidence or else i will vote for the “old dude” or revert back to my historical record with the green party or Nader.
Nathan, I understand your concerns about Obama, but I am just wondering, do you think Hillary would be 20 points ahead? Read my post on this thread at 4:33.
The idea that the Clintons would be 20 points ahead in the polls makes me laugh. A lot. How would they get that far ahead with the progressive wing of the party sitting out the election? I can tell you I’d never, ever in a million years vote for the Clintons again. If Senator Obama loses in the Fall (goddess forbid), the Clintons are not gonna make a big comeback and win in 2012. It won’t happen. Just give up the dream now. The Clintons will never be President again.
I’ve never voted for a republican in my life, and I wouldn’t start in 2012– I would just stay home, like most of my progressive friends would.
I should have guessed that a post that had both Obama and Clinton in the title would generate the most passionate and heated discussion probably since early May!
Please keep the ALL CAPS away though. I will delete the next all cap long post like that.
Nathan: i am much more objective than many of you do to the fact i am not a democrat nor am i a republican.
Just because one takes a side doesn’t mean one isn’t “objective.” I believe I’ve taken my side because I’ve “objectively” considered the facts and used reason to make a decision. For instance, if someone says “I’m not sure whether Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks,” that’s not being objective; that’s a refusal to acknowledge the “objective” truth that there is no evidence to support such a link. Objectively, I’d still like someone to name the policies that show that Obama is “far left.”
i beleive Obama is simply a “new, fresh, different” face in our “White” dominated political arena and do not feel he would be where he respectfully is if he were not indeed A.M. The more time goes on in this election the more he appears to be exposed as an empty suit. Have you seen him do an interview or speech that is not directly practiced (questions) or read from a screen?
Why should it matter whether he’s better speaking from a screen or answering questions posed to him? I think the only thing that matters is what he’ll do in the job: what he’ll sign, what he’ll veto, etc.
There is plenty of information out there. You can start with Obama’s web site. It’s pretty comprehensive. You can read his books. You can read what other people have written. There’s lots of information out there, which I think would answer the question of where he “really=” stands far better than “how does he answer pop questions?”
Nathan - thanks for the clarification. It gives a new perspective on your original post, which to be candid I thought was just a back-handed racial swipe at Obama.
I’m an Obama supporter but try to be clear-eyed about him. I am unhappy with his above-the-crowd demeanor, and think he has a major problem connecting with the average voter’s concern, but I do think you’re conflating image and perception issues with matters of substance. He’s a highly intelligent man, not an ideologue but focused on pragmatic solutions that make a difference, as distinct from standing so long on abstract principle that nothing ever gets done, and he gets filette’d in the process. He in fact has a record of substantial accomplishment, witness what he and Lugar did on nuclear control and regulation, or what he accomplished in the Illinois Senate. Claims that he lacks substance are a lot of hogwash, to put it politely.
His problems in the polls are probably a combination of racism - there’s plenty of that around, in a form the polls never reveal - and the inability to convince people he’s in touch with their daily concerns, that he’s one of them. This last factor is quite different than pure racism, it’s part of what sank Kerry, and explains McCain’s constant attacks on celebrity and elitism. It’s asking a lot of people to get beyond the likeability barrier, which is where he’s stopping short right now. Voters won’t think a lot about your programs unless they conclude that you’re serious about solving their problems, and they won’t believe that if they think you’re sitting up on Olympus somewhere, making fancy speeches. But IMO that’s a matter of political perception, not a matter of substance.
I’m pleased you could see this in him in the first go-round and hope you’ll rethink your most recent misgivings. I hope also that you’ll think about what a Green or Nader vote will do for you in practical terms. Neither has any chance of winning, and voting for them makes McCain’s challenges easier. Just imagine 4 (or 8) years of our foreign policy, with Lieberman and Graham in key positions, or what our environmental programs will look like when McCain insists on starving funding in order to maintain the inequitable Bush tax cuts. I hope you’ll think about it again.
I think Taniel effectively took care of the troll who popped up in our midst at 10:46 last night. To the extent there is an intelligible thought there, it comes from the Michael Savage playbook.
I’m sure that Taniel will have a new item for this, but ABC has reported that John Edwards is admitting to his extra-marital affair but denying there is a child born from the Liaison.