Whistling Past the Political Graveyard

What is about Tom Wilkinson that allows him to move from the old, sun-spotted, strangely-haired political cynic of the American 18th century to a pin-striped version of the same - sans all wisdom and humanity - circa November, 2000? Wilkinson's Ben Franklin in John Adams was mottled, debauched and wise whereas his James Baker is simply mottled, but a snarling mongoose of a political killer nonetheless in Recount, the costume drama twin to the revolutionary mini-series - and certainly a moral counterpart to the founders' idealism. Bewigged in both, Wilkinson is HBO's type-cast back room boy at both the glorious founding and the immoral political drama of eight years ago.

Yet, as good as Recount is - and it is very well done - it carries a kind of phantom, lost-limbed agony for Democrats. We thought we'd excised that bit of gangrene long ago, but damn if it doesn't feel both amazingly recent and strangely prescient. The long and painful loss of 2000 and the short and painful loss of 2004. Gore, now beloved but then befuddled in a cloud of arrogance and Clinton regret. His team in Florida led by Bill Daley from the Chicago machine and the legal eminence of Warren Christopher - both of them bringing pea-shooters to a knife fight. Four years later, there is Kerry losing by the grace of Ohio's swing-state working class whites. Two races that should have been won.

Jump ahead and we're still talking about Florida and its strange ways, always failing Democrats and tripping over its own political feet. Then, the purple state working class, still on  our minds, still crucial in Ohio, and Pennsylvania and Michigan. Two razor thin races, and now a third - this time within our own party. This time, we're split, and it's becoming increasingly clear that the followers of the near-winner don't care any more about the loyalists of the near-loser in their own party than Jim Baker cared for polite debate in Florida. Lance Mannion took on the Obama bloggers's sheer dismissal of the other half of their own party in stern fashion today:

...it's not simply the case that 15 to 16 million people don't like Barack Obama or like Hillary "for whatever reasons"---as opposed to all those Obama supporters for whom liking has nothing to do with their decisions; their votes are based entirely on their having read all the position papers and come to the only rational conclusions, neverminding their personal feelings about either candidate.

It's the case that millions of people think she would be the better President.

Almost exactly the same number as think that Barack Obama would be better.

Those people don't understand why their votes should be dismissed out of hand as if they mattered as little as the votes Mike Gravel's going to get in the fall.

It feels like a typically ham-handed Democratic move, frankly. As does the rush to find reasons why Hillary Clinton should not share the ticket with Barack Obama, and the roadblocks to counting election votes in the same state that cost Al Gore in 2000, and the big push to get Clinton to drop out the race before the convention - the very first time in history such a resignation from the playing field with that much support will ever have occurred.

There's a willful disregard for political reality in both the Obama camp and among his most ardent followers. Just go away is the snarling consensus toward Senator Clinton and her husband, the still widely-popular 42nd President of the United States. And to the rest of us who have supported the Clinton campaign, the message is just as blunt: get in line.

It's nasty, sure - a kind of salt in the wound strategy, I guess. But more important, it's as clueless as Daley and Christopher in Florida - especially when you consider how wounded so many women voters are by the sexist nature of the media coverage of this campaign. Over at FireDogLake, Jane Hamsher cooks up a strategy that just might work for John McCain - carefully and respectfully cultivate Democratic women who backed Senator Clinton:

I was watching a clip of Geraldine Ferraro on Fox News the other day, and the ground is definitely being tested for an appeal to Hillary's female supporters who think she's been done wrong. (We'll leave aside the supreme irony of the very architects of the anti-Clinton narrative playing the collective role of Sir Galahad here.) I watched the clip and thought "you know, if the Clinton exit isn't orchestrated well and I'm John McCain, I go straight for the women."

Like Lance, I'm not on the Obama circus train yet, but I'll happily climb aboard before it leaves this particular station on the way to November. But as the fierce back and forth on this blog and many others shows clearly, there are many committed Democratic women (and men, I am reminded in comments) who may never board that train. And if McCain adopts the Hamsher plan - and the Obama campaign continues its tone-deafness toward Clinton supporters - it may be time to get Tom Wilkinson into makeup again. With the right bit of artistry he could play Senator McCain in the latest installment of what has become quite the long-running horror series for the Democratic Party.

Comments

[Frenchdoc]

Tom,
do you see ANY indication that the tone-deafness you note is going away anytime soon? Personally I don't (and I spend way too much time on the blogs). I think it's actually getting worse: the sexism, the abuse, the vitriol... the antes are being upped all the time.
And of course, the result is not the "getting in line" for HRC's supporters, but rather, the hardening of their resolve. That much is very clear.

[dark1p]

One rather large correction to your piece, Tom: it's not just women. I and a lot of other men will not be pulling any lever with Obama's name next to it.

McCain started courting the disaffected Dems a couple of weeks ago. I remember reading a quote from him given on that day and saying, he's going after us. And you know what? He sounded very reasonable, respectful and fair.

I don't agree with basically any of his stated positions, but I appreciated the attention. I'm sure not getting any from my own party.

[dark1p]

It's not just women, Tom. I'm not voting for Obama if he's the nominee, and I know other men who won't, either. This kind of behavior should not be rewarded. I expect it from a GOP candidate, but will not tolerate it from one of our own.

Of course, 'our' may not be an appropriate word here. If the party goes with Obama, it goes without me. I'll change to Independent. The DNC leadership and the party 'elite' have managed to finally disgust me to that extent.

[Palomino]

What dark1p said. But I switched to independent some time ago, when Nancy cleared the table, as if it were hers to clear.

[tina oiticica harris]

As a supporter of Hillary Clinton's, I feel very sorry things have turned the way they did. She never got a break from the press or from the Obamists. Today I read he mistook Aushwitz for some other camp. Had it been Hillary, there'd been a big fuss about this mistake. Barack Obama walks on water. We are in a situation which is tough and we cannot resolve it. Maybe in 2012?

[Andre]

Is it too much of a reach to consider the possibility that the way both Clintons (and her supporters also) are and were treated in this primary season might be indicative of how an Obama presidency might be played out? I'm a Clinton supporter who has come to that state late, but upon watching her these many months. I'm of the opinion that the frame of mind in making a choice for president now requires that we hold our country more dearly than our party. I fully remember in 2000 what we heard about Bush's lack of experience and look where that took us. I don't think I would be part of a repeat. And it has nothing to do with Clinton other than that she would be an infinitely better president. I've been voting D for 44 years, so I know of what I speak.

[Susie]

I, too, am worried about the recent tone taken by the Obama campaign and its surrogates. Formerly, Obama showed full confidence that he could win over disaffected Clinton supporters. He sounded annoyingly sure of himself when he said this, but it still sounded more promising than the more recent theme of We Don’t Really Need Those People. I'd like to like him more. He's run a great campaign. I'm just not sure if he cares whether I'm on board or not.

(If I wind up not voting for Obama, I may be able to say, I didn’t leave my party. My party left me.)

"Today I read he mistook Aushwitz for some other camp. Had it been Hillary, there'd been a big fuss about this mistake."

He deserves a break on that. It's been a long campaign and both candidates are entitled to some slack. I only wish it went both ways. As you say, if Hillary had messed up like this the Obama blogs and the MSM would flog it for days.

Much as I admire Tom Wilkinson, I thought his Baker was a little too rough and crude. Not that Baker isn't exactly that tough, but it's a glossy Ivy League kind of toughness. He's very smooth.

Ultimately Florida 2000 came down to control. The Republicans had determination and unity, yes, but they also had the officeholders and the machinery of government and the judiciary. Gore had nothing but the Florida Supreme Court. Not enough. Warren Christopher could have been a pit bull and I doubt it would have changed the final result. The Supreme Court would still have been waiting at the end of the line.

[Ralph DeMarco]

Gore had nothing but the Florida Supreme Court. Not enough.

Florida Supreme Court was supposed to be enough according to the rules. The Supreme Court decided for one time, and one time only, it would break them. It was a political coup 5-4 decision on partisan lines.

(If I wind up not voting for Obama, I may be able to say, I didn’t leave my party. My party left me.)

The Democratic Party is not leaving you. Nay, it is you who are leaving the party. You have let this ugly campaign blind you to the other important issues at hand. I think it's time to step back, take a deep breath and let it out. When Hillary Clinton implores her supporters to get behind Barack Obama, should he be the nominee, will you listen to her? Or will you convince yourself that John McCain is a better choice? Makes me sick to think I even have to ask this after seven years of W.

[CognitiveDissonance]

Well, Ralph, the sad reality of Barrack Obama is that many of us are NOT convinced that he is a better choice than McCain. A D behind one's name simply is not an indication that he would not be a total disaster if elected. His parallels to Bush are too eerie.

But even if he is given the nomination (and make no mistake about it - he hasn't earned it - it will have to be given to him), there is very little chance he will win in November anyway. Take a look at the electoral college maps at hominidviews.com and electoral-vote.com. Obama's maps are extremely poor compared to Clinton's or McCain's. Some people may be induced to reluctantly support him. But the working class voters in the rust belt won't. And if they don't, he's lost. So he is basically screwing the dems chance in November by staying in the race. He has little chance of winning in November, but he will all too happily screw up Clintons chance of getting the nomination so she can go on to a very likely win in November. Is it any wonder that so many of us will leave the party if this debacle happens?

[Phylise]

As a life long democrat, I could not ever bring myself to vote for McCain, neither will I vote for Obama. No Ralph, you are wrong, the party HAS left us. Donna Brazile proclaimed long and loud that my vote was not required to win and the DNC stood silently by whilst one of their own was maliciously attacked day after miserable day and for what? - money! Yes, my party abandoned me. When Obama looses in November it will somehow, some way, be determined to be Senator Clinton's fault...and so it goes.

[jb64]

All McCain has to do is go on Russert and talk about how much he "admires" Senator Clinton, and how "appalled" he was at the way she was treated by members of her own party.

Thus begins the backlash. The narrative in the media suddenly becomes:

"did the Democrats make a mistake"
"Democratic party seen as in the hands of radical bloggers"
"Who is Obama"
"A party divided"
"Despite being shown the door, Clinton rallies for Obama"

The MSM, and some bloggers, of course will never own up to their own culpability in taking out Hillary but they will gleefully shift that blame to Democrats (rightfully I think) who have become a party of elitist urban types out of touch with normal American values. A befuddled Obama will find no love in the media. This has been the plan all along.

I cannot vote for Obama, or McCain

[HenryFTP]

I am extremely troubled by what appears to me to be the difficulty the Obama team has in dealing with difficult facts.

Obama failed to win the nomination outright in the primary and caucus process. Over 17 million voters have voted for Hillary Clinton, and he will be hard-pressed to exceed her total, even on a generous interpretation of the data.

As Tom rightly points out, no candidate in the history of presidential elections has ever conceded prior to the Convention with the amount of support that Clinton has, even when it was reasonably clear they were trailing in the various delegate counts.

In my living memory, there have been more ideologically divisive contests -- the '64, '68 and '76 RNCs, and the '68, '72 and '80 DNCs. The only one where the supporters of the leading candidate seemed intent on reading supporters of the trailing candidate out of the Party was the '64 RNC, and we all know what good that did them in the general election.

I can understand why Obama supporters are disappointed, but Clinton isn't beating him in the backrooms (indeed, it is Obama who has the clear edge there). Clinton has been beating him out on the stump, even though he's outspending her and has far more favorable free media (I hardly need to repeat the shocking vilification to which Hillary has been subjected). The Obama team may figure that they can win without Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana but they sure aren't going to win without Pennsylvania (which we should all remember was a closed primary).

Obama is going to need an awful lot of those 17 million people who voted for Clinton. It is beyond my comprehension as to how his team thinks those voters will be persuaded by insulting and demeaning them. And I actually supported the guy actively until January.

[katiebird]

The emptiness of Obama's resume is frightening -- how does a man with the resume of a 27 year old leap into the Presidency? I would have thought it impossible a year ago.

His total lack of experience combined with his slimy campaign practices make it impossible for me to vote for him.

I couldn't live with myself if I did and he won.

[bmc]

I won't vote for McCain; and I won't vote for Obama. I know that Clinton will advocate for the Democratic Party nominee at some point--should she not be that nominee--but even Clinton won't persuade me to vote for Obama. After the Florida and Michigan debacle, I feel no loyalty to party anymore. This party has kicked me to the curb, and kicked its values to the curb. I'm not going to collude in their "punishment" of disenfranchisement of Democrats. Clinton should take it to the Convention and let's have floor fight with the Credentials Committee. Barack Obama is in a long slide downhill; Democrats will reject him in November, and I believe John McCain has a solid chance to win the White House with Obama as the nominee. GOP analysts are now pleasantly surprised at their own good fortune these days, considering the strong campaign Clinton has begun to wage in the past few months. They think they've got a chance to beat Obama out by a larger margin than Bush achieved. I think they're right about that. But, I can't be moved to any vote in favor of a candidate who is clearly a dissembling narcissist, a calculating opportunist, and a complete fabrication of marketing genius; a man with no experience, no knowledge of geo-political affairs, who has stolen the majority of his policy positions from other candidates, and who can be counted on to calculate every position on the basis of how it benefits him. It's infuriating that Democratic Party leaders think they can install a nominee over the voices of Democratic Party voters--particularly THIS one.

[Ren v Stimpy]

Frankly, and unfortunately, the message I have been issued from the "progressives" is not as polite as "get in line" but instead "get out". It is an exclusive as opposed to inclusive culture which leads me to the conclusion these are not even Democrats as nostalgia would have it.

[Jude Nagurney Camwell]

As far as my personal views are concerned, Tom, this is spot-on.

[Judith]

I have loved Tom Wilkenson for years - he can do sweet and funny and mean and vicious. Love to see him being so successful over here. Hope he gets an Oscar one day soon.

Since the disgraceful recent attack on Clinton re her RFK comment, I have absolutely no interest in Obama supporters and frankly, some Clinton supporters are starting to irritate me as well with some really petty bullshit of their own like "did Obama ever have a full time job?" - I mean, really. Focus much?

So I am off politcs and back to full job focus - Buffett ( as in Warren ;-)) says it is gonna get uglier so I am keeping my head down.

Love ya Tom W!

[Ralph]

First of all, Obama is not being anointed, he has won more delegates so far than Clinton fair and square. You should direct your anger towards the early primary state voters who picked Obama over Clinton.

Do you folks ever stop to realize why Clinton didn't clinch the nomination as easily as was predicted? Well, Obama put together an huge organization almost overnight. She underestimated him big time and had no real strategy after super-tuesday.

Also, remember why so many voted for Obama. They embraced the idea of change. For them, Clinton was the status quo - whether you like it or not. I was initially put off by the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. As I suspect many early Obama supporters thought about as well. Also, regardless of whether he was in the Senate or not, he was vocally against the Iraq invasion, and Clinton supported it because she figured it was far too risky to oppose. That, to me, was an act of cowardice (the same can be said for Edwards who I supported.)

But don't hand me that crap about Obama being anointed or that he hasn't earned it. He damn well did, and against huge odds actually.

And McCain will not be able to transform himself into a moderate when he has reneged on almost every maverick idea he's ever had. Look, being a maverick in the Republican party simply means you don't agree with everything Rush Limbaugh says. Big deal.

[Susie]

"You have let this ugly campaign blind you to the other important issues at hand."

No, this ugly campaign has opened my eyes to issues that may be more important than whether or not Barack Obama, assuming he is the nominee, makes it to the White House. Clinton is a good team player and a practical politician and she’ll do what has to be done for the party if she loses. But that doesn’t necessarily influence my own choice as a voter if I don’t think she and her supporters have been treated with sufficient respect by their own party. I'm sure Obama's people would feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot.

"I can understand why Obama supporters are disappointed, but Clinton isn't beating him in the backrooms (indeed, it is Obama who has the clear edge there)."

A good point and one that isn’t made frequently enough. She's in the race because people have this strange habit of voting for her and sending her money.

"In my living memory, there have been more ideologically divisive contests -- the '64, '68 and '76 RNCs, and the '68, '72 and '80 DNCs. The only one where the supporters of the leading candidate seemed intent on reading supporters of the trailing candidate out of the Party was the '64 RNC, and we all know what good that did them in the general election."

That's true, but is the split today really along ideological lines? I don't think so. Clinton and Obama aren't Rockefeller and Goldwater. (Although I do believe control of the party is an underlying issue even if no Democrat wins the White House in November.)

[Slappy]

Tom W: Obama should be playing to the Clinton camp but Clinton shouldn't pull out early? Should Obama be trying to reunite the party or still trying to defeat Clinton? She has to step aside for him to reunite the party. Sounds to me like Clinton is delaying the reuniting of the party by staying in it.

[Ralph]

No Slappy, you see, she can try to reunite the party at the Convention. Maybe by then many of the super delegates will realize that only Hillary Clinton can beat John McCain and abandon Obama. Maybe they will realize that women all over the country will flock to McCain and the Republican party since they seem to care more about women's issues than the Democratic party. Or maybe some 'more dirt on Obama' will come out between now and then sinking any possible chance for him in November. Maybe Obama will read the cogent arguments made on this blog by readers and decide to withdraw and give all his delegates to Clinton for the sake of our nation's future.

You know, I would be perfectly happy with Clinton as the nominee at this point because I am so f'n sick of all the hogwash here and at Daily Kos. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me.

[Tom K]

One thing for sure -- if HRC were in the lead, she'd never try to put a near contender away by appealing to the metrics that favored her as the decisive ones. No, that's just not the Clintons' style.

[Susie]

"Obama should be playing to the Clinton camp but Clinton shouldn't pull out early?"

As the front runner and presumptive nominee who supposedly has this thing in the bag, yes, he should be reaching out to Clinton and particularly her voters. (As he should have done in West Virginia and Kentucky, instead of kissing them off.) If Obama isn’t giving out any signals, there’s no reason for Clinton to bow out except for ‘the good of the party,’ and if she is seen to be forced out, which might well be the case if this is not allowed to play out, that would plainly not be for the good of the party.

"One thing for sure -- if HRC were in the lead, she'd never try to put a near contender away by appealing to the metrics that favored her as the decisive ones. No, that's just not the Clintons' style."

Both candidates are acting out of political calculation as well as conviction. Shocking, shocking, that gambling is going on in this casino.

[Slappy]

"there’s no reason for Clinton to bow out except for ‘the good of the party,’"

Agreed. She should bow out for the good of the party. But she is more likely to stick it out to the inevitable end driving her fanatics into an even greater frenzy when she loses.

Speaking of gambling, "Have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them."

[BC]

This is absolutely astonishing. A group of presumably grown people whining that their candidate didn't win so they're going to take it out on the guy who defeated her. All this hand-wringing about all the mean things the Obama camp has done to Hilary! For God's sake, take a step back and look at how ridiculous this looks and sounds. What is it, like 48% of Americans polled say they'll NEVER vote for Hilary- how do you plan on winning in November starting with disapprovals that massive? Sure, there are still a lot of people in this country who would never vote for a black, but I doubt it's as high as Hilary's 48%. I didn't start out as an Obama supporter, I just wanted someone other than Hilary- for the previously stated sky-high negatives she's got but also for the realization that a lot of us old enough to remember the Clinton years (and I suspect many of the the more vocal posters are not) have Clinton fatigue. I'm glad Bill Clinton was president, but it's over and time to move on.