Do you know that Hillary Clinton has yet to release her tax returns or that John McCain has yet to release his medical records? If the American press wants to serve the interests of the American people by promoting democracy in America – a novel idea in this day and age! – then surely its representatives ought to be pursuing these questions, which reflect on the character and integrity of two leading candidates for the highest office in this land. They are both experienced politicians and should know better than to conceal information to which the American people are entitled. That they have not done so at this late stage speaks volumes about their commitments to truth and transparency in government.
The Tuesday primaries in which Hillary prevailed over Obama in the popular votes in Ohio and Texas appear to have resulted from a confluence that created – in the words of Don Williams – a “perfect storm” that hit him high and low (http://mach2.com/williams/). It included bad publicity from the Antoin Rezko trial, which opened the day before, as well as reports that an Obama representative had reassured Canadian officials that his criticisms of NAFTA were just campaign rhetoric; her favorable coverage on “Saturday Night Live” and “The Daily Show” suggesting she has a human side to her persona; right-wing propagandists like Rush Limbaugh encouraging his followers to vote for Hillary in the open Texas primary “because she would be easier to beat”; and reporters swallowing the Clinton line that they were being too hard on Hillary and too soft on Obama.
Another Obama representative has now offered the opinion to a reporter for The Scotsman that Hillary is “a monster” who will stoop to nothing to win her party’s nomination (“‘Hillary Clinton’s a monster’: Obama aide blurts out attack in Scotsman interview” (March 8, 2008). Samantha Power, a senior advisor on foreign affairs, made her remark in passing during an interview with Gerri Peev. Although she immediately qualified it as “off the record”, the reporter included it in her interview and even featured it as the key element of the story. In response, she submitted her resignation to Obama, who aspires to stay out “gutter politics” and avoid “knife fights” that would demean the inspirational characteristics of his campaign. And in adopting this attitude, he has received encouragement from such eminences as David Brooks and Bob Herbert in The New York Times.
But there are deeper issues at stake here than the superficial appearance of propriety by the Obama campaign in contrast to the cut-throat, take-no-prisoners approach of the opposition. One of these concerns truth and another character. Either Hillary is “a monster” who would stoop to anything to win or she is not. If she is a monster, then it is a mistake – even a blunder! – to accept the resignation of an aide who has spoken the truth. If what she has said is true, figuratively if not literally, then Obama should stand shoulder to shoulder by her side, not toss her overboard. And, of course, if what she said is untrue because the evidence does not support it, then she deserves the “heave ho”! So which it is? Is Hillary a monster who would stoop to anything to win or not?
* The NAFTA story appears to have been planted by Ian Brodie, Chief of Staff or Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper – according to John Nichols, “a conservative with close ties to the Bush administration and the Republican Party in the U.S.” (“Canada ‘NAFT-gate’ plot thickens”, The Capital Times, March 7, 2008).
* Hillary has repeatedly asserted that she and John McCain have “passed the threshold” for serving as the nation as Commander in Chief, but that Barack Obama has not, thereby extolling the qualifications of the candidate of the other party over her rival for the Democratic nomination.
* She has been creating no end of consternation for the party by insisting that delegates selected in Florida and in Michigan should be seated, even though those primaries were held in violation of DNC guidelines, neither candidate campaigned there, and Obama’s name was not even on the ballot in Michigan!
* Howard Wolfson, Hillary’s senior campaign advisor, has compared Obama to Kenneth Starr, the Grand Inquisitor of Bill Clinton, for suggesting that she has an obligation to release her tax returns, as though that were not as obvious an obligation to the voters as that John McCain release his medical records.
* Hillary has now doubled her bet on her attack on her rival’s character by insisting that the NAFTA story and The Scotsman interview are mutually reinforcing, since they both show that what their candidate says in public is not necessarily what they are saying in private.
As a philosopher by profession, I must observe that what separates the good guys from the bad is that the bad guys are willing to employ methods and means to attain their goals that good guys will not use. Robbery, rape and torture come to mind. Surely in campaigning for the nomination of your party, a candidate assumes an obligation to use methods and means that will not destroy the party in the process. Yet, without doubt, in her enthusiasm to destroy her rival for the Democratic nomination, she has supplied ammunition to the Republican candidate that could be used effectively to destroy her as well! Regarding experience with military affairs, John McCain has vastly more than either Obama or Hillary can claim.
And messing with the rules for securing the nomination by suggesting that voters in Florida and in Michigan would be “disenfranchised” if their primary results are not counted is a grotesque and self-serving assault on the integrity of the DNC itself! If the party cannot enforce its own rules for securing the nomination, then it has no rationale for existing as a political party. Hillary has laid down the gauntlet by demanding that either she is the nominee of the party or she will take the party down with her. The party can accede to blackmail or not, but no one should be in doubt about what’s going on here. This is an extreme form of extortion. As Gail Collins has observed, Barack may understand “the audacity of hope” but only Hillary gets “the audacity of audacity”!
So what should Obama do in response? Hillary’s claim that she and McCain have “a lifetime of experience” that qualifies them to serve as Commander in Chief makes them joint targets. It is far better and cost effective to create commercials that attack them both when there are common grounds for doing so and it mitigates the – admittedly “old fashioned” but still present – reluctance by Obama to attack a woman rival, even when she is going for his jugular. Commercials that feature them both, such as by emphasizing that she has yet to release her tax returns just as he has yet to release his medical records, are completely fair game and need to be made.
Moreover, truth and character are fundamental issues in a campaign. If one of the candidates is willing to take down her own party for the sake of her own self-serving ambition, that needs to be explained in to the American people. The examples offered here are only a sampler. Put them together and make the point that, whatever you may admire about his woman, her character has been shown to be profoundly flawed in ways that seriously undermine her credibility as a candidate for the Democratic nomination – although she might still be viable as a Vice Presidential candidate on the McCain ticket. Stand by Samantha. Explain why her words ring true.
Notice, too, that the teasing suggestion that Hillary’s fans might still have the opportunity to vote for her and Obama is grotesquely undermined by her devastating behavior in savaging his qualifications to serve the nation as its Commander in Chief. The first question anyone would raise about her running mate would be, “But is he qualified to serve as Commander in Chief?” Her campaign has clearly already answered that question in the negative, so how could she possibly suggest that he might still be tapped to serve as her running mate? She even displays the audacity of blatant self-contradiction! What greater proof of hypocrisy and deceit is possible?
Wolfson has suggested that, even though Barack may not be qualified so serve as Commander in Chief today, he might be qualified by the time of the convention. As though that were not ridiculous enough, raising the name of Kenneth Starr may reap unanticipated benefits for the Obama campaign. It brings back to mind the endless controversies over Watergate, the death of Vince Foster, and Monica’s blue dress. Do we really want to relive the contentious politics of the Clinton administration? When I saw the red phone ring, I turned to my wife and said, “I can’t wait for a response, where, when Hillary picks up the phone, she hears a sexy woman’s voice asking, ‘Bill? Bill? Is that you, Bill?’” She does not appear to be the person who ought to be answering the red phone – at 3 AM or any other time.
[An earlier version of this blog appeared in OpEdNews entitled "Obama's blunder".]
__________________________
McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Research
