Calling the Obama Camp's Bullsh*t [View All]

[Austinitis]

“’Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,’ cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, ‘surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?’”

“Once again this argument was unanswerable. Certainly the animals did not want Jones back; if the holding of debates on Sunday was liable to bring him back, then the debates must stop.”

-George Orwell, Animal Farm

Possibly the most egregious example of the politics-of-fear being utilized by the Obama camp these days goes like this:

Regardless of whether they think he or she would make the best president, super-delegates must support whichever candidate takes the lead in pledged-delegates (however small that lead may be). To do otherwise risks a backlash by Obama supporters which would cost the eventual nominee the general election and lead to a return of Bush (in the form of McCain).

Repeated incessantly by Obama supporters and left unchallenged by Clinton supporters, this single piece of rhetoric is used a cudgel to silence debate and frame Obama’s candidacy as inevitable. And until those of us who support Hillary finally say no; until we refuse to be silenced and to have our candidate driven from the race; until we call this absurd bluff for what it is, we’ll always be handing Obama the nomination.

So it’s time to finally say what needs saying: Bullshit. There won’t be any backlash. And anyone who was half awake during the Republican primary should see that.

Calling the Bluff

A quick history lesson seems to be in order. If there was ever – and I mean EVER – a candidate for a political party in a political climate who might inspire a backlash it was John McCain for the Republicans in 2008. And if there has ever been – and I mean EVER – a party which could resist splintering after a primary, it’s the current Democratic party in 2008. So when the Republicans have managed to come together around John McCain, the idea that Hillary Clinton could somehow inspire some “killer-backlash” among the Democrats is at best an absurdity on its face.

Some Examples:

• Republicans in 2008: Are almost certainly going to lose. That means that the average Republican doesn’t really have a lot of motivation to support someone they don’t like in order to take the Whitehouse. They’re not risking much staying home, so why not use the 2008 election to send a message?
  Democrats in 2008: Have an excellent chance of winning. That means that the average Democrat does have a lot of motivation to support someone who isn’t their favorite in order to take the Whitehouse. If a Democrat stays homes and pouts they’re risking a lot and it’s unlikely they will.



• Republicans in 2008: Have been rocked by a series of scandals. Faith in their party leadership has been shaken (even a lot of the Republicans I know bought into the “Culture of Corruption” slogan from ’06). This means there’s not a lot of party loyalty to hold off a backlash.
  Democrats in 2008: Have largely avoided the crazy Republican scandal spree. Faith in the party and in party leadership, while never perfect, is certainly better than what the Republicans are working with.



• Republicans in 2008: Have a party platform that hasn’t really been working out too well. Tearing down government regulation? Doesn’t look too hot after the sub-prime crisis. Aggressive, unilateral foreign policy? The death toll in Iraq makes it glaringly obvious how stupid that is. Privatized health care? Not so attractive once people you know get sick. My guess is that even a lot of Republicans are feeling pretty sheepish about what they’re running on this year.
  Democrats in 2008: Represent at the very least the return of sanity to the Whitehouse. We’re pumped about our policies. We have a chance to make real changes and improve the world. I don’t know a single Democrat who would miss out on that in November so that they could pout about who was picked in August.

Yet the backlash argument gets dumber still. Because John McCain has every single one of the features which in Hillary Clinton are supposed to create a backlash. And once again, if those features didn’t cause a backlash against him, there’s no way there’ll be one against her.

• Argument: A lot of Democrats strongly dislike Hillary!
  Reply: Not nearly so much as Republicans disliked John McCain. I mean, seriously - right wing pundits brutalized John McCain in the media during the Republican primary. Nothing in the Democratic primary has gotten that nasty.



• Argument: If the Super-Delegates pick Hillary the election will seem stolen!
  Reply: It’s hard to see how super-delegates could “steal” an election by acting within party rules, but – more on point – John McCain faced the same charges and Republicans still rallied around him. Rush Limbaugh explicitly claimed that the media, through endorsements and friendly coverage, picked the Republican’s candidate for them. And a lot of Republicans felt that independents had crossed over and picked their candidate for them. And despite feeling that their primary was thus polluted, Republicans still got in line and backed McCain.



• Argument: A lot of Obama’s supporters really like Obama!
  Reply: A lot of Hillary’s supporters really like her (in fact, a recent Gallup poll suggests that her supporters would actually be the most likely to defect (not that we will)). Moreover, Democrats were excited about this election even before Obama was anywhere near the front. Obama may, then, be a vehicle for Democrat excitement, but here’s surely not exhaustive of it.
  
  And again, and more to the point, a lot of Republicans were enthusiastic about their favored candidate (or about “anyone but McCain”), yet they’re still backing their party. And once again, if they did it, so will we.

Finally, it’s worth stressing that McCain, unlike either of the Democratic candidates, actually diverges from his party’s base on a number of issues. McCain managed, let’s remember, to alienate large chunks of his base by pushing immigration reform and campaign finance reform. Nevertheless, at the end of the day Republicans still came together.

What the Republican primary tells us, then, is that, however divisive the primary, the far larger differences between the parties will, within a few weeks, get both sides back on the wagon.

And that’s why it’s important for those of us who support Hillary to call this nonsense for what it is. Because at the end of the day this absurd backlash narrative doesn’t represent a real possibility. It represents, instead, the calculated use of fear by the Obama camp to try to silence debate and force the hands of super-delegates.

Taking Back the Narrative

So we have our first step: When they say “backlash” we say “bullshit.” Those of us who support Hillary need to reject and denounce the narrative crafted by the Obama campaign and the fear mongering used to justify it.

Step two, then, is to cast the debate in terms which reflect the real purpose for which super-delegates were created. The job of super-delegates is to support the candidate who would make the best president of the United States. That candidate is Hillary Clinton.

And this is what makes this argument fundamentally a message of hope. Once we reject this “Hillary can never win” narrative; once we point out that both candidates need the support of super-delegates to win; once we drive home the message that the candidate most likely to win is the candidate most likely to make a great president, then Hillary becomes the front runner in this election.

One final point: There will be those who say that even if Hillary’s supporters reject the “delegate math” narrative, super-delegates will still find it compelling. This, I think, is what makes it so important that we Hillary supporters speak up and take back the narrative. The “backlash” narrative is only compelling when everyone repeats it like a mantra. The more we speak up, and the more we say no, the weaker that absurd meme becomes.