The Threat of Violence

This week, Senator Clinton again showed her remarkable ability to amplify her own mistakes. Attempting to make the legitimate point that there is historical precedent for this year’s extended primary campaign, she chose her words poorly, referring to the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy. By so doing, she seemed to imply that a strong reason to continue her campaign is that someone very well may murder her opponent.

As the inevitable media firestorm began, she appeared to realize her mistake rather quickly, taking less than a day to emerge with an apology. But as she has done so many times before, she added insult to injury when her reaction to the controversy was even more offensive than the original misstep.

Pretending that the only reason her remarks had offended anyone was their insensitivity to the late Senator’s family, she issued a half-hearted politician’s apology to the Kennedys—but pointedly refused to apologize to her opponent.

No one thinks Senator Clinton actually wishes violence to befall Senator Obama. However, her behavior in this episode further accentuates the most significant distinction in this primary campaign—that between a politician and a leader.

Stuck in the Mud

Certainly a rough week for Senator Obama.

It matters not that former Congresswoman Ferraro’s racially insensitive comments—and her subsequent reiterations—were universally repudiated. Nor is it significant that that Obama handled the controversy with true statesmanship, refusing to brand Ms. Ferraro a racist but instead simply illustrating the inaccuracy of her viewpoint.

Irrelevant is Obama’s denunciation of his former pastor’s extreme and startling remarks, and the remarkable character he displayed by simultaneously refusing to repudiate the man who had brought him to God. It is not important that his immediate response to each unfortunate comment by a supporter offers a stark contrast to Senator Clinton’s actions in similar situations.

At the end of this week, what truly counts is that all of us are talking about garbage—about race, and racism, and “reverse racism” (itself a racist term). About gender and religious identity. About frightening middle names and sociological dividing lines. About anything and everything unrelated to the issues at hand and the future of the nation.

We are now in the mud—and everyone knows which of the two Democrats stands to benefit. But Senator Clinton does not realize the true harm she is doing: While dragging the race into the muck may be her only shot at the nomination, it simply makes John McCain’s eventual election more likely, no matter whom he faces.

The Slimy Road Ahead

The bad news for the Democratic Party (and for America) this morning is not which candidate had a good night, but rather the manner in which the victory was achieved. Hillary Clinton managed to pick up the few vital percentage points she needed in Texas and Ohio by pushing the race in a more negative direction than it had previously gone--subtly playing on racial and religious predjudices, and not-so-subtly fear-mongering in a way that would make Dick Cheney proud.

Clinton knows that negative innuendo and attack advertisments represent her only chance at securing the nomination. If voters walk into polling stations proud, hopeful, and optimistic, she loses. If they arrive cynical, fearful, and confused, she does well--but at what cost?

The decision Clinton faces is whether winning is worth poisoning the process and silencing the better angels of our nature. She has obviously made her decision. Get ready for two very ugly months.

Better at This

Comedians and rival politicians have made much of Barack Obama’s supposed preferential treatment at the hands of the national media. Op/ed pieces have even cited statistics showing the ratio of positive to negative coverage of Senator Obama to be significantly higher than the ratio for other candidates—especially Hillary Clinton.

While Obama certainly has benefited on occasion from glowing media treatment, the claims of bias make a false implication–specifically, that each candidate for public office should receive the same amount of positive and negative coverage as another. This argument relies on the assumption that all politicians are equal in their honesty, experience, consistency, and statesmanship. It assumes that all candidates are equally well-behaved on the campaign trail, and that all of them are hiding the exact same number of skeletons in their closets.

But this is not true. These candidates are unique individuals, with distinctive personal stories, who behave very differently with the public and the media. Simply put—some candidates run more positive campaigns than others. Some are more candid and magnanimous. Some statesmen (or women) perform better on a national stage.

The media have no responsibility to cover rival politicians in equally favorable or unfavorable fashions. They simply owe it to us to report the truth—what the candidates have said, whether or not it is true, what they have done, and what they plan to do. It’s not their fault if some people are simply better at this than others.

Transformation

To explain his decision to seek the presidency so early in his political career, Barack Obama makes the case that more time in Washington could cause him to become jaded and lose his commitment to his principles. While this is surely a convenient rhetorical justification for a calculated political decision, there is a living embodiment of his argument: Hillary Clinton.

It is easy to forget that the Clintons were not always the establishment juggernaut of the present day. They began their odyssey as idealists determined to challenge the entrenched system and change the nature of American politics. Sound familiar?

The vibrant young leader who dared to speak out against a foolish war, worked to uncover a corrupt administration, and hoped to build an issue-focused “politics of tomorrow” has slowly morphed into her opposite: a powerful, win-at-all-cost politician who epitomizes the system she once vowed to transform.

Somewhere, deep down, it must break her heart to hear Obama speak out with the passion and vision she once possessed.

A Winning Ticket?

Much of the televised analysis following last night’s refreshingly civil and issue-focused Democratic debate between Senators Obama and Clinton centered on the possibility of the two candidates joining forces as running mates. While it is an intriguing possibility, it is likely only if Clinton is the presidential nominee. Obama would be wise to look elsewhere to balance his ticket.

Clinton’s support comes from true-blue liberals, proud feminists, and the traditional Democratic Party establishment—not enough to win in November. Should she capture the nomination, she will desperately need to court the independents, first-time voters, and even Republicans that back Obama. Without him, independents and Republicans will undoubtedly drift toward John McCain, and previously energized newcomers are likely to stay home.

By contrast, if Obama is the nominee, he will probably gain the support of Clinton’s voters automatically. Her base is extremely unlikely to vote Republican, and probably will support any Democratic nominee to prevent a Republican victory. Obama’s biggest perceived weakness is experience, particularly in foreign policy and military affairs. In a running mate, he would look for gravitas and an established track record on military issues. Perhaps a General, a long-serving member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, or even a purple state governor with service experience would fit the bill.

Politics or Leadership?

Call it organized chaos. As we near Super-de-duper Tuesday, the most wide-open presidential race since 1928 has become neatly compartmentalized and remarkably symmetrical.

Each major party has narrowed its field to a genuine cross-party consensus-builder and a more conventional, divisive politician intent on playing hardball. And each has a third-place finisher—backed by voting blocs traditionally vital to the party’s success—poised to play king (or queen) maker.

Barack Obama’s hope of landing the Democratic nomination may rest on a John Edwards endorsement. More than any other candidate, Edwards ran a traditional Democratic campaign, wooing labor unions and crusading for the less fortunate. Sadly, he also garnered support from those Democratic voters uneasy supporting a woman or a non-white candidate. If Edwards can bring enough of those voters to the Obama camp, it may be just enough to overcome Hillary Clinton’s increasingly negative campaign.

Conversely, Mike Huckabee can probably guarantee McCain the Republican nomination by staying in the race and not endorsing anyone. Huckabee’s main supporters—conservative evangelical Christians—have never trusted McCain, and would be more likely to back Mitt Romney in a two-way contest. As long as he remains in the race, he keeps these votes from Romney, whose bottomless pit of corporate money and endless attack ads will probably not be enough.

Our country is desperate for more leadership and less politics. Let’s hope both parties reject slick politicians in favor of true leaders.