Point/Counterpoint

Two excellent, disparate points in comments highlighted at TPM. First one, then the other.

First one…

…as someone who was marching in New Hampshire in 1991 for Bill Clinton, who ran the campus Democrats for his ‘92 campaign, who interned in his White House, who argued against impeachment at every turn, who even defended the pardons, who has been an enormous and unwavering admirer, and who has been disgusted with his own parents for their seemingly irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton, there is something about the way she has run this campaign. From having people on her campaign raise Obama’s drug use, to her jumping on the bandwagon for every right-wing cheap shot, to her new populist, “got no truck with economists” stance, its been craven. More craven than I could possibly imagine. If somehow against all odds she got nominated, I’d vote for her, but I’d do so utterly unconvinced that the quality of her leadership wouldn’t bring about disastrous results no less than the disastrous results that McCain’s wrongheaded policies and own cravenness would bring about. Yes, her policy positions would be much better than McCain’s. But if she’s this divisive, this self-preserving, this craven, I think the results can still be horrible, even with policy positions that are much closer to mine. At this point I feel like it would be the hardest vote for a Democrat I’d ever cast.

Now, I’m a Democratic fundraiser. And as detailed above, a very long time Clinton supporter. If I’m this repulsed, if it seems this craven to me, and I’m this pessimistic about her leadership, can I be alone? That doesn’t even factor in the breach with younger voters, netroots activists, and African-American voters a Clinton nomination would bring about at this point

And then the other…

I think what H and a lot of people are missing about Hillary Clinton might become head-smackingly obvious after this election is over. I’m an Obama supporter, and I’m offended by Hillary’s demagoguery. But I don’t think people get what she’s doing here.

By being a ‘fighter’ and playing to the lowest kind of populism (and wow do we hate it), Hillary is showing that if she were somehow to get nominated, she’ll run exactly the kind of stay-on-the-offensive campaign that will force mistakes from McCain and make it more likely that she’ll win in November. She’s also making it clear that Obama will never run that kind of campaign.

…

The upshot: I’ll happily support Hillary if she ’steals’ the nomination. Aside from the benefits of not having a crop of incompetent government-haters running government, one of the benefits of a winning Hillary campaign would be to relieve a blight on our country: the Atwater/Rove school of Republican campaign mudslinging. It’s not about fighting back. It’s about taking the first shot. She won’t let them get their Swift Boats in the water to start with. If both sides are Atwatering it, yes, it’ll be very very ugly, cue the ‘Unity12′ theme music and hand-wringing by the delicate. But I think we’re in for ugly no matter what, because they’re not going to stop. We may as well engage or get used to losing.

I’m not sure both aren’t true, as much as anything is “true” in a political campaign. There seems to be something pragmatic in bending your values to the breaking point.

Explore posts in the same categories: 2008 Election, Color Commentary, Political Discourse