Clinton is Running as the Un-Elizabeth Warren. The Tactic is Succeeding. For now. (And btw, what DO those polls on gun-control laws show about rural-vs.-urban-area views?)
Marco Rubio spoke today to a large group of Iowa Republican activists and urged them to “turn the page on outdated leaders of both parties“. They agreed to do that, and started chanting “Feel the Bern.”
— Senator, You’re No John Kennedy. You’re Just Clumsily Appropriating a Campaign Line of His [from his 1946 run for Congress], Me, Nov. 1
Rubio, whose policy proposals entail returning to 1920s economic and regulatory policies (presumably because they worked so well)—and, regarding such matters as antitrust law, returning to the pre-Teddy Roosevelt era—claims that what determines whether a candidate would be an outdated leader is the age of the candidate, not his or her proposed policies. As I said in the above-referenced post, Rubio is 44 and probably would support a 43-year-old Communist Workers Party candidate if one were to run, and step down himself as a candidate. Policy proposals being irrelevant to the datedness of the candidate, and all.
Okay. But he’s actually right about one of the older candidates. Not about her policy proposals, but about her campaign itself. Hillary Clinton as a candidate is the un-Elizabeth Warren. She’s running an absurdly retro campaign that employs asinine allegations of sexism, racism, and Commie-ism against her main primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, as her go-to misdirection tactics to avoid talking about the issues that Warren and Sanders both have made their trademark, their political raison d’être: the thoroughly rigged power game that has so thoroughly rigged the economics game. And the legal game. [Trust me on this.]
We all know by now about Clinton’s claim, repeated on six occasions within a few days, that all of the 76 members of the National Rifle Association’s Board of Directors are women—er, that Bernie Sanders told her, and only her, to stop speaking in a literally loud voice and that he said this because she is a woman. The initial reaction to Clinton’s claim was a bonanza for her among non-millennial women—that is, women who are of a generation in which being a feminist requires automatic adoption or acceptance of any charge of sexism (or for that matter rape).
Having been a victim of sexual harassment myself, I don’t take lightly the real deals—sexual harassment, sexism, rape. Which may be why it so offends me when a career feminist, which is what Clinton is, cries ‘wolf’ about sexism, knowing its Pavlovian pull among fellow feminists. Especially career ones. And baby boomer ones, for whom it will always be the 1992 election cycle. As it always will be for her. But the allegation quickly was shown as false. As was part of her substantive charge against Sanders in the exchange at the Oct. 13 debate in which Sanders had made the comments that she claimed were sexist: a 2005 statute called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which she criticized Sanders for supporting and which she as a senator from New York voted against, doesn’t provide what she said it provides. And the state of liability law at the time, and the state of liability now, that pertains to manufacturers and retailers of products other than guns and ammunition is the opposite of what she claimed.
But not to worry. Having milked all she could from sexism—she also had claimed that a joke by Sanders’ campaign manager that Clinton would make a fine vice presidential nominee, a standard line that presidential primary candidates use about their nearest competitor, and one that Clinton used about Obama in 2008, was, you guessed it, sexist! —and now being limited to talking about actual gun-control proposals, past and present, she went back to the trumped-up ism well. (I mean, seriously, good grace; she thought Obama was a woman. But that was then and this is now.) She accused Sanders of racism for a comment he made at the debate during, you guessed it, the gun legislation exchange. William Saletan of Slate, who wrote the most thorough article I’ve read on the sexism smear, wrote in an article yesterday titled “Hillary Clinton Is Stepping Up Her Smear Campaign Against Bernie” by now accusing him of, um, racism! Seriously. Saletan reports:
Clinton was in Charleston, South Carolina [on Friday], addressing the local NAACP. She spoke against a tragic background: the massacre of nine black people in a Charleston church by a white racist. Naturally, she talked about guns. But she added a new line: “There are some who say that this [gun violence] is an urban problem. Sometimes what they mean by that is: It’s a black problem. But it’s not. It’s not black, it’s not urban. It’s a deep, profound challenge to who we are.”
The idea that urban is code for black has been around a long time. It’s often true. And it’s not necessarily derogatory: In 1920, the National League on Urban Conditions Among Negroes shortened its name to the National Urban League. But why would Clinton suddenly bring up, in a damning tone, people who call guns an urban problem? Who was she talking about? It can’t be the Republican presidential candidates: They haven’t disagreed enough to debate the issue at that level of granularity. The only recent forum in which guns have been discussed as an urban concern is the forum that inspired Clinton’s initial accusation of sexism: the Oct. 13 Democratic debate in Las Vegas. Pull up the transcript of that debate, search for “urban,” and you’ll see whom Clinton is talking about: Sanders.
Actually, though, Sanders didn’t say that gun violence is an urban problem. He said that people in rural areas are strongly against gun-control legislation. Here’s Saletan again:
In fact, [Sanders’ comments are] from the same moments of the debate that Clinton had already seized on. In the debate, Sanders began by saying, “As a senator from a rural state, what I can tell Secretary Clinton [is] that all the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want.” A couple of minutes later, Sanders told former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley: “We can raise our voices, but I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, whether we like it or not.” O’Malley insisted that the issue was “not about rural and urban.” Sanders replied: “It’s exactly about rural.” Only one other candidate used the word “urban” during the debate: former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. A week later, on Oct. 20, Webb quit the campaign. So when Clinton, on Friday, spoke scathingly of people who call guns an “urban problem” but mean it’s a “black problem,” it’s obvious to whom she was referring.
Which is why I’m wondering what the actual poll numbers are on gun-control legislation in, say, Montana, and Maine, and Vermont. And what the poll numbers are in Illinois, New York, California, and Maryland. Since hunting is the primary divide, I’m also wondering what the poll numbers are in Michigan’s Upper Penninsula, northern Lower Penninsula, and “Thumb” region (rural; lots and lots of hunters). And how they compare to southwestern Michigan (urban, suburban). Because while there is, of course, some cross-over—some urban dwellers oppose gun-control legislation; some rural residents support universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and huge-capacity magazines—it is, very largely, exactly about rural. Sanders needs to get the poll numbers on this. And use them. There aren’t many hunters in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Chicago or San Francisco. There are a lot of hunters in Vermont, Montana and Wyoming.
But he also needs to suggest that Clinton is willing to cheapen the issues of sexism and racism in order to avoid talking about issues concerning the basic power structure in this country and its clear consequences. And about Republican plans for further, dramatic imbalance. And about the havoc that the pro-corporate takeover over government beginning more than three decades ago has wreaked on huge swaths of Americans. In language that does not consist of soundbites and that actually discusses and explains specifics.
I wasn’t kidding when I said Clinton is the un-Elizabeth Warren. In her campaign tactics at least, Clinton is far more Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson and Donald Trump than she is Elizabeth Warren. Far more. Notwithstanding the gender difference. Swap out the-debate-moderators-are-biased-and-asking-improper-questions for Bernie-Sanders-said-“shouting”-to-me-when-talking-about-women-and-men-who-take-opposing-sides-on-gun-legislation, and Bernie-Sanders-said-“urban”-as-code-for-African-American-criminals!”. And … voila!
Is it just a coincidence that it’s the candidates, Democrat and Republican, with the zillionaire backers and consequently the army of political consultants, who employ these misdirect tactics? Just askin’.
But really, isn’t Clinton’s gender-and-race fraud more pernicious than the Republicans’ media/moderator-bias gimmick?
It’s a safe bet that Sanders doesn’t think Warren is shouting. But then, maybe that’s because it’s Warren and female politicians like her—whose gender is not their defining political identity and who in fact never mention it, but who do discuss intricate fiscal, economic and regulatory issues—who are the actual feminists.
Saletan’s article, which is fairly long, goes on to say this:
This line of attack is rich in irony. When Clinton ran for president in 2008, she explicitly used race against Obama. She told USA Today that she should be the Democratic nominee because “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.” Clinton cited an article that, in her words, showed “how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in [Indiana and Pennsylvania] who had not completed college were supporting me.” A reporter asked Clinton whether this argument was racially divisive. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat,” Clinton replied dismissively. “Everybody knows that.”
Now Clinton accuses others of playing the race card. In Charleston, she told the NAACP, “Some candidates talk in coded racial language about ‘free stuff,’ about ‘takers’ and ‘losers.’ And boy, are they quick to demonize President Obama. This kind of talk has no place in our politics.”
Clinton, too, speaks in code. But in this election, her coded phrases—“some people think we’re shouting,” “some who say that this is an urban problem”—aren’t designed to veil racism. They’re designed to veil her meritless insinuations that her Democratic opponent is sexist and racist. You can argue, based on power or privilege, that playing the race card or sex card from the left isn’t as bad as playing it from the right. But even if you believe that, Clinton’s smears bring discredit on the whole idea of bigotry. If accusations of misogyny and racism are casually thrown at Sanders, voters will conclude that these terms are just rhetoric.
Seven years ago, when Clinton’s own campaign was accused of prejudice, her husband was outraged. “She did not play the race card, but they did,” Bill Clinton said of the Obama campaign. The former president went on: “This is almost like, once you accuse somebody of racism or bigotry or something, the facts become irrelevant.” Three months later, Mr. Clinton was still fuming. “They played the race card on me, and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along,” he protested. “This was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. … You really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist.” Now Hillary Clinton is doing to Sanders what her husband said was done to her. She’s taking Sanders’ remarks out of context and twisting them to breed resentment. You’ve got to twist the facts pretty hard to portray Sanders as a racist or sexist. But politically, it’s easy, because once you start throwing around charges of bigotry, the facts become irrelevant. You’re just another beautiful baiter. And you won’t be silenced.
I remember these incidents well. I especially remember the “Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in [Indiana and Pennsylvania] who had not completed college were supporting” her” comment, because my jaw dropped when I first heard about it. And because this is exactly what she’s doing again, with her incessant “hardworking families” cliché, repeated again and again by her on the campaign trail this year.
The difference between the “harworking” dog whistle and Sanders’ comment that the level of support for gun-control legislation is very different in rural areas than it is in urban ones is that tSanders’ comment is accurate and is borne out in the polls. And would be borne out in informal converations between Clinton and people in rural areas, should she take another listening tour, one that doesn’t prescreen attendees and keep unscreened folks on the other side of a rope line.
Clinton reaped a poll bonanza from her debate and her Benghazi-hearing media successes. But only among Democrats. Her ratings on honesty and trustworthiness, and her general favorability, rose substantially among Democrats, but remained about the same among the public overall. Which means that among non-Democrats, her ratings decreased.
Which may in turn mean that Democrats who now support her because they think, in light of those performances, that she would be the stronger candidate in the general election may begin to waver. And others may catch on that there’s a reason why she wants to talk about anything other than what progressive Democrats and many others want most to hear about.
The Saletan article mentions the uber outrage at Sanders that some prominent feminists have expressed as his employing of–gasp!–gender stereotyping about women shouting, and their equally rote outrage at Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, for suggesting that a woman could qualify for vice president but not for, y’know, the actual head of the federal government.
Yup. Good ole Bernie Sanders never would have supported a presidential primary run by Elizabeth Warren, and not run himself, had Warren decided to run. Uh-uh. No, Ma’am. No how. And no way.
Two of the three women have made careers out Feminism, and one of them has never met a sexism or rape allegation that she thought just possibly could be false. Or, regarding sexism, ridiculous. But really, how many millennial women think it’s a good idea for the first woman who has a real chance to be elected president to engage some sort of word game, trolling for a word or phrase whose meaning, alone or in the context in which it was used, could be tortured to suggest gender stereotyping? Marco Rubio is right about Hillary Clinton. And in her instance it does appear to be age-related. She’s running a ridiculously retro campaign. And only partly to regain the support of women. Mostly, to reiterate, it’s in order to avoid addressing the economics-related issues that Sanders, and Warren, raise.
Gun violence is a tremendously important issue. But it is not the only tremendously important issue. It’s just the only tremendously important issue that seems to offer opportunities for false sexism and racism allegations against Bernie Sanders.
And therefore opportunities to then, in the light of day, reveal Clinton for who she really is after all.
“The initial reaction to Clinton’s claim was a bonanza for her among non-millennial women—that is, women who are of a generation in which being a feminist requires automatic adoption or acceptance of any charge of sexism (or for that matter rape).”
Sounds like we are going from “slick Willie” to “super-slick Hillary.”
You know what, Denis? Willie was slick about hiding things about himself, like his affairs and one-night stands, although he wasn’t very good at hiding them. But I don’t think he was slick in the way that his wife is. I don’t think he took others’ words or phrases out of context and distorted the meaning to accuse them of sexism or racism or some such. I don’t think he played cutesy semantics games except to defend himself–most famously, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
Her brand of slick is of a more dangerous kind.
Just be cautious using Saletan as a source. He’s most notable for concern-trolling prog. Dems. He’s at best a Blue Dog, at worst a sapper.
Well, if she turns out to be the nominee, it’ll be interesting to see how you articulate your support for her.
I would not hold Saletan up an icon of sorts either. Google him on other issues if you will, such as GMO, his backing of it, and what the opposition is saying.
Per capita, Michigan is worst than Illinois and Detroit, Flint, etc are worst than Chicago for bullet-spewing-deaths. Spanking the Republicans on stats and detail in Michigan can be fun when they spout off on deaths by shooting as opposed to per capita data.
Guys, I’m well aware that Saletan is no paragon of progressive political analysis, but on this it doesn’t matter, because two points he makes—what Sanders said about “shouting”, on occasion after occasion, in the weeks and months before the Oct. 13 debate, and what Clinton said about Obama during the 2008 campaign—are clearly documented on video or in print. That’s all that matters here.
Saletan is by no means the only journalist who is pointing this out, and is not the most progressive of the journalists, by any stretch, to make these points. Jonathan Chait, whom Saletan links to in New York magazine, IS a liberal. And there are others.
I think Clinton’s campaign made a big mistake yesterday, btw, in response to some comments Sanders made in an interview with a WSJ reporter. Sanders attacked Clinton on three fronts: her emails (the issues that the FBI is still investigating); her changing her positions on things in a way that looks purely opportunistic, and may mean that she’s unreliable in her current positions; and (by far the most important, in my opinion) that she’s taking huge amounts of campaign funds from Wall Street folks, and so her promises to rein in the finance industry aren’t necessarily reliable.
In response to Sanders’ critical comments about Clinton at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner, made in reaction to Clinton’s bizarre (and really, it was bizarre) allegation that Sanders’ “shouting” comment was made literally and about her and only her, one of her spokespeople—a woman!—said, “Gee, it’s really too bad that Bernie Sanders has chosen to attack Hillary Clinton, since Clinton’s campaign is and always has been about issues that will help American families.” That’s a paraphrase, of course, but a very close one.
Yesterday, in response to Sanders’ criticism of Clinton in the WSJ interview obviously made in response to Clinton’s sudden claim that Sanders is racist, another of Clinton’s spokespeople—I think this guy is her chief spokesperson—said, “Hillary Clinton’ campaign is and always has been about the ISSUES. So it’s really too bad that Bernie Sanders has chosen to attack Hillary Clinton.” That’s a paraphrase, of course, but a very close one.
My reaction? Wow. Clinton’s campaign is not only claiming (again) that Clinton’s comments that Sanders is sexist and now racist aren’t, y’know, personal attacks but instead among THE ISSUES; her campaign also is stating that Clinton does not think it’s AN ISSUE that the fact that our candidates for public offie are bought and paid for by the likes of the Koch brothers. And the finance industry.
Let’s hear it for the Citizens United opinion!! Free speech!!!
Sanders’ campaign should take this ball AND RUN WITH IT. I mean it.
My articulation will be very short, consisting of the first and last name of the Republican nominee, Jack. I won’t have to mention Clinton at all.