When Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards decided to go after Senator Hillary Clinton during the last Democratic debate, they did so because they thought that if they would not attack her, they would have no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Therefore, they thought, they had to go after her as aggressively as they as possible. Especially John Edwards adhered to the rule that all is fair love, war and politics. The so-called moderator of the debate, Tim Russert, also took his gloves off, thinking that real journalism means that you take sides and play gotcha.
What they didn’t count on, however, was a backlash from liberal bloggers. Topnotch bloggers like Taylor Marsh, Jane Hamsher, TalkLeft’s Jeralyn, Atrios, Ezra Klein, and Michael J. Stickings have all criticized the three mentioned above for their unfair attacks on Hillary Clinton. Especially Taylor Marsh’s post is worth the read. She writes:
The drivers licenses question at the end obviously surprised Clinton. But when explaining Spitzer’s plan Clinton once again showed something that her opponents do not get. She is willing to go to bat for our guy in New York, Elliot Spitzer, who has been trying to deal with the immigration challenge he’s facing as governor. The same cannot be said for the rest of the group on stage standing next to Clinton. What’s Spitzer supposed to do when Congress shirks their responsibility on the immigration issue? Clinton absolutely got caught up in the subject, but she nailed, without flinching, what Spitzer is trying to do. It’s obvious that most of her opponents not only weren’t familiar with Spitzer’s legislation, which lost out because no one would stand up with him, but were only interested in going after Clinton…
There were 52 questions asked last night; 25 had to do with either Hillary or Bill Clinton, including very personal insinuations, with 22 of the 25 being abjectly hostile.
Tim Russert asked 26 questions; 14 were to Clinton, with 5 directly targeting her personally.
Concluding:
Russert’s goal was to provide the headlines the media was salivating to see. He intended to diminish and discredit Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, using her former president husband Bill Clinton to help do the job, which included a document waving drama that was all for show. I’d say Russert has a problem with a woman being president, but that can’t be the case. Nah, he was just doing his job.
Jeralyn explains to fellow progressives: “If you are a progressive, stop it. You are feeding Republican dreams. The enemy is not in here. It is outside this room. And this party.”
Will criticism like this from progressive bloggers influence Obama and Edwards? Will they choose yet a different approach, or will they step up their attacks?
As a foreign observer, this is one of the most idiotic aspects of American politics: members of the same party try to destroy each other. In Europe, this is unheard of. At least publicly. When you speak in public, you support your fellow party members. Always. What these Democratic candidates are now doing is that no matter who wins the nominations, he or she will be weakened. It’ll be easier for the Republican nominee to go after him or her and prejudices are being fed constantly. The media are jumping on this thing like a group labradors on a sandwich. The perception that Clinton is a secretive, untrustworthy political opportunist is affirmed, not by her own actions but by the words of her fellow party members and of the media. This while Clinton has to fight this perception if she wants to win the national election.
What we will now see is that Democrats will go after each other even more and that will weaken every single one of them. When politicians start smearing each other, there are no winners. Well, there are, but they’re not any of the ones directly involved.
http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/russert-edwards-and-obama-and-blowback/Must Read related piecesJane Hamsher:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/thanks-but-i-think-ill-skip-the-pile-on/Paul Waldman:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=tim_russert_stop_the_inanityI have a fantasy that at one of these moments, a candidate will say, "You know what, Tim, I'm not going to answer that question. This is serious business. And you, sir, are a disgrace. You have in front of you a group of accomplished, talented leaders, one of whom will in all likelihood be the next president of the United States. You can ask them whatever you want. And you choose to engage in this ridiculous gotcha game, thinking up inane questions you hope will trick us into saying something controversial or stupid. Your fondest hope is that the answer to your question will destroy someone's campaign. You're not a journalist, you're the worst kind of hack, someone whose efforts not only don't contribute to a better informed electorate, they make everyone dumber. So no, I'm not going to stand here and try to come up with the most politically safe Bible verse to cite. Is that the best you can do?"
Ezra Klein:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/russert.htmlMichael Stickings:
http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2007/10/tiny-tim-meet-press-and-undermining-of.htmlTiny Tim: Meet the Press and the undermining of American democracy
Russert claims -- and claims repeatedly, ad nauseam -- that he speaks for "Buffalo," the heartland, the working class, speaking truth to power, demanding answers from those in power, demanding on behalf of the people, Buffalo's man in Washington, at the Georgetown cocktail parties, tearing down the Establishment from within, a horse full of Greeks holding Troy at bay, ready and eager to strike, whenever necessary.
But -- not so much. What Russert is really about is not "Buffalo" -- he doth protest far, far too much, and it's all an act, a "well-designed" persona, artifice, a concoction, a performance -- but unaccountable self-glorification...
... In Russert's "democracy," Meet the Press is supreme. Forget the nuances of policy, forget serious debate. What Russert would prefer, it would seem, would be for the candidates -- the presidential ones, for example -- to come on his show, face his "tough" questioning, his "gotcha" attempts, and stand aside while his fellow insiders, David Broder and his ilk, sit around the table and chit-chat in turn, one after the other, round and round, offering their snide remarks and shallow commentary, stewing happily in the permanent glory of their oh-so-telegenic, oh-so-brilliant selves, self-important to the end.
And then the voters -- you know, those beer-swilling football fans in Buffalo -- could select a candidate based not so much on how he or she performed for their host but rather on how his or her performance was judged by the telegenic and brilliant ones, the self-appointed (or Russert-appointed) arbiters of American politics.
And then: Go Bills! Just to seem oh-so-democratic, oh-so-in-touch with the people, those not privileged enough to live inside the Beltway, let alone to attend Georgetown cocktail parties.
You know, people like us.