Who has Harmed the Democratic Party?
By Deb Cupples on May 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM in Current Affairs
Children do it often. When they get caught misbehaving, they tend to point fingers in every direction except toward the mirror. When adults engage in such behavior, it inspires questions about their rationality and character.
As adults, we can all agree that any negative statement by any Democratic candidate against another Dem candidate during a primary could undermine the party’s ultimate efforts to establish unity before a general election.
That said, the DNC (and many media) seem to blame Hillary Clinton’s campaign as the one that advanced all the divisiveness. She certainly has said some negative things about Barack Obama. I admit it, and the media has been all over it for months, so I need not provide examples here.
Hillary is not the only one whose words (or actions) might have caused party division. Obama said and implied very negative things about his fellow Democrat, Hillary. Yet, the DNC (and many media) never really called Obama out.
The most recent example was on Friday, when the Obama campaign bizarrely made an issue of Hillary’s reference to Robert F. Kennedy. Preferring to start with less recent examples, I’ll get into the RFK non-issue later.
Starting in January, Obama supporters falsely called Hillary a racist after she acknowledged that Martin Luther King had needed a president’s help to turn his dreams into laws. Obama supporter James Clyburn lobbed implied racism accusations twice — just before the primaries in two heavily African American states (North Carolina and South Carolina).
That was downright harmful to the cause of party unity, but the DNC didn’t chastise Obama’s campaign. And Obama didn’t timely chastise his surrogates or supporters.
Actually, implied racism seemed to be an official strategy: evident from the Obama campaign memo listing instances of what it perceived as "racially sensitive" statements from Hillary’s campaign or surrogates. (HuffPo)
The memo became public in January, but the DNC didn’t chastise Obama’s campaign for divisively implying that his opponent (the party’s possible nominee) was a racist.
Starting in January, Obama falsely implied that he and his money were clean and that Hillary and her money weren’t. Before Indiana’s primary, Obama ran an ad making that false comparison –
despite news reports about Obama’s having taken money connected to oil companies, drug companies, and lobbyists.
Make no mistake: the message "I’m clean and my (Dem) opponent is dirty" did the opposite of promoting party unity. Still, the DNC was silent.
On Feb 4, Michelle Obama told ABC (Good Morning America) that she might not support Hillary if Hillary were the nominee. That was before Hillary’s comment about McCain’s experience.
In short, Mrs. Obama told millions of viewers that it was okay to not support the other Dem if her husband lost. This message undermined the cause of party unity –
yet the DNC didn’t chastise the campaign that she represented.
Nearly two weeks later, incidentally, Bill Clinton said this in Texas: "I’m for Hillary…. If you disagree, you have another very attractive choice" [i.e., Barack].
Then there’s the March 11 email (signed by Obama), which claimed that Hillary was attacking his supporters.
Crazy, I know, given that Hillary is seasoned enough to grasp that candidates lose when they attack their opponents’ supporters. Logic aside, the Obama campaign sent another divisive email containing a similar message on April 14.
Disseminating common-enemy talking points is a way to split a party, not unify it. Obama likely knew this and did it anyway. The DNC remained silent.
This brings me to the most recent example: the RFK non-story.
Friday, at an editorial board meeting, Hillary was asked to defend her decision to stay in the race through June. Her answer involved pointing out two historical primaries that had ended in June:
"’My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?’ she said. ‘We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.’ (NY Times)
It wasn’t a graceful statement. She should have said, "RFK was still campaigning in June of ’68" (though someone might have found evil intent behind that, too).
Does anyone really think that Hillary meant to insult a national figure — who was also the father of three Kennedy children who have endorsed Hillary?
Given the context, I found it odd that Hillary’s statement created such a media frenzy — until the New York Times explained it:
"Her remarks were met with quick criticism from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama…." (NY Times)
Ahhh. I should have known that Obama’s campaign had lit the fuse that caused this non-story to explode.
Did it matter that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly indicated that he is not offended? That Hillary apologized for her clumsiness? No and no.
Instead, multiple Obama-supporters in the media pounced on Hillary and used the statement as evidence of evil thoughts. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann implied that she was staying in the race just in case Obama is assassinated before the convention.
Update: Since writing this post, I’ve learned that an Obama campaign staffer actually sent an email to various media folks, pointing them to Olbermann’s video. (CNN) Yes, the other media could have found it on their own, but the Obama staffer’s email shows a clear intent to fan the flames of the non-controversy. And it worked: Hillary got 2 or 3 days of horrible coverage.
While the media (and Obama’s campaign) tried to pitchfork Hillary, the DNC remained silent.
I could go on with examples, but my point is this: Hillary’s not alone in deserving blame, because Obama has contributed a
good-sized share of the negativity and divisiveness that may ultimately hinder efforts to unify the party.
Moreover, the candidates aren’t the only ones who contributed to the party’s division. The DNC’s own leaders chose to act in ways that have infuriated many Dem voters. Below are a few of those actions:
1) Disenfranchising Michigan and Florida
2) Refusing to fix Michigan and Florida
3) Making misleading public statements about MI and FL
4) Trying to prematurely push Hillary out of the race
5) Urging super-delegates to end the race before all states vote
Those actions gave many Dems the impression that the DNC wanted Obama to win at any cost — even if 2 states’ Dem voters were disregarded. That the DNC has remained silent while Obama’s campaign used divisive tactics only intensified that impression.
Naturally, many Hillary-supporting Dems feel that the DNC does not care about what they think or want.
This top-down, disregard-the-little-guy style of leadership has caused many ordinary Dems to notice similarities between the DNC and the GOP.
That’s a major deal breaker.
In short, the DNC’s own leadership countered its own purported goal of party unity by repeatedly alienating so many of its members.
So, if we must point fingers, let’s not leave out any valid targets.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
