They Don't Like Each Other
By Keith Boykin, in politics
Wednesday, December 5 2007, 11:39AM
I suppose it's not breaking news to report an intense rivalry between two competitors for the same political office. That happens all the time. But to watch the body language and to listen to the words of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lately, the feud between them looks downright personal.
In the past few weeks, Clinton and Obama have traded charges with each other about experience and judgment and on policy differences about Iran, Social Security, immigration and health care. That's all fair game in politics. But they've also gone beyond that, most notably with Clinton questioning whether growing up in a foreign country qualified Obama to be president and Obama questioning whether serving as First Lady qualified Clinton to be president. Clinton even played the "kindergarten card" to question Obama's experience.
All these attacks make great headlines for the tabloids and great stories for the 24/7 media machine, but I'm not sure it's a good thing for the candidates.
To be clear, I was the one who said from the beginning that Obama needed to distinguish himself from Clinton because she was trying to co-opt all of his issues by moving to the left. And I have no problem with the rough part of politics. Hillary Clinton even joked that this was the "fun" part, although I suspect that quote was taken out of context.
What concerns me is not that the two leading Democratic candidates can't handle the pressure. Clearly, they both can. Instead, what worries me is that the attacks may end up hurting both of them.
I won't get into the question of who started it. Any parent knows that it doesn't really matter who started it once your kids start fighting. And the people in Iowa who are reading about these attacks and seeing them everyday on their TV screens are the ones who will get tired of it quickly. When people see politicians fighting, it often turns them off to both politicians, not just the one who started it.
All this means that the attacks and counterattacks could end up hurting Clinton and Obama and helping their closest rival, John Edwards. That scenario helped John Kerry win the 2004 nomination after early frontrunners Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt spent the fall of 2003 attacking each other.
The difference this time is that Clinton and Obama are running historic campaigns. Kerry leapfrogged over two white men. Edwards would leapfrog over the most promising woman candidate and the most promising black candidate for president in the party's history. If Edwards won the nomination, a lot of Democrats who were excited about a woman candidate or a black candidate may find themselves disillusioned if they get a Southern white male instead.
I know it sounds unlikely, but I've seen this scenario play out before. Back in 2004, I was a contestant on the Showtime television series "American Candidate" on Showtime. I was the only black male candidate and I found myself in a rivalry with a leading white female candidate for the same office. Things finally broke down on one of the last episodes when the two of us had a heated argument in front of a campaign office in Philadelphia.
Once the dust cleared, neither one of us won. A white southern male swept in and won the contest.
Comments conceal
Albert
December 5 2007, 11:56AM
Keith,
You are making several very important points here. As a person who is leaning toward Sen. Obama, I hope he makes the decision very soon to turn the conversation back to the issues. One thing he has over Sen. Clinton is that he is willing and able to talk about policy issues in a more detailed manner continuing to make the point that Sen. Clinton only knows politics and not necessarily how to build consensus and therefore govern in a polarized society.
With that said, I would also feel very comfortable supporting Sen. Clinton if she is the nominee. My hope in Barack Obama is for a change of direction in the political discourse in this country. I am sick and tired of the joke that is the mainstream media. The American people need to know the real issues that face our country not with. Instead we turn on the news and the campaign is made to look like a popularity contest...let's leave that to Hollywood.
Kenneth Winfrey
December 5 2007, 12:03PM
What's sad is not the fighting or attacks, it's the fact that most Americans won't be able to see anything else. Thus, leaving the candidantes with nothing more than mud to throw towards the finish lines. Too few of us read enough to understand the issues. All most of us see is who turned a phrase or two the best during video clips, or photos like this one.
Too many of us just wait for the 5 or 10 o'clock blood bath, or we watch it all day on the 24-hour news channels--which, incidentally don't use that extra time to tell more of a story, they just play the same abbreviated ones over and over again.
When America begin educating themselves in order to handle a more informational (and less emotional) debate, we'll demand it, and we'll be able to choose candidates based on their knowledge of the issues and the solutions they provide rather than who was the meanest.
loi wade
December 5 2007, 12:19PM
You Know, I get a lot of negative responses over my support of Barak as opposed to Clinton. I refuse to endorse her simply because she is a woman. Nor is race the issue for my support of Obama. I truly believe he has what it takes to get this country back on track. Hillary is resorting to a smear campaign. I am not impressed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't ever remember Bill stooping to that level. I know she feels she has to compete in the 'good ole' boys' arena, why then is Barak her main target. I know he's the biggest threat. I don't know what I'm going to do if she wins the democratic ticket. I'm not supporting her, I refuse. You think things are bad in Iraq now, wait until she wins. They already have absolutely no respect for the U.S.. Barak is the only one , I believe, can successfully negotiate with these people. And, right now, that is my main issue.
David
December 5 2007, 12:56PM
While Kerry's tactics helped him win the nomination, it lost him the election when he ignored the swift boat attacks.
Though I don't necessarily like them battling each other, I'm glad that both Sens. Obama and Clinton know enough to respond immediately to attacks.
If the Democratic nominee is unable to defend his or her ideas and themselves personally in a strong way, the Democrats will lose again.
The Republicans will use everything they can find against the Democratic nominee, and what they can't find they will make up.
Bernie
December 5 2007, 1:49PM
I think they are both trying to hand the election over to the Republicans. Recognize that if either one of them wins the Democratic nomination, it will cause America to think long and hard about whether or not they're ready for someone other than a White man to lead the nation. They both have that obstacle to overcome.
Beating up on each other simply gives whoever is the GOP candidate, ammunition they can/will use during the general election. It will give an easy justification to all the folks reluctant to vote in a woman or a Black man, even if they are infinitely more qualified than the Republican candidate.
We need a unified party, even during the primary season. Every Democratic candidate needs to demonstrate to voters how they will distinguish themselves from George Bush and his Republican copycats and not feed into the divisive tactics that will cause a split in our ranks.
Pistol Pete
December 5 2007, 2:06PM
Interesting observation. I think, though, Clinton and Obama are just posturing to show the world they can be tough. Their lack of experience in office leaves them vulnerable to the accusation of being push-overs. They have to prove otherwise.
Luther
December 5 2007, 2:58PM
Well, as one of the disillusioned voters who does not care for any of the "front runners" on any level, I see their growing animosity towards each other as a good thing, maybe now we will see the REAL candidate, and not the scripted ones who say the same thing over and over like a robot.
At the end of the day, I think that the one candidate who has the most to gain in either party is Huckabee, who may be the next Southerner to occupy the WH, and, for real if the Democrat's get down and dirty before they have a nominee.
Liquid Fonts
December 5 2007, 3:22PM
What kinda world are we living in where a highly qualified Black man and White woman have to run against each other for president?
I'm sorry but I'm not over that yet. It ain't right. It's twisted cuz even if one wins the other loses and boy is that still a big loss. I bet they'd make an excellent President/Vice Pres set.
And why is it that I keep hearin people say that Hillary is the first woman to ever run for office?
J
December 5 2007, 3:46PM
They're both looking pissed in that pic because they're tired of pretending they give a damn about America or actually want to be prez or think they can be. They just want it to be over so they can skip away with their money.
DaBaddest
December 5 2007, 4:48PM
Loi Wade-if a smear campaign has started it is because of Obama, he is the one that "went there" first. As far as lack of experience is concercened, Obama lacks the experience. Everyone know Hillary ran the country anyway when Bill was in office...LOL. I am a black man and Hillary will be getting my vote
DJ Diva
December 5 2007, 4:53PM
My 9 year old daughter told me this weekend that she wanted to be president. I shushed her and said, "Please don't tell anybody else...they might hold it against you when you run!"
edvince
December 5 2007, 5:04PM
This American politics in all its old glory. And the more mud Hil and Ob throw at each other the richer the media becomes. So typical. ANd the corporations will be eating it up too as they are the sold drivers of our decrepid political system a wahsed in legal greed. Americans we love a good fight. This is what our political system was built up prior to and immediately after the Delcaration of Independence 4 Jul 1776. Washington, Madison and other were also big mug slingers in their campaigns. Even nastier
MidwestGuy
December 5 2007, 5:09PM
Keith, I think it's all a ruse by the media and you have fallen for it.
Couple of months back when Clinton was sailing high, everyone said that he needed to distinguish himself or just outright attack her.
Then there was the Philly debate.
Then Hillary played the gender card.
Then came Bill saying she was being swift boated.
That's when this whole "stop attacking" narrative started. IMO, they aren't attacking each other. They are pointing out differences. I want to see that. It wasn't until this point that people began to see the contrasts and it's impossible to do that if you don't point that out.
It's fair for Clinton to criticize Obama's lack of experience--living overseas doesn't cut it.
It's fair for Obama to question Hillary's assumed experience--being first lady doesn't cut it.
Now referring back to a kindergarten essay as an example of trustworthiness is not even an attack, it's just stupid.
J
December 5 2007, 5:58PM
The whole idea that this woman was at home baking and watching her stories while horny hubby ran the country is sexist and just plain stupid. Here is a power dyke who clearly had a plan when she said,"I do." Obama is as qualified as Al Sharpton.
I clearly don't like either of them, but Clinton murders Obama in every way. She's more experienced. She's more greasy. She's got a bigger dick. You know she does.
MidwestGuy
December 5 2007, 6:24PM
Cont>Not to sound too sexist but when did the attacks supposedly start?
Was it when they dubbed obama for being too naive/ inexperienced and devoted the first 15 minute of a debate to that single cause? Did anyone say that was unfair? No because it was fair game.
The supposed "attacks" started when Hillary (the only woman in the race) was caught lying. Then the "piling on" statements started. When she was riding high she had to answer for very little. She could point blank not answer a question. Her numbers have fallen and now everything looks so unfair?
Were the attacks ok for the men in the race but off limits for the woman?
The Clinton's are notorious for their smear tactics and if anyone is to blame, it's them.
I don't want a coronation even for Obama. If there are tough questions to be asked, he should answer them. That's the only way to differentiate.
I thought dyke was a negative term like faggot?
noah
December 5 2007, 8:10PM
Keith,
But what if Edwards is a better candidate? I'm all for a woman or African-American to win the presidency but not just for the sake of appearances. Clarence Thomas is a black man sitting on the Supreme Court. Somehow, I think that there were a lot of progressive white men who could have done a better job protecting the interests of people of color, gays, and American liberty.
That said, I'd imagine Edwards would go for Obama as VP. Listening to both of their messages, it is apparent that they have similar ideologies.
Mikey
December 5 2007, 8:48PM
I personally think they can fight each other all they want I don't like neither one of them as my Presidential Candidates. DENNIS KUCNICH ALL THE WAY!!! And I think if Americans weren't getting dumber and fatter Dennis Kucinich would be much higher in these so called polls and Hillary Clinton wouldn't even be the "first, second, or third" runner.
jas
December 5 2007, 9:58PM
what i think is sad is that most of these debates only deal with surface. it's more about getting voters to like you, or to dislike your opponent, than to tell people your real opinion on an issue.
i was listening to the radio earlier and they were talking about this show where the host would 'finally' ask the important candidates questions to get to know them, such as what is your favourite color? .....
personally i would support both obama and clinton, but somehow obama seems more genuine.
ChicagoAngel
December 5 2007, 10:24PM
I can't wait until the primaries and General Election. This will be the first one I voted in. Here's hoping Hilary takes the White House in 08!!!!
loi wade
December 5 2007, 10:49PM
DaBaddest , You're kidding right? Go ahead, Go right ahead. When Iraq gets a whiff of that 'Bitch' as commander in chief, get ready for another 911. I know I am going to get a lot of flack for this, but have I ever cared? To be honest I don't care about that 'he say , she say bullshit. If Barak doesn't win it won't be that bad. At least he won't have to worry about cleaning up after the republicans.
loi wade
December 5 2007, 11:46PM
I can't believe how many of you whose opinions I have always respected, have gone off the deep end. I would love to hear what you have to say about this topic in my blog. Of course, I don't think you would be able to argue with many of the points I made.
KJ
December 6 2007, 12:56AM
Im glad there fighting
Maybe they can kill each other off and let Dennis Kucinich emerge and kiss all there politicing butts!
Its time for an underdog to shock the world!
KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT!
elg
December 6 2007, 9:06AM
I think that if Obama even got close to the White House he would be killed by some racist nut. A white woman like Hillary in the White House would upset a lot of white people, especially men, but not to the extent that she would be "taken out". A black man, on the other hand, is too much of a threat to the white male ego. I just hope a Democrat gets in there if only because of the U. S. Supreme Court. The next nominations to the Supreme Court need to be more liberal, or at least moderate. If Hillary got in, she would not nominate a conservative to the Supreme Court. The Supremes wield a lot of power in all sorts of unexpected ways. The Supremes picked Bush over Gore in 2000. Bush has pushed the Court further to the right. If Gore had gotten in the White House in 2000, we would not be in Iraq today and the Supreme Court would not be as conservative as it is now.
Antwan
December 6 2007, 9:27AM
My take, it does not matter since, this country is going to put another Repug in office, the polls have been wrong before, and, once the GOP starts the dirt throwing machine, with a public that is duped and won't look at the real facts, and, the hardest thing of all getting out the vote for those fed up with the last 8 years of total ineptness, Hill and O, have no chance.
Rev Al, would be just as good a President as any of those running, since, at least he calls them as he seems them without all the sugar coating.
And as far as C. Thomas on the Supreme Court, they could have found someone in a mental institution better equipped to understand the laws of the land than he is. And, its so far to the right now, that its messed up for the next 40 years.
And, for that little girl who said she wants to run for President, encourage her, she has the right to pursue her dreams just like anyone else!
DaBaddest
December 6 2007, 2:34PM
TO J- THANK YOU!
lovejones
December 6 2007, 3:30PM
I believe that Obama has come as far as he's going to get to a white house. If anyone really believes that this nation is going to allow a black anything to run it, is delusional. It will never happen! They will give it to a white woman on a platter before they allow anything that's black to rule, and don't you forget it. I would love to believe that, but it's simply not realistic. Talk all day it's not going to happen. Who ever said that if Obama did become president he would be taken out, was telling the truth, he would be killed before they could inaugurate him. Don't you forget it. The former presidents "Jimmy Carter" & "Bill Clinton" have been the best two presidents of our time "my opinion". Everyone was blessed while these two men were in office, even the wicked were blessed. Proverbs states that "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules,the people groan. prvb 29:1&2 I don't mean righteous in it's religious terms either. Honest heart towards everyone.
loi wade
December 7 2007, 12:34AM
I don't know about her having a bigger dick(Obama is the son of an African, O.Kaaaaay!) but she certainly has a bigger head.
nighttimer
December 8 2007, 9:47AM
Keith, I don't wholly disagree with your sentiments. It would be better for the Dems if their frontrunners could get past the personal and get to the substantial stuff. But taking the high road may not be the trail that gets Clinton or Obama into The White House.
Hillary has played the Gender Card far more successfully than Barack has played the Race Card. I don't think it's a coincidence that he's risen in the polls in Iowa by drawing the distinctions between himself and her more starkly (and personally).
I really don't think Obama has any interest in positioning himself as a possible vice-president for Clinton. She will already get the lion's share of the Black vote if she's the nominee and Illinois is a state that should go Democratic in '08. If it's obvious they can't stand each other there's no particular reason they should go out of their way to sing, "Ebony and Ivory."
Politics ain't beanbag. This tight race in Iowa proves it. Let's take it to the stage, suckas.
Joshua L. Lazard
December 8 2007, 3:20PM
I'm only 23, and my first memory of a president was George H.W. Bush and although he wasn't Southern born he might as well had been because of his Texas ties, since then i will have suffered of 16 years of a president being a white male from the South.
I like John Edwards, for the most part, but there's just something about him that rubs me the wrong way. I just get the feeling that he'd pull the "I'm whyyyyte" (said with a Carolina drawl) just when he needs to, and I'd be pissed off. I'd rather see the others in office before Edwards.
CWPoliticalandSocialTh
December 9 2007, 11:22AM
Indeed, the bitter rivalry between Obama and Hillary could mean a lot for Edwards, but I do believe that this won't happen. Both sides are raising the stakes. Hillary is running the Clinton machine at full capacity, while Obama is running on the politics of transcendence. The effect may be a slight gain for Edwards, but really I think that by Republicans laying relatively low, they are in a good position to win. It would be a terrible mistake to assume that a Republican candidate can't win in this race.
Disturbingly ugly imme
December 10 2007, 7:48PM
Disturbingly ugly immediately before The End.wav
YOU MAY UNKNOWINGLY BE IN A FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE AND YOUR CORRUPTION IS PREVENTING YOU FROM REALIZING IT!!!! IF YOU FAIL TO UNCORRUPT YOURSELF AND BEGIN IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION YOU MAY NOT GET THAT SECOND CHANCE VIA REINCARNATION OR BE REINCARNATED AS SOMETHING UGLY!!!
If you knew the truth you would have great urgency.
This tactic of "fairness", savoir and good (Christian) god-based hope is fucking you up.
Life is a test. Only those worthy will ascend. Contradictions have been manufactured (1906), suggesting temptation, corrupting people and compelling them to think wrong.
The other planets are exclusive places. They don't bring most people. You have to earn it. Nobody is going to save you. Nobody is going to do it for you. You have to save yourself.
YOU MAY BE IN A FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE AND YOU DON'T REALIZE IT!!!! IF YOU FAIL TO UNCORRUPT YOURSELF AND START IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION YOU MAY NOT GET THAT SECOND CHANCE VIA REINCARNATION.
If you knew the t
Comment Preview