| (The title is a play on the sleazy nature of the H&H book)
[Update below]
To Heilemann, Halperin and Politico: I'll Proudly Defend Hillary Clinton, On the Record
But having participated in countless senior strategy meetings, crisis management and rapid response drills and emergencies, "war rooms within war rooms" (a term used by Heilemann/Halperin), debate prep, calls, emails and private conversations with the candidate, and having slept with my BlackBerry under my pillow and been stationed at the center of her communications operation for the duration of the campaign, I can confidently state that Hillary Clinton did not push for 'vicious' or dirty tactics against any of her opponents, nor did she encourage or 'cheer on' that behavior from her staff. The ethos of the campaign, which she conveyed in word and deed, was that she would win because she was best prepared, worked the hardest and had the most compelling ideas.
I never even exchanged email with Peter, but from my very different role as a senior field volunteer, I've noted and written the very same thing. I'm told, when OFA was telegraphing that out of state students should caucus in Iowa, Hillary told her staff that she would fire anyone who recruited illegitimate caucus goers. This flowed top to bottom, start to finish. In Texas, with elaborate printed records and 750,000 or so caucusers, I'm not aware of even one case of Hillary operatives cheating - a stark ethical contrast with the dozens or hundreds of cases of OFA fabrication and theft that are documented.
She was centered, dignified and focused throughout, although her frustration and pain did show through at some moments. She knew the media environment was stacked against her, against any woman. She knew what she was up against and drove forward into the furious headwinds of sexism and rightwing-fueled Clinton-hatred.
For Hillary Clinton, it wasn't about being a woman, it was about being the best.
Anyone who tries to reduce it to a few pivotal moments or to a simple character narrative does history an injustice. It was literally a minute by minute unfolding, accelerated and complexified by millions of online activists and commentators, who could shape and reshape conventional wisdom in a matter of moments. Any single decision could have changed the course of events -- and of history. I have little tolerance for critics who simplify the whole election as some sort of reflection of the supposedly terrible character of Bill and Hillary Clinton, conveniently ignoring the Obama campaign's brutally effective hardball tactics and overlooking the infinite dimensions -- and messiness -- of a presidential image/message war.
I certainly won't mimic H&H and reduce the campaign to character caricatures, but I may have a better view of the forest than Peter does. Everything tended to be leveraged against Hillary, except the will of the voters, who were mostly impervious to the biggest tsunami of bias since the start of the Iraq War. Money, the press, New Media, the OFA caucus operation, and party elites created an anti-Hillary voter phalanx so that events and momentum always appeared to favor Obama. Obama's popular vote loss/delegate "win," were not the result of a few moments that tipped one way or the other, but of a months-long institutional push. In the end, Hillary only had the voters.
I'm certain that institutional bias would have largely shaped the contours of the race no matter how differently things could have unfolded, but this bit of introspection by Peter is accurate:
Still, it's important to state for the record, contra Game Change (or at least Politico's interpretation of the book), that if anything, Hillary's campaign let her down, not the reverse. Nor was it just one person's fault. Her entire senior team bears responsibility. I take responsibility for the role I played. It's easy to demean her when you're an anonymous source for a book (and an easy way to absolve oneself of guilt), but let's get real: far too often, she carried the campaign through sheer force of will and through an endless wellspring of personal fortitude.
Those of us who were on the post-Super Tuesday campaign hated what the initial team of the Solis Doyle era did. They simply weren't as loyal to Hillary as she was to them. That the subsequent field campaign that won the last four months was fueled by people who did, or were willing to, work for free is significant. Hillary deserves responsibility for early staff, but earns credit for winning the primary (if not the caucus) states.
Nobody wants to relive 2008, but history is being written now. Generations from today, students will read about a historic campaign where barriers were shattered, and I for one, don't want the wrong story to be told.
Peter is too diplomatic, and is metering his medicine with great caution to avoid a netroots allergic reaction. Perhaps the greatest flaw in American culture is its gnat-like attention span regarding history. It's all water under the bridge if it's uncomfortable for people in power.
If we do not pay attention to this, if we do not "relive" it, it will be worse next time, the monied influence, the caucus brutality, the media bias, the disregard for voters.
All of this will eventually blast everyone with blowback if we don't figure this out and reassert the standards required of a great democracy.
Update:
Eric Alterman, who may soon find his soul by the look of things, has a pithy reduction of the H & H book:
Here's who comes off horribly: Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, John and Elizabeth Edwards, Reille Whatshername, Cindy McCain, Rudy G., Sarah Palin. Here's who comes off pretty bad: Hillary Clinton. Here's who comes off OK: John McCain, Patty Solis Doyle. Here's who comes off great: Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, David Axlerod, David Plouffe, Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis. Here's who gets a free pass: Everybody in the media, pretty much, but especially ABC News, CNN, and their lobotomized debate questioners.
What does that tell you about their sources?
He who controls the future controls the past.
In other words, this was a MSM/OFA joint hit job (as if it weren't obvious), with Solis Doyle's help. |
