So I am a Dem, but in some ways, they aren't making me terribly proud, either. The estimable Mr. Epp at SD Watch points out that it's the Dems this year, at the national and local level, who are engaging in cynical fear-mongering and "the politics of personal destruction." At the national level, he's referring to the Hillary Clinton campaign, with its belittling of Barack Obama's talent to inspire and call for change, as well as the cynical "3 a.m." ad that tries to scare voters into voting for one Senator with no more experience as an exectuive officer or an elected official than her opponent. At the local level, Mr. Epp cites the "frat boy crap" coming from the Tim Johnson camp and from our own beloved state Democratic Party.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Epp and offer what little apology I may be authorized to offer on behalf of my party. I've already commented on the pointlessness of the kerfuffle over Kirby. Sure, he's a rich guy, and if he runs, I'll point that out in the context of his political positions if those positions truly point toward plutocratic leanings on his part and if they don't stack up against Senator Johnson's record. But the stuff we're hearing now is purely personal, an effort to negatively brand a citizen before he gets into the race.
Just as embarrassing are the tactics and comments coming from Lowell Feld, the out-of-state consultant our party pays to blog for it, and our party executive director* himself, Rick Hauffe. Feld whines when that Sioux Falls paper corrects a headline for accuracy. That Sioux Falls paper initially headlined Senator Thune's and Representative Herseth Sandlin's relatively low "power rankings" (77th for Thune, 287th for Herseth Sandlin) ignoring the fact that Senator Johnson's ranking was even lower (90th). Granted, he was out much of the year recovering from his illness, but the raw political fact is that for a year Senator Johnson had less pull than 89 other Senators, and that's as headline-worthy as Thune's and Herseth Sandlin's rankings. (Check out Feld's laughable argument that the glass is one-tenth full, not nine-tenths empty.)
Offering even more support to the thesis that our state party is being run with a frat-boy mentality is the state party's defense of the apparent stalking of Kirby at his home. Last week, Feld posted a comment about Kirby getting his dogs groomed and opined, "can you imagine a rich guy who employs a dog groomer actually connecting with South Dakota voters?" (By the way, if you want to play personal politics, this line suggests a hint of disdain from Feld not just for Kirby but for South Dakotans, who apparently he can't imagine wanting to make their dogs look nice. Hmmm....)
Asked about that crack, Feld said this (hat tip to Mr. Powers at Dakota War College for highlighting these lines):
The site, BadlandsBlue.com, is run by Virginia-based blogger Lowell Feld, who helped Democrat Jim Webb win a Senate seat in 2006. In an e-mail, Feld said he has sources in South Dakota.
“I’m not going to reveal those,” he said, “but let’s just say that there are people in Sioux Falls who might have noticed the dog grooming service truck in Kirby’s driveway” [Jonathan Ellis, "Kirby Web Sites Fuel More Senate Speculation," that Sioux Falls paper, 2008.03.05]
I can hear the frat-boy chuckling all the way from Feld's home in Virginia.
Unfortuantely, the chuckling is coming from our own people as well. PP highlights our state party executive director's take in that Sioux Falls paper:
Rick Hauffe, the party’s executive director, said BadlandsBlue has “fun” posts from Feld, who also works for other state Democratic parties. [Ellis]*
So stalking Kirby is an instance of young, inexperienced political operatives crossing the line, but Feld's posts based on that line-crossing are "fun"?
I think it's time for the adults -- the South Dakota adults -- to take charge again. Mr. Hauffe is scheduled to attend our District 8 Dems meeting Friday evening at 6 p.m. He'll be talking, among other things, about fundraising. Fellow Dems, maybe you should stop by and ask Mr. Hauffe just how much of your money will be spent on further shenanigans and out-of-state consultants and how much will be spent locally on honest politics.
"Honest politics" -- no, that doesn't have to be an oxymoron. Maybe Clinton, Johnson's people, Feld, and Hauffe don't buy that, but they should. We need politics we can be proud of, not politics as usual.
*Update 2008.03.06 17:45: Rick Hauffe himself tunes in to let me know I screwed up! I first mislabeled him in the first reference as our party chair. Oops -- that's Jack Billion. I have corrected the reference to list Mr. Hauffe as executive director. I also screwed up by attributing to Hauffe a comment from Republican strategist Tom Mason. The SDWC article cut and pasted out some in-between material; I didn't closely check the original Argus article, and I missed the proper attribution. My apologies to Mr. Hauffe (and I'll extend them in person in ten minutes at the District 8 Dems meeting!).
Here is the Argus quote on which I offended:
He said young, inexperienced political operatives have been known to cross the line, however. The line would have been crossed if somebody were staking out an opponent’s house.The "He" in that sentence is Tom Mason, not Rick Hauffe as I originally portrayed it.
I think the reaction of many SD Democrats to Clinton's candidacy reflects as much of a frat-boy mentality as anything they've done to Steve Kirby. Why is criticizing Barack Obama a part of the "politics of personal destruction" when his sexist remarks about her are not? She thinks she's more qualified than he is - she isn't allowed to say that? Are you serious?
ReplyDeleteIt's possible I'm suffering from some latent sexism that I have still failed to recognize... despite my admiration for Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, and the two ladies I live with.
ReplyDeleteObama's experience is fair game, same as Clinton's, McCain's, Nader's.... I have two issues with the 3 a.m. ad:
(1) Technically, it's not true. Neither Clinton nor Obama have held any elected executive position. It's hard to say which is more qualified to be in charge when an international crisis hits. (Your counterexamples are welcome!)
(2) The ominous music and suggestion that our children are in danger is a play right out of the Karl Rove fear-mongering textbook. It tries to associate Obama with irrational fear. Kucinich ran a message of hope, not fear -- that's one of the reasons I liked him.
By the way, Anna, it's nice to hear from you! I hope grad school isn't busting your chops too hard. Keep your nose to the books!
Well, I am grading exams right now, which might explain my previous crankiness.
ReplyDeleteI think your criticism of Clinton is generally valid and issues-based...but a lot of the criticism she takes from other SD bloggers (both liberal and conservative) is pretty ridiculous and sexist in nature. I think a lot of these bloggers believe they're being fair...they don't even necessarily identify what they're saying as sexist. Which suggests, obviously, that sexism (and racism) are embedded in our society in pretty crazy, insidious ways.
I have never seen the 3 a.m. ad, though I have a sense of what it's about. I think there are important questions that need to be asked about both Clinton and Obama's foreign policy experience - my support for Clinton is not based on foreign policy. Her argument in general has been that she is more qualified to be president than him, and I think he has run a fairly substance-free campaign up to this point. His only major foreign policy address caused people in Pakistan to riot and burn effigies of him in the street, which makes me feel that maybe he's not the best qualified/advised in this regard. I think it's fair for her to ask voters, when it comes down to it, do you trust this guy?
With regard to 2, I feel like all kinds of advertising appeals to this 'OMG THE CHILDREN!' mentality. I don't think that makes Hillary's ad right, but I am mostly desensitized to it at this point.
I guess I feel that with Obama, we're jumping into the unknown. I want hope and change as much as the next bleeding-heart, but I'm not convinced we'd necessarily get it from him. He seems very big on change and very wishy-washy when it comes to taking a stand on anything. He wants to be everything to everyone and that's not how politics works. I really appreciate how straightforward and specific Clinton is about issues that matter to me.
My opinion could be wrong, but I sincerely don't think it's unreasonable. But when I dare to say any of this, about half the Obama supporters I know go ballistic...totally off their rockers. Hillary Clinton (and now her supporters) are the focus of a lot of weird, crazy hate, and I don't know why people are so afraid to even consider the fact that some of this might be sexist in nature. I don't think everyone who isn't supporting Clinton is sexist, but I think an awful lot of the people (no matter their political bent) who hold irrational hate in their heart for her certainly seem to be.
And now...back to grading.
Your reference to me in the beginning of your article as the state party chair was wrong. Also, it appears a second paragraph is attributed to me in your cut-and-paste segment from Ellis' piece in the Argus, and that is not correct.
ReplyDeleteAkuracy, acuracy, accuracie.
Otherwise, you've got a nice blog here. Keep up the good work. Stay warm.
I'm very sorry, Rick! You are right on both counts. I have corrected the errors above. Thanks for straightening me out! (And good luck with the open house!)
ReplyDeleteAnna: I'll agree, there's some sexism out there, and you should keep calling folks on it.
ReplyDeleteOn being straightforward and specific, I'll still contend we can get as many details from Obama as from Clinton -- just see the websites. (And on reproductive issues, aren't Obama and Clinton equally strong in their support for our positions?)
Plus, Obama has experience as a community organizer. Clinton's work as been more from the top-down. In dealing with domestic issues, Obama's community-oriented, bottom-up perspective might be useful. That perspective shows in his broader campaign approach. After all, he took the time to call Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin and win her endorsement. Has Clinton even tried to get South Dakota's vote yet? That outreach effort, that willingness to campaign as if rural places like Idaho and North Dakota mattered even before it was clear the fight would go past Super Tuesday, speaks in Obama's favor.