Stacking the deck for HRC
Last week the Democratic National Committee found out the firm it hired to manage its voter data files had “accidentally” taken down a firewall. So for 40 minutes or so, it was possible for people working on Bernie Sanders’ campaign to see some proprietary data collected by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Someone from the Sanders campaign noticed this, looked at the Clinton campaign data and then informed the DNC that, well, something was amiss.
If anyone from the Clinton campaign looked at information from the Sanders campaign, they kept it to themselves. Which was wise, because DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz proceeded to hold a news conference in which she attacked the Sanders campaign, calling them “liars.” After shooting the messenger, the DNC shut off Sanders’ access to voter data, including his own information.
The Clinton campaign characterized the breach as “illegal” and “a theft,” and called for an investigation, which might be called ironic given their candidate’s past history with email.
Still, before Saturday’s debate, it seemed to have devolved into a minor kerfuffle. Bernie Sanders’ national data director was dismissed, the DNC restored his campaign’s access, and he apologized to Clinton and his supporters for the gaffe. Nothing to see here. Not that anyone saw it.
No one should be surprised that the DNC has stacked the deck in favor of Clinton. They want her to be the party’s presidential nominee, and they want her to wrap up the nomination early. The Democratic establishment and its Wall Street and corporate backers have coalesced behind Clinton, and they’d really like everyone else who’s likely to vote Democratic to recognize that she’s the most electable and best vetted candidate.
That’s why they’ve limited the number of debates between the Democratic hopefuls (the Republicans will hold twice as many) and scheduled them at times few people are likely to watch — Saturday night before Christmas vacation, the weekend the new Star Wars opens. The next Democratic debate will be Jan. 17 — during the NFL playoffs and on a three-day weekend.
The idea is to protect Clinton by denying her Democratic opponents an opportunity to engage her on the issues— Sanders especially might benefit from a real debate about the substantive differences between his positions and hers— while protecting her from herself.
Because Hillary Clinton is really a pretty lousy politician. This is actually one of the things I like most about her. It’s not hard to tell when she’s impatient or believes she’s in the presences of fools. She’s not naturally a populist, she probably doesn’t respect a lot of the people who ask her questions or question her actions. She’s not warm with strangers, even strangers whose votes she needs. It’s obvious that retail politics, the backslapping and the baby kissing, cause her physical pain. She doesn’t have the charisma of her husband, and when she’s in uncomfortable territory, which is often, you can feel it.
None of this makes her a bad person, just a fragile candidate. I think she wants to do good, I think she thinks that she knows what needs to be done and that we’d all be a lot better off if we’d just leave her alone and let her get to work. I think if she were a man, she wouldn’t have to pretend so much. I think she knows this and it bothers her, but she understands that there’s a price to pay. If you want to be president, if you want to make a mark on history, you have to put up with the silliness inherent in campaigning.
In retrospect, she didn’t stand a chance against Barack Obama in 2008. Her best argument was against his viability as a candidate. All he had to do was convince inclined voters of his viability.
Clinton’s strategy this time out was the same as it was in 2008. Raise a whole bunch of money—enough to scare away serious challengers. Collect major endorsements. Then ride out the campaign, making as few mistakes as possible, until her richly deserved nomination was delivered. A political comet like Barack Obama can’t come round every four years; most of the time the favorite—the putative nominee—becomes the actual nominee.
But Sanders is another kind of comet, another fluke. He describes himself as a democratic socialist, even though he caucuses with the Democrats in Washington, and instead of a super PAC he’s got a genuine grass-roots campaign that has him within striking distance of Clinton in the Iowa caucuses. His big issue of economic inequality ought to resonate with Americans who feel that policy is dictated by corporate interests and Wall Street. He wants to reinstate the Glass-Steagall act, to break up big banks, to tax financial speculation, to bring about a $15 minimum wage and free public higher education. Sanders represents a real alternative to Clinton. And a real danger to the status quo.
Clinton was magnanimous about the data breach during Saturday’s debate that I (and the DNC) assume no one paid much attention to. It was the decent thing to do and a safe play. But Clinton’s lead—depending on who you listen to, it’s anywhere from nine to 15 percentage points over Sanders—isn’t unassailable. And if Sanders shows well in Iowa, he stands a chance of winning in New Hampshire (where polls show them virtually tied).
I’m not saying Sanders will upset Clinton in Iowa, or that she’s not going to win the nomination. I think she will win, and I think that by spring we’ll be speculating on who her running mate will be.
Sorry, Facebook friends (and others) who feel the Bern, but that’s just the way I see it.
Philip Martin is a columnist and critic for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at pmartin@arkansasonline.com and read his blog at blooddirtandangels.com.