Clinton’s Plan

How do you derail a high-minded political movement built on hope and aimed at changing the status quo? The simple answer, you bring it down to earth by dragging it and its champion in the mud, or as former President Bill Clinton* would suggest, you treat politics as a contact sport and engage your opponent in an irrelevant, yet sensitive and hostile debate.

It appears that Senator Clinton has resorted to this strategy in hopes of derailing the Obama campaign. Senator Clinton, her advisors, and former President Bill Clinton are calculated and precise. After the Iowa loss, I believe they devised a devilishly ambitious plan to curb Obama’s campaign. First, marginalize Obama’s message of change by promoting yourself as the “true” agent of change. She trumpeted her early attempts at universal healthcare, declared she’s the “original” crusader for equal rights of all people, while reminding everyone that that she’s been fighting the “good fight” for thirty plus years. In conjunction with the marginalization, question your opponent’s record by misstating the importance of voting “present” in the Illinois senate as opposed to voting “no.” Clinton conveniently ignored the fact that in Illinois, a “present” vote is essentially a “no” vote, when a bill needs a majority to pass.

Second, subtly infuse questions of gender and race into the political debate so that some voters will be drawn to vote for a candidate based on either their race or gender. It’s a risky proposition, but since she’s in the majority, as there are more women than African-Americans, if women chose to support her because she’s a woman and African-Americans chose to support Obama because he’s African-American, in theory she’d still come out on top.

Additionally, by infusing race, it causes many Americans to once again reexamine how they feel about an African-American being the president of the United States. Analyzers and political pundits have to comment, Black leaders have to comment, and all of sudden, for some, Obama has transformed from simply a “politician” to a “Black politician”, which in some circles carry a negative connotation.

Third, engage your opponent in a two front war under the basic premise of “good politician” and “bad politician.” Since Senator Clinton is running for president, she gets to play “good politician.” She’s only interested in talking policy and sharing her vision for the “New America”. She praises her competitors and talks about the significance of the Democratic primary while former President Bill Clinton gets to play “bad politician” and sling mud, distort records, and make unfounded allegations. Since Mr. Clinton is a former president, he immediately gets press coverage and since he’s a political heavyweight in his own right, she can distance his actions as former President Clinton doing and saying how he wants.

The vote is still out on whether Senator Clinton’s plan will prevail. As an Obama supporter, I hope it does not. At times I find her actions disingenuous. For example, standing on your record as a First Lady, yet keeping your record sealed; standing on your position of not just talking change, but creating change, when she supported the war on Iraq and refuses to admit she made a mistake; allowing former President Bill Clinton to misconstrue facts and talk recklessly, even when the media and Democratic officials have called him out, yet you hide behind the believe that Bill is just being Bill.

* I’m a big supporter of former President Bill Clinton. He was the first president I ever voted for when he ran for reelection. He has taken great steps in reaching out to the Black community. Although I don’t agree with him being labeled “the first Black President”, as the justifications for this accolade seem rooted in questionable beliefs, I can I appreciate his efforts and contributions to our community and America in general. With that being said, I find his recent involved in the presidential primary unbecoming of a former president of the United States.