One of the challenges for bloggers is to make it through primary season with our integrity intact. Our readers do not necessarily expect us to be objective (certainly not in the faux-objective manner of the corporate pundits) but they do expect us to be honest. If we support a candidate, we should say so. If we attack another candidate we should lay out our reasons with clarity, not distortions. It’s one thing to make a stupid argument or to obsess over something trivial. That’s poor judgment, but it doesn’t touch on our integrity. Some bloggers are failing this test, and failing it in spades. I hope that I am not failing it.
From the beginning of this process I have been open about my objections to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and about my reasons. I haven’t said that Clinton is unelectable, but I have questioned whether she will have any coattails down ticket. I haven’t said (a la Nader) that there is no difference between Clinton and the Republicans. I have stressed the factions within the Democratic Party. On the one side there are the Clintons and the remnants of their political machine. There is the Democratic Leadership Council and their leadership (Harold Ford, Jr., Tom Carper, Al From, Bruce Reed). There are the fundraisers like Terry McAuliffe, and the pundit/lobbyist/strategists like James Carville and Paul Begala. There is the New Democrat Coalition. There are the Clinton administration holdovers like Rahm Emanuel and Madeline Albright. These people and groups are not a monolith, but, in general, they have sought to keep the Democrats on board with the war, lest they gain a reputation for McGovernism and being soft on national defense. They have also, in general, been the type of people to support the Bankruptcy Bill, Media consolidation, banking deregulation, unfettered free trade, and even Social Security privitization. Hillary Clinton’s voting record reflects some of this, but she represents New York. Outside of the war, her voting record is pretty good. My concern is what she will do when she no longer represents New York, but the entire country.
I have also been critical of her foreign policy, and not just her vote on the Iraq War or the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. My criticism is based, foremost, on the foreign policy of Bill Clinton. Most Democrats do not question Clinton’s foreign policy and see the invasion of Iraq as a sharp break from Clinton’s policy. I don’t see it as a sharp break. But more important than the invasion of Iraq is the Clinton policies that led to a rise in anti-American terrorism. Specifically, the Clinton administration antagonized Russia with its aggressive eastern-expansion of NATO and interference in former Soviet Socialist Republics’ affairs. It built or maintained military bases throughout the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. And it maintained a policy of containment against Iraq that (whatever its merits) caused a lot of resentment.
The other faction of the Democratic Party is led by progressive activists that oppose the pro-corporatist leanings of the Clinton coalition and are willing to question the bipartisan foreign policy consensus for an aggressive forward-leaning military basing strategy. John Edwards is a defector from the Clinton coalition who has joined the progressive coalition. We can question his sincerity (I know Russ Feingold does) but he is saying all the right things. Barack Obama is more of a cipher. He has done everything he can to reassure the Clinton coalition that he is an acceptable alternative. Yet, everything in his background indicates the he belongs in the progressive camp. This uncertainty about Obama and Edwards explains why I haven’t endorsed either of them and keep switching back and forth in my mind.
And no one gets to be president without making a few deals with the devil.
Primaries are always contentious and if you allow yourself to care about a particular candidacy, you’re likely to build up some ill-will towards the others. However, the Clinton campaign’s tactics are testing the integrity of their supporters. For bloggers that have cried foul about Bush’s staged events and planted questions, what can they say when the Clintons do it? When we howled about voter suppression, we never expected our own side to engage in it. When we protested racist dog whistle politics, we didn’t think we’d see it in our own primaries. To overlook these things is to lose our own integrity. I won’t overlook it. My personal integrity is more important (to me) than the outcome of this election.
