THE TONYA HARDING OPTION--Will Clinton Take It?
Hillary Clinton as Tonya Harding? Obama as Nancy Kerrigan? Bill Clinton as Jeff Gillooly?
That I am an ardent supporter of Barack Obama is patently obvious. But I have tried, sometimes with limited success, to stay out of the tit-for-tat jabs and counter punches between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, their surrogates, and their most rabid followers. Virtual trench war fare has been spiraling out of control for some time, but has sharply escalated since the Tsunami Tuesday primaries in which Clinton scratched back into contention with wins in Ohio and Texas (primary vote only, not total delegates). During the long and agonizing interim until the Pennsylvania primary (of which Clinton is the presumptive winner) the air has been filled with brick bats, hand grenades and vitriol. Let me count the ways:
· Mutual sniping over possible re-dos in Florida and Michigan and/or the seating of the delegations despite breaking party rules.
· The flap about Obama advisor Samantha Power calling Clinton “something of a monster.”
· Geraldine Ferraro’s demeaning remarks that Obama was “lucky to be black” and her repeated, pugnacious refusal on every TV program she could find to back down one inch.
· The Obama campaign’s call on the Clinton’s to release their income tax forms.
· The Clinton campaign’s denunciation of that call as a reminiscent of despised Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr.
· The huge uproar over snippets of sermons from Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
· Suggestions by some Obama staffers that the Clinton campaign was exploiting the issue to “play the race card.”
· Reacting to Obama’s widely praised speech on race, Clinton surrogates suggest that the speech was a failure because Obama did not personally repudiate Wright.
· Clinton surrogates using the Wright connection to argue to wavering Super Delegates that Obama was fatally injured and “un-electable.”
· Obama supporters circulation photo of Bill Clinton with Wright in the White House.
· Bill Clinton’s remark that a Clinton-McCain match-up in November would be refreshing because it would be between two candidates who “love their country.”
· The Obama Campaign’s sharp retort that the former President coment, “sounds like McCarthy.”
· Attacks on Clinton’s credibility when she was caught telling a colorful but untrue story about landing in Bosnia “under sniper fire.”
· Clinton personally resurrecting the Wright controversy the same day she came under intense questioning about the Bosnia Story by saying, "He would not have been my pastor."
Have I forgotten something? I’m sure I missed a dozen minor skirmishes. Both sides are now full and eager participants. But I have to give the Clinton camp the edge for starting down this road and setting the increasingly bitter tone.
Here’s the thing. As entertaining as all of this might be for political junkies, it is disasterous for the the Democratic Party, whose once bright prospects in November are in peril. Not only could the party loose the Presidential election, the effects could be felt all the way down the ticket erroding what should have been huge gains in the Senate and House. What’s worse, the American people could be saddled with a McCain (Bush III) presidency and a feeble Democratic majority in Congress unable to challenge him.
Every one knows it. Every one talks about it. But neither side can help themselves. Each blames the other guy or gal (I’ll take my licking from the word police now) and turns right back to the bashing. It’s a classic case of looking “at the speck that is in your brother's eye,” not noticing “the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7.3 New American Standard Bible.)
I have joined others in pledging support of the Democratic Party candidate in November who ever he or she is. The alternative is unthinkable. If that means its Hillary, I will swallow my bitter disappointment and throw my shoulder to the wheel with real purpose. I call on others on both sides who claim they can never, ever, under any circumstances support the other in November to get over themselves and their allegiances and help save America..
Now comes and inevitable “but.” I couldn’t help but smiling at the introduction of a new phrase to describe the Clinton campaign’s narrow chance to win the nomination. On Tuesday ABC reporter Jack Tapper blogged quoting a source in the Democratic National Committee (DNC):
The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"
The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.
It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.
Well, the Tonya Harding Option is such a well turned phrase that it has spread like the measles all over the internet and is already appearing in respectable print. By tomorrow it will already be a cliché.
Instead of trying to refute the story, however, Clinton seems to be confirming it as her strategy. Faced with stories from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others that “things are being done,” to bring a quick end to the divisive campaign and trial balloons from the DNC that a “mini convention” of super delegates may bee convened, Clinton defiantly said that race will go on at least “three more months” and charged that the Obama campaign was trying to “to shut this race down."
Given Obama’s virtually insurmountable delegate advantage, that declaration may be a broad hint that Clinton is willing to oil up the crow bar.
And that’s not good.