Dirty Politics or Smart Tactics?
In Columbia, S.C. ...
Loyalty. Integrity. Honesty. Character. Racial Solidarity. Toughness.
Those were all the issues being debated here as the presidential campaign swept through S.C. We arrived just in time for the voting on the GOP side. We got a chance to talk with a few voters and operatives about how their campaigns progressed. And we read the coverage, which was fascinating, especially the question of how past campaign tactics may have played into this year's campaign (for those who don't remember, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain was the target of what many now consider a dirty tricks campaign in 2000. Similar tactics surfaced this time, but it didn't work). But the turnout was down among Republican voters here -- off by some 200,000. What did that mean? Was it the nasty weather -- because it was wet and COLD -- or the nasty tone?
That was a question that will probably be asked this weekend as the Democrats head to the polls Saturday.
Last night's CNN debate (co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus) was really notable for the sharpness of the attacks between Obama and Clinton. Now, as everybody knows, politics ain't bean bag. And at every point, in just about every hard-fought, close campaign there is a time when people start to get down with it. But you could hear the gasps in the audience when those two went at it. How does that play? Is it the veteran going after the young'un to see what he's made of? ... The "white woman" going after the "black guy?" ... All the while with John Edwards not seeming very happy at being "the white guy" but clearly reaching for role of statesman above the fray?
My Blackberry started burning up -- What are they doing? This is terrible! Nobody wants to hear this!
Well now, that depends. Clearly, negative campaigning continues because it "works." The point is to get the most votes, not to win Miss or Mr. Congeniality. But the tactic carries risks. Do you turn off more people than you attract? Do you turn on the right people, turn off the right ones?
I cannot wait to hear what the voters are saying about all this. I think we all have to be honest -- how we react to all this depends so much on who we are, what we care about, how our loyalties and sensitivities shake out. And politics at this level is a matter of strategic guessing about all that...
A case in point, we had a fascinating conversation this morning with two women whose names you will have heard but often in connection with their more famous husbands: Jacqueline Jackson and Rev. Marcia Dyson. Mrs. Jackson is married to ... you got it ... Rev. Jesse Jackson. She is also the mother of Congressman Jackson, both of whom are supporting Barack Obama. Now, Marcia Dyson is married to the Rev. Michael Eric Dyson. He is also supporting Barack Obama.
But, the wives made a different decision. I gotta tell you, we are hearing interesting reaction to all this. One woman we spoke to said she thought it disloyal and demonstrated an unwholesome lack of unity within a black family. But others say, why shouldn't women -- black or otherwise -- support whomever they feel is in the best interest of themselves, their families and their communities?
I think this is a conversation to which we should return. I am interested, for example, in how the ethnic caucuses are shaping up. We know that the Congressional Black Caucus is divided. Is it gender? We know that Latino voters in one state where they have big numbers so far (Nevada) have leaned heavily towards Clinton. But, the leadership of that union has gone to Obama? Is the leadership going in a different direction than the grass roots?
As you can see, I leave here filled with questions.
As we head back to D.C., we'll try to find some answers.
6:02 PM ET | 01-22-2008 | permalink
