When Clinton Criticism Goes Too Far

Few bloggers do more to forward the progressive agenda
in rhetoric, organization and reach out than Matt Stoller. I know and have worked with Matt a bit
and can tell you I have respect for his tireless efforts to change what’s
happening in Washington, especially through his intentions to bring better Democratic
candidates into Congress. He’s as committed as they come. However, to have him
talk about how irrationally unfair and superficial the pundits can be towards
Clinton set off all sorts of irony bells for me.

I don’t usually watch the Sunday shows, but I am watching a few of them today. The visceral hatred of Clinton and Edwards is really remarkable. I had forgotten how irrationally unfair and superficial the pundits can be. – Matt Stoller

Excuse me? I don’t criticize my colleagues, because I get emotional myself at times, with some saying I go too far. But Matt is as guilty as the pundits he mentioned yesterday when it comes to criticizing Clinton, and in a recent post he stepped well over the line.

This post entitled
Is Clinton a Weak General Election Candidate? was clearly within bounds. I do find wondering about the future and the electability quotient a bit ridiculous, however, because all manner of mania happens in general election contests to change the dynamic
for a candidate and the race, so this type of naval gazing time travel rarely interests me. Unless, of course, we’re talking about national vetting from the traditional
media and unchartered waters, like with Mr. Obama. I think national candidates
for the presidency should have already gone through this juggernaut. As we all
know, the press often falls in love with rising political stars then once they’ve
been given the nod eviscerate them with delight. But in Matt’s post not only
does he click down the reasons Hillary sucks as a general election candidate, which again is fair game, but in
the process he takes a sharp nosedive into rhetorical oblivion by talking about Chelsea Clinton’s “greed”
because of her choice of careers, also using it as an attack on the Clintons’
parenting:

Three, the Clinton’s have, how to put it, real character issues. I haven’t written this before, because I don’t believe in going after family members unless they make themselves an issue, but Chelsea Clinton, despite the opportunity to do anything she wants, chose to be a hedge fund manager. What does that say about the Clinton family commitment to public service? I write this because Clinton is using her daughter in an ad that says ‘My Mom taught me to stand up for myself, and to stand up for those who can’t do it on their own’, and then express pride at passing those values on to her daughter. What kind of value system is that? And what does it say that Clinton is bringing her daughter into the contest bragging about her daughter’s greed? This is one small example (Mark Penn is another), but it’s pretty clear that the Clinton’s have become in some ways Bourbon-esque aristocrats.

Is Mr. Stoller a parent? More importantly, does he know what
it’s like to raise a daughter in the modern era? Does he understand what it’s
like for a woman to break into the financial market sector, hedge funds or otherwise?
The cluelessness of some males to understand what a professional
woman cracking the glass ceiling goes through in traditionally male arenas never ceases to amaze
me.

It’s the same for HRC running for president, which is one of the reasons so many bloggers dislike the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton. I’ve written about this before,
but how in the world is a woman going to break into the commander in chief club
without first being part of the establishment? Do you think female outsiders
competing for a slot in this very tight knit club have a chance? And just how are we going to really
move this country and the world forward unless women, especially in the United States,
become truly equal partners in the places of politics and economic structure?

A response from Stoller to one commenter on his attack on Chelsea:

Clinton made a choice to bring her daughter into the Presidential contest. Why? I don’t know. But if she’s going to do that, then it makes sense to look at those values. And they don’t show a commitment to public service, unless you think hedge fund work is public service.

Stoller reacts like Chelsea is working a pole in some strip joint.

Mike Lux, who is a partner over at OpenLeft, also a guest on my radio show,
responds to Stoller and vice versa:

Hedge fund managers. (4.00 / 1) I don’t know enough about how hedge funds are structured to understand why they are so much more evil than other kinds of finance or investment banking, so someone should educate me on that. But in general, I know a lot of folks with progressive values, John Edwards and Soros among them, who have been involved in different ways with hedge funds and high finance in general. Going after Chelsea, who has always seemed like a fine young woman to me, does seem wrong to me. by: Mike Lux @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 16:40:01 PM CST ___________ Mike, I’m not ‘going after’ Chelsea Clinton, and once again, as you often do, you take what I write and misinterpret it. I’m pointing out that if Clinton is making the values she handed down to her daughter an issue, which she is, then it’s worth looking at the values her daughter pursues in her career. And in her career, given a huge number of options open to her, she chose helping financiers get wealthier instead of actually doing what her mother said she does, which is stand for those who can’t help themselves. Please, Mike, try to read what I write. by: Matt Stoller @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 16:49:32 PM CST _____________ Character. (0.00 / 0) I always read what you write. I have misinterpreted it sometimes in the past, but sometimes we just disagree. I think this is one of those cases. You started your paragraph where you referenced Chelsea by saying “…the Clintons have, how to put it, real character issues.” You then say, “I haven’t written this before, because I don’t believe in going after family members unless they make themselves an issue.” I not only read what you said, I practically quoted from it: you are the one who said you were “going after” Chelsea, and on character issues. I don’t see how I could be misinterpreting that. While I would prefer Chelsea had started in a career in progressive politics, I don’t think the values she has pursued in her career, as you put it, are automatically bad because she has gone into the financial industry. That is my point, and I think that is an area of legit disagreement between us. by: Mike Lux @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 17:48:48 PM CST [ Parent ]

Stoller is most certainly going after Chelsea Clinton. His response to Mike as well as the previous commenter is defensive and it should be. Stoller is also obviously
judging not only her but the Clintons. Chelsea didn’t choose the career path of
service like Stoller, for which I commend him, but she’s a young woman making
her way in the modern world and one of a new generation of females actually
able to explore the financial sector, which is hardly a disgrace. We also don’t know where she’ll one day land.

And what’s wrong with women being involved in creating wealth?

There are a lot of bloggers, many of them colleagues of mine whom I respect
and appreciate, especially for their tireless work in the movement end of our
party, who are frustrated that Hillary Clinton is proving to voters everywhere
that she has what it takes to lead and be president. Because of being a woman,
Clinton does come from inside the Democratic party establishment. There is no
other way a woman could rise as high as she has done and not play by the rules,
including those in the Senate which had Clinton making peace and walking across
the aisle to work with Sen. Lindsay Graham one of her husband’s impeachment
foes. Stoller and others do not see the change inherit in Clinton’s presence
as the first female to have a real chance of becoming president, because he
and others who share his views believe that change cannot come through a Clinton,
let alone Hillary Clinton, because her policies don’t pass the perfect progressive
smell test. Never mind that many of these same Hillary hater bloggers have allowed themselves to be seduced by Barack Obama, if just out of default because they can’t stand HRC. Never mind that Hillary’s liberal bona fides go back decades and are much more Democratic traditional than her husband’s. But yes, in the end she will be a deal maker. But she’ll fight for liberal policies because she’s an ideologue, unlike Mr. Obama, which was proven when she took the hit by covering for one of our own, Gov. Elliot Spitzer, at great peril to herself during a debate, which caused a seismic occurrence in the primary race.

The difficulty for women in breaking through and achieving real equality with
men, whether it’s through the presidency or the financial markets, is still very real. I don’t expect men to understand it, but I do expect supposedly progressive
men to appreciate how women must come to power, especially when achieving a first like the presidency.
But it also seems it’s too much to ask that when critiquing HRC, which is more
than fair game, progressives would not lose their sanity in the process by calling an accomplished daughter of one of them greedy because she’s working for a hedge fund, while also sliming her parents for raising some sort of immoral opportunist. It’s way out of bounds.

Stoller actually asks, And what does it say that Clinton is bringing her daughter into the contest bragging about her daughter’s greed? I mean really, get a hold of yourself.

In the end, the real issue is about power and access. If Hillary Clinton gains
power, many of the bloggers and progressives who hate her and have spewed their
venom in posts won’t have access. If she wins the election without any help
or even a modicum of fairness from the biggest named bloggers covering the race,
because many big bloggers are not covering it, what will that say about the
influence they wield? Nothing good. There power will be rendered impotent during
one of the most historic moments in U.S. presidential history. It will also reveal that at a moment in history when a woman rose to the most powerful spot in the world some progressive men were fighting her every step of the way. That they didn’t understand what it took for a woman to get in the position to compete on this level further illustrates the disrespect so many females get when competing in politics, which is still very much a man’s world.