is the title of this column in the Boston Globe by Michael A. Cohen. It is dated April 1.
He starts by noting that Sanders’ original intention was to raise the profile of those issues that we have heard as a regular part of his stump speech. He credits Sanders with his 14 primary and caucus wins, and 6.5 million votes (which I think are noteworthy), but then pivots, commenting:
But as it’s become increasingly clear that Sanders faces practically insurmountable hurdles to win the Democratic nomination, his campaign has taken a slightly darker and angrier turn.
The very next paragraph lays out what Cohen sees as the problem, and I fully expect supporters of Sen. Sanders to object:
The candidate who pledged last May that his campaign would not be about Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, but “about the needs of the American people”; the candidate who boasted he’d never run a negative political attack in his life; the man who said he would be “driven by issues and serious debate . . . not reckless personal attacks of character assassination,” has begun to run a very different race.
But there is more:
Sanders is increasingly embracing the tactics he once decried. Rather than trying to unify the Democratic Party behind its almost certain nominee, Hillary Clinton, he is ramping up the attacks against her. While once Sanders refused even to mention Clinton’s name, now he doesn’t go a day without hitting her.
Cohen thinks that Sanders rather than attacking Clinton should be helping the party unify behind her as the obvious nominee for the party. In that I think he goes too far. While I have written multiple times that it has been clear for a while that it is impossible without something totally unexpected and external to the campaign happening to imagine a scenario where Sanders catches Clinton in pledged delegates, I have also noted that he has every right to keep competing and that having more debates — which come across as far higher in content and seriousness than those on the other side — does good for the Democratic party. I argued similarly in the 2008 cycle when it was clear after the Potomac Primaries that Clinton no longer had a path to having more delegates. It is also important for people not to crush the process, so that those dedicated to the candidacy of Sen. Sanders can see things play out. Eventually even the most committed will come to recognize the delegate math as more and more events pas and Clinton maintains a large lead in pledged delegates.
Cohen goes through a large number of recent attacks, including mentioning the false charge by Rosario Dawson about the FBI investigation (as of now Clinton has not been notified that she personally is under investigation) and then writes these words:
Make no mistake, these are legitimate attacks on Clinton, but they do contradict Sanders’ pledge to avoid personal attacks and character assassination. Sanders cannot regularly suggest that Clinton is bought and sold by corporate, moneyed interests and then say he’s running a campaign on the issues. He’s openly attacking her integrity. In a recent TV interview, Sanders even went after what he called the “corporate media” for not covering the issues he cares about, because, he said, mainstream journalists are taking cues from their corporate paymasters. In Sanders’ world, everyone but him and his supporters are tainted.
That paragraph comes across as very direct. It is in fact challenging Sanders for some level of hypocrisy. Whether or not that is completely accurate, what it reflects is something that has become more common in the past few days: pushback among the media on some of Sanders’ charges, whether it is the three Pinocchios from the fact checkers or comments by others.
Here let me digress.
I agree that Sanders and many of those speaking on his behalf, or blogging on his behalf, are challenging the integrity of Hillary Clinton. Certainly we can see that in some of what appears on this site. I think some of those other than Sanders are far worse, but it troubles me to see Sanders undermine his strongest talking point by resorting to what appear to be personal attacks, especially when many of his charges are at best based on half-truths — again, remember the fact checkers.
When a candidate says things, s/he legitimizes those things for followers. Look if you will across the political divide of how the rhetoric of the Real Estate developer has legitimized violent rhetoric and worse from his supporters.
I do not know if Michael Cohen is a supporter of either candidate. The Boston Globe is a major newspaper, and as a columnist for that organ his words will get fairly wide visibility, including in two bordering states that vote on April 16, CT and RI.
When one runs for office, the higher the office the greater the legacy afterward, win or lose.
We can look at those who ran and withdrew on the Republican side this cycle — did not some of them really diminish their standing politically and in the eyes of the public? In some cases, did they destroy their “brands?” Is not that also a very real possibility for the mogul still in the race, who has real brands worth a lot of money that could suffer further financial damage?
Sen. Sanders came into this race with a reputation for integrity. I hope at the end of it he will not have gone so far in his rhetoric to have diminished it.
By all means compete vigorously. Challenge Clinton for her positions on fracking, on the death penalty. You can challenge her judgment for the positions she takes.
But just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that person is corrupt, bought by campaign contributions, lacking integrity.
That is the thrust of far too much of the rhetoric I hear coming from the Sanders campaign, including from the candidate.
And to be fair — I have seen some of that from the Clinton campaign aimed at Senator Sanders, particularly on the F35s.
Some the actions people do while holding one office may seem contradictory to what they advocate in going for and/or obtaining other offices. When Kirsten Gillibrand was first appointed to the Senate I like a lot of people I know were very upset, because of the positions she had taken on some gun issues. But she was then representing a rural and gun-owning district, and as a Senator representing the entire state including NY City her positions on gun issues are far more palatable to me.
It is hard to run a competitive campaign and not at times become too personal. I would hope that both campaigns and both candidates would remember that.
And let me end this by sharing the final paragraph from Cohen, because I think it is relevant and is part of the reason I chose to post this:
While I understand the need to maintain a brave face for his supporters, Sanders is doing them and the party he wants to represent no favors not just by misleading them about his chances, but by increasing their dislike of Clinton. Sanders has said on more than one occasion that he thinks Clinton “on her worst day” would be an “infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day.” I have no doubt that he believes this. Perhaps he should start acting like it.