This Hillary-Obama dust-up over Hollywood fundraisers has all the pyrotechnics — and meaning — of a Michael Bay movie, starting with the offending MoDo column itself. The constant thump of Oscar-nominated titles (“Hillary is not David Geffen’s [wait for it] dreamgirl,” and “The babble here is not about [here it comes!] ‘Babel.”), made me feel lost in … Pan’s Labrynth. And, hey, this thing is causing such an uproar, she should have called it… Notes on a Scandal. But really, they’re all behaving like… Little Children. What, are they running for president or … The Last King of Scotland?
Whew. Hard being that clever.
Anyway, Geffen comes across as bragging about his new bff to the school gossip and trashing his ex-girlfriend. Oh, and his bedroom is nicer than the Lincoln bedroom. Why don’t just go buy yourself your own country, then, David, rather than play “Heathers” (gee, once you start….) with the fate of the nation?
In writing my last piece for the magazine, I got to know a few of the fundraising majordomos like Geffen on both sides. For the most part I found them pretty sincere about wanting to do the right thing and searching for a candidate that embodies their ideals. But when you’re that rich and that ambitious, ego plays at least as big a role, and it seems clear that Geffen would rather be a big fish in a small, articulate and clean pond than try to fight to the top of the muddy waters of Lake Clinton. If I were Hillary, I’d let Barack have him.
So why the vicious counter-attack? Ben Smith theorizes that HRC was trying to catch Obama throwing rocks from his own glass house, claiming he wants to rise above politics as usual then getting Geffen to do his dirty work. However, I’m not sure if getting caught breaking windows at this point is such a bad thing for Obama: He could never have sustained the entirely nice guy front without — if nothing else — boring people. Voters like a little fight in their candidates, though it’d be nice to save it for the other team. Still, if Obama gets off some hits on Hillary now (vintage Lincoln Bedroom jokes!), it could a) serve as a needed corrective to the Hillary spin and b) make the inevitable future battles seem less like breaks in character.
Another possibility is the Hillary campaign coming through on earlier signals that disloyalty will not be tolerated. That, too, strikes me as a not necessarily winning position for her. Tough primary battles are one thing, mafioso mentality is another, and should Hillary not get the nomination, the ill will she’s sowed would make unity a function of “anyone but her” — not a good foot to be on in the race to actual election.
Oh, and all those commentors who asked for examples of what I meant when I said Hillary’s team is “ruthless”? This is what I meant.
UPDATE: And by “the meaning of a Michael Bay movie,” I mean that, ultimately, the fallout from Dowd’s article will affect images, not issues. I can already hear the keyboards starting up to comment that even by writing this post, I’m part of the problem. Perhaps that’s the real inconvenient truth the title refers to… And I’ll need to think about it.
CLARIFICATION: Re: “Last piece” in the magazine, does it mean “last ever” or “most recent.” My appearance in the dead tree edition is at the fancy of the editors, so, you know, could be either.