by David Brock
Byers was echoing the observation of the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who wrote during the 2008 primary season, when much of the media seemed to be openly campaigning for Obama, “The press will savage [Clinton] no matter what.”
But how many times do we have to see the same media bias at play before we stop being fooled by it? It bothers me, of course, when I see Hillary’s enemies parroting lies about her. But it bothers me even more when I see her supporters falling prey to the doubts that conservatives are hoping to sow by filtering their attacks through dupes like the New York Times.
That brings me to the second part of your mission.
If you’re presently more fed up about 2016—or about the state of our democracy in general—than you are fired up, I suppose that’s understandable after years of Republican-led gridlock and partisan bickering. But it’s also dangerous; the right relies on cynicism and apathy. Conservatives don’t just want you to give up on Hillary Clinton, they want you to give up on politics and changing the country for the better. When you leave the arena, that just leaves more room for them to operate.
And we just can’t afford that. Not now. Others have written, and will write, more comprehensive analyses of exactly what is at stake in the 2016 presidential election: the balance of power on the Supreme Court, the fate of progressive reforms passed under President Obama but not yet fully implemented, the threat of conservative retrenchment on abortion and gay rights, the hope of addressing long-term issues like climate change and immigration reform, and so much more.
But I believe progressives would be doing themselves, and the Democratic Party’s likely standard-bearer, a grave disservice if they sat this one out because conservatives had promised to make the road ahead so difficult and dispiriting. Hillary Clinton is more than simply the finest available leader for winning the election, advancing middle-class priorities, and defeating the extreme agenda of the far right.
As I wrote in my book about her almost twenty years ago, I still believe that Hillary truly is a historic figure with unmatched potential to change America’s trajectory for the better. And the constant antagonism directed at her from the right over the last twenty years makes me more—not less—certain of that fact.
On Election Night 2014, I was privy to an intense scene. Senator Harry Reid sat with New York senator Chuck Schumer in a small conference room at the DC headquarters of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The room was quiet as the returns from around the country rolled in. When the results were clear, Reid looked up and broke the silence, saying simply “the Kochs bought the Senate.” Then he walked out.
In 2016, the Kochs are poised to buy the presidency—and the Supreme Court along with it. Independent of the GOP itself, the Kochs are building a polling, message-testing, and media-buying capacity that they own. They’ve already spent $50 million developing sophisticated voter profiles on 250 million Americans. The data is so good, Republican campaigns are buying it instead of cheaper data from the RNC. The Kochs are also orchestrating a permanent boots-on-the-ground campaign infrastructure in key states—outside the traditional party get-out-the-vote efforts that come and go with each campaign cycle—something that’s never been done before. In short, Democrats are facing not only the Republican Party, but the Party of Koch.
So, the Democratic nominee for president will spend over $1 billion to get elected, the Republican will spend over $1 billion, and the Kochs will spend yet another $1 billion. You do the math. That’s what we’re up against.
Now, I’ve spent years monitoring, tracking, and analyzing the organized right. And what the Kochs are planning is the most audacious power grab I’ve ever seen—a wholesale takeover of our political system by just two men. If they succeed, what’s at stake is bigger than progressive policy wins or the political fortunes of Democrats—it’s democracy itself that will be in peril.
Democrats won’t have access to anything like the Koch brothers’ bottomless treasure chest, but they are going to have to raise and spend significant funds in order to stay competitive and win this election. With respect to third-party groups, Democrats are going to have to walk and chew gum at the same time. They’re going to have to enthusiastically back Hillary’s campaign plank against unaccountable money in politics while—maybe not so enthusiastically—opening their wallets in support of Democratic SuperPACs, money that Hillary herself has said is critical to the election’s outcome.
One thing I’ll say about the Kochs: They understand the power of building institutions for the long haul. Progressives have certainly made headway in this regard in the years I’ve been involved, but going forward we’re going to have to do more to stay politically competitive.
Finally, Democrats have to keep the heat on the Koch brothers and their lackeys, exposing their radical ideas and greedy motives at every turn. Already, there are signs they can’t take the heat. At one of the Kochs’ famous closed-door donor conferences, Koch’s general counsel, Mark Holden, warned the assembled right-wing tycoons of how “very effective” our organizations have been at exposing their self-serving political agenda.
If we keep it up, the Kochs might just pull back.
When Hillary declared her candidacy in April 2015, the “shadow campaign” period ended on a successful note. Powerful networks online and off had been built. A pro-Hillary grassroots volunteer and low-dollar donor infrastructure was in place. Ready for Hillary, the Super-PAC that did this work, declared “mission accomplished” and closed its doors after transferring its assets to the campaign itself.
Meanwhile, Correct the Record had repelled attacks on Hillary’s record and reputation, and she appeared to have weathered the latest storm of pseudoscandals that beset her. Surveys showed Hillary’s ratings as a strong leader rising in the wake of the manufactured e-mail and Clinton Foundation controversies, as Democrats rallied to her side in the face of partisan attacks, the Republican opposition hardened, and independents, for the most part, tuned out. And while the “shadow campaign” groups never said so publicly, their show of force in the precampaign period surely discouraged high-profile would-be Democratic challengers from jumping into the race.
With Hillary’s campaign officially under way, Correct the Record made some necessary adjustments to its structure, splitting off from its parent group, American Bridge, into its own separate political committee. Most SuperPACs make “independent expenditures”—paid communications on a candidate’s behalf—and thus are forbidden by law from coordinating their activities with campaigns. But since Correct the Record, a research organization that publishes its content online and distributes its content through free media channels, intended to do no paid advertising, it was able to set itself up as an entity that could coordinate its activities with the Clinton campaign. The rough division of labor was that while the campaign stayed positive and above the fray, Correct the Record would go head-to-head with the Hillary smear merchants—be they candidates, GOP party committees, congressional investigators, or Swift Boat–type third-party groups.
Our move to establish a SuperPAC that could raise unlimited funds in support of a candidate’s campaign while coordinating with it was another first in presidential politics. Press reports called it “novel,” “innovative,” even “ground-breaking.” And, as these things predictably go, the new Correct the Record SuperPAC immediately attracted a Federal Elections Commission complaint from a self-styled ethics watchdog fronting for the GOP falsely alleging that we are operating in violation of campaign finance laws.
Our fleet of organizations was growing, adapting, and revving its engines as we hurtled toward November 2016. Altogether, we had a staff of 250, and led by Mary Pat Bonner, the best fundraiser in the business, we were raising over $30 million a year to support our work from generous—and generally selfless—progressive donors. Media Matters, the mother ship, was entering its twelfth year of operations. Dozens of researchers were not only engaged with the ongoing fight with Fox News but also with more important and
more complex targets like the New York Times.
American Bridge had been researching the records of Hillary’s potential GOP opponents and videotaping their events and local media hits for more than two years, putting it light-years ahead of where any Democratic Party–affiliated group had ever been this early in a presidential cycle. Most of what we learned we banked for future use, though if you saw the videos of Chris Christie telling a questioner on Hurricane Sandy relief efforts to “sit down, and shut up!” or of Scott Walker comparing union workers to terrorists, or of Jeb Bush looking like a deer in the headlights when asked his position on the Paycheck Fairness Act, you saw our handiwork.
Altogether, there were now twelve distinct legal entities in our domain working to level the playing field with the organized right wing. From these platforms, we were not only monitoring and exposing right-wing influence in the media and catching gaffes on the campaign trail; we were organizing and training an army of pro-Hillary media surrogates through the Franklin Forum; we were holding corrupt public officials accountable through Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington and the American Democracy Legal Fund, which sent tremors through the Republican National Committee when we sued it for illegally coordinating with GOP SuperPACs; and we were probing the shady business practices of the Koch brothers and GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson through the American Independent Institute, an investigative journalism fund.
Of course, I’m already thinking ahead, to even filling more gaps in our progressive infrastructure. For one thing, we need a stronger crop of Democratic surrogates willing to stand up for our ideas, our values, and our candidates with the fearlessness that this critical moment dictates. Over the longer term, progressives need to think seriously about how to overcome the political advantages the Republicans have won in the states through better strategy, harder work—and the funds to do the job. And, before we know it, the redistricting battles of 2020—the next chance we’ll have to take back the majority in the House—will be upon us. We need to start planning for that now even as we fight in 2016.
In addition to my own groups, I was also involved with the efforts of Priorities USA, the leading pro-Hillary SuperPAC that sought to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to run a paid advertising campaign against Hillary’s Republican opponents, ads that would be based on the oppo research provided to it by American Bridge. Originally founded as a pro-Obama vehicle in the 2012 cycle, I joined Priorities’ board in 2013 as it sought to morph into a pro-Hillary vehicle.
That road proved a bit rocky. In 2012, Priorities and my American Bridge organization had clashed repeatedly in a competition for SuperPAC dollars. Now under the leadership of Jim Messina, who had managed Obama’s reelection campaign and was named cochair of Priorities, current and former Priorities officials had gone to the New York Times in early 2015 and told the story of that 2012 clash, in an apparent effort to get the upper hand against American Bridge in fund-raising for 2016. When I learned who was behind the front-page article that cast aspersions on my fund-raising shop, I immediately and publicly resigned from Priorities, which I charged had instigated “an orchestrated political hit-job” on my group. The ensuing media flap—which focused on a purported political rivalry between the Obama (Messina) and Clinton (me) camps that never existed—painted an ominous picture of dissension and chaos in Hillary’s 2016 ranks. One donor aligned with Priorities publicly called me a “cancer.”
In part to stem the tide of negative press reports, several Priorities board members asked me to reconsider and rejoin the board. Though some board members told me I should never have aired dirty linen in the media, in the numerous conversations I had with them, not one expressed any doubt that some in Priorities were capable of sanctioning the leaking of negative information on a potential competitor (though they did deny it)—even one that was fighting in the same cause.
Moreover, my resignation was catalyzing conversations both within and outside of Priorities about long-festering issues in the group that had nothing to do with the Times leak. Board members were voicing concerns that Priorities had no coherent plan to raise the level of funds required to do the job, and that it was operating with little regard for sound management practices or organizational transparency. In fact, since the board had been reconstituted in the spring of 2013, it had never once met.
I agreed to reconsider my resignation, which, publicly at least, would repair the rift and present a united front for Hillary’s sake. I strongly believed that a successful Clinton candidacy needed a SuperPAC like Priorities to go up against the massive amount of cash Republican donors were expected to pour into their own SuperPACs for negative ads attacking Hillary’s character. Although her overall favorables remained sound, Republicans were encouraged by press reports claiming that the drumbeat of scandal was taking a toll in her poll ratings for honesty and trustworthiness (even though the numbers hadn’t really changed much since 2007). 57% SAY HILLARY IS A LIAR, screamed the New York Post. And Karl Rove announced that he was reorienting his American Crossroads group to be solely focused on more personal anti-Hillary attacks.
But I remained skeptical of some of the Priorities crew. Within a few months, there would be a shake-up in Priorities’ leadership structure, with Guy Cecil, an official in Hillary’s 2008 campaign, named to cochair the board and run its operations, as others were sidelined. As one of his first moves, Cecil asked me to rejoin the board, and with the organization in steadier and friendlier hands, I immediately agreed. The pro-Hillary groups needed to quit fighting each other and get down to business fighting the Republicans.
When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, it seemed like a new chapter was beginning. Not only would he be the first African-American man to occupy the Oval Office, he brought with him the promise of a new approach to politics, a new opportunity to erase old partisan divisions, transcend our broken discourse, and unite the country around a progressive agenda.
Eight years later, the country is undoubtedly better off: Millions more have health care, most of our troops are home from Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been thwarted, and the economy is once again roaring to life.
But, as President Obama himself has acknowledged, even his rare combination of charisma and intellect hasn’t brought about the kind of political paradigm shift he and his supporters envisioned. The media culture is even more corrosive than before. The influence of money in politics has only grown. And, of course, Obama has faced fierce conservative opposition and obstruction at every turn.
So, I fear, will the next Democratic president. After all, if the right was motivated by a positive vision for America’s future, then perhaps some grand bargain could have been struck.
Now, the Republican attacks on Hillary, entirely by contriving doubts about her personal character and integrity, once again reveal a GOP with no positive vision for the country. Instead of developing ideas to meet the challenges that face us, the negative personal attacks are a centerpiece of the Republican campaign of fostering fear, uncertainty, and doubt about that future.
While Hillary is leading with confidence, a clear program, and a steady grasp of the challenges ahead, the Republicans are attempting to cover their own confusion, disunity, and disorientation—and their true hidden agenda for the Koch brothers, et al.—by character assassination and smears. To the degree that the Republicans have opened their campaign with this character attack, they’ve exposed how little they have to offer.
Fear of the future. Running on empty. Looking backward. All negative, all the time. That’s the GOP platform.
It won’t work. That’s because, just as it was when I was getting started back in the 1990s, the right isn’t motivated by what it wants, but rather by who it hates.
Hillary Clinton’s election as president is a political and moral necessity for many, many reasons. One is that we need a president who knows that our nation can’t rise above the current deep divisions and partisan gridlock without first acknowledging the true
aims of today’s extremist wing of the GOP and accurately assessing its strengths and weaknesses. We need a president who will reach out to Republicans when she can, but will not hesitate to defeat the conservative movement when she must.
After all, 2016 may be the last battle of the Clinton Wars—but it won’t be the last battle in the fight to determine America’s future. There will be legislation to pass, nominees to confirm, more elections to win. And nobody is more battle-tested and ready for the change we need than Hillary.
Afterword
The House Select Committee on Media Matters
As this book went to press, Media Matters, the progressive media watchdog group I head, found itself in the crosshairs of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. How did the House Select Committee on Benghazi morph into the House Select Committee on Media Matters? And why were the Republicans on the committee suddenly more interested in The Benghazi Hoax—the title of an e-book I cowrote with a Media Matters colleague debunking the falsehoods and right-wing conspiracy theories about the attacks—than in Benghazi itself? The farcical events surrounding committee testimony by Sidney Blumenthal, a former journalist and Clinton White House aide—and a longtime friend of mine—would have made for a fitting new chapter in The Benghazi Hoax. The Blumenthal saga was where all of the pseudoscandals of recent months—from the right’s obsession with Benghazi, to the media frenzy over Hillary’s e-mail habits, to the grotesque caricatures of the charitable Clinton Foundation as a shady political operation—converged.
Yet had they done some homework, committee Republicans easily could have learned about my relationship with Blumenthal, which was no secret. Both he and I had written about it in our respective memoirs of the 1990s, The Clinton Wars and Blinded by the Right.