SIVACRACY.NET

I just got back from a few days in Central Pennsylvania. I went there excited that this fervent and energetic contest between two leading lights of the Democratic Party was energizing people in all corners of the country. And people in large and important states like Pennsylvania finally get to have a significant say about who will get to be the nominee. I saw it all as good for the country, good for the party, and good for the candidates. Both candidates seem well prepared to handle the lies and misrepresentations that St. John McCain is sure to throw at the winner. Mostly, I love democracy. And this election has been great for democracy.

Now I have changed my mind. I want Sen. Clinton to quit running for president and get back to the project of helping New York.

In recent weeks she has disappointed me deeply.

What I did not know -- what I could not have known had I not spent some time in Pennsylvania -- was just how low, nasty, and unethical the Clinton campaign has become. I worked in and covered enough campaigns in big states to know that you can't really tell what a campaign is up to from the speeches, television ads, and debates. You have to follow the direct mail, push polls, and the radio -- especially the radio.

In Pennsylvania last week radio was full of ads for both candidates. It was as if all other forms of commerce were suspended.

The Obama ads I heard were optimistic and uplifting. They treat listeners and voters with respect. They treat the party and country with dignity.

The Clinton ads were mean, demeaning, and full of lies. The contrast was stark. And remember, Clinton has been winning in Pennsylvania by double-digits in the polls for months. So this is the style of a successful -- not desperate -- campaign in support of a successful and accomplished -- not insurgent -- United States Senator.

Here is one example. Obama has pledged not to accept corporate special interest money for his campaign. That is well known. Clinton took this pledge and produced a radio ad to make him look like he is either stupid or dishonest for making this pledge. I am serious. Clinton's ad mocks him, saying the corporate donations to federal campaigns have been illegal for about a hundred years. So Obama is not to be trusted if you want to reform American politics, the ad says. Problem is, of course, that while DIRECT contributions have been illegal, PAC money, party money, bundled money, and other forms of indirect support are generally legal. After all, corporate support is what funded both Bill Clinton presidential campaigns and the Democratic Party under Clinton. Everyone who follows politics closely knows that. The Clintons know that. But they insist on treating the voters of Pennsylvania like they are idiots.

Now, my anger over radio ads had just about abated when Clinton launched her shameful attack on Obama's supposed "elitism" and distance from the the concerns of blue-collar (what American media figures say when they can't get themselves to say "white") voters. That was the last straw for me.

Clinton, again, knows better. She has been unfairly accused of almost every sin that she is throwing at Obama. I defended her then. I must stand offended now.

As the great Harvard social scientist Theda Skocpol writes:

I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!

I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination -- and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of "we're not bitter" stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.

Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?

This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start.

Clinton should quit not because she has only the slightest chance to win the support of Democratic voters. That's true, but less important than the value of political excitement and engagement that the contest offered.

Clinton should quit because she has surrendered her ethical standing. She no longer deserves to be the standard-bearer of the party or the country.

Clinton has shown desperation when this country demands dignity. She has offered cynicism when the country needs confidence.

And she has shown a rampant disregard for honesty at the very moment when most need a strong dose of honor.

In her long and distinguished career, Sen. Clinton has spoken forcefully about decency, dignity, confidence, and honor. And if she had remained true and consistent, I would remain a fan and supporter. I can't help but feel betrayed by her now.