Friday Talking Points [29] -- Pennsylvania Fallout

It was a telling sign that neither Democratic candidate saw fit to visit Punxsutawney before the Pennsylvania primary. Nobody wanted the press to remember Bill Murray's Groundhog Day in any way, shape or form. But even without stump speeches next to Punxsutawney Phil, it's hard not to think of living the same day over and over and over again when looking ahead to the nine contests that remain. Because nothing much is likely to be decided by them.

I wrote yesterday (sorry for the blatant blog plug) a detailed analysis of why I don't think the remaining primaries are going to be all that important, and how I think Barack Obama is going to "close the deal" -- when he passes Hillary Clinton in the superdelegate count. But, unlike the primaries, this is not a scheduled date. It could happen very soon, and then again it could happen after June 3rd, when the last primary takes place. It might not even happen at all -- maybe Hillary will miraculously survive until the convention. But I don't consider that likely.

So while the media continues its unadulterated glee at having more and more (and more!) primaries to report on, keep a close watch on the superdelegate gap between the two candidates, because in the end it's going to be the deciding factor, in my humble opinion.

Since the campaign dominated the week's political news cycle, it shouldn't be too surprising that both awards come from the campaign trail this week. So, without further ado....

 

While Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean generated impressive headlines last week ("Reid, Pelosi, Dean may intervene in nomination"), when you read the fine print, it amounted to nothing more than a weak suggestion that they'd all get together and draft a strongly-worded letter to the superdelegates... at some time in the future. Sorry, guys, but you're going to have to do better than that to win the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Maybe there are some back-room discussions taking place which the public is unaware of, but a three-way tie for the award will have to wait until such arm-twisting actually sees the light of day.

No, the winner of this week's MIDOTW is none other than Senator Hillary Clinton. Or, to be precise, Clinton's margin of victory in Pennsylvania. The media was ready to pronounce (once again) her candidacy dead if she had posted a five-point win or less, and the exit polls showed her winning by a scant four percent. But as the night wound on (blatant plug number two: I attempted "liveblogging" during the returns for the first time), it became more and more apparent that her margin was going to almost reach the "double-digit victory" bar that some had drawn for her. Her margin wound up being fractionally over nine points, but that was close enough for most lazy journalists to call it a "ten point" victory.

Love her or hate her, you've got to admit that Hillary Clinton made an impressive showing in the Keystone State. And for that alone, she gets the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

 

But wait!

For only the second time in this column's history, Hillary Clinton has pulled off a "sweep" of this week's awards, since she has also earned the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, as she did for the first time a few weeks ago -- and for virtually the same reason.

Her campaign tactics in general have outraged many Obama supporters, but she hit a new personal low this week with her last television advertisement in Pennsylvania. Dictionaries are being updated even as I write this, to make this ad the new definition of "fear-mongering."

Not only did it feature Osama Bin Laden, it also featured scary stuff all the way back to World War II and beyond. Pearl Harbor next to the 1929 stock market crash next to gas lines from the 1970s next to the Cold War next to 9/11 and Bin Laden, in video cuts so fast they border on subliminal. Unbelievable. The ad's script included the line "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," but what Hillary is obviously doing in that kitchen in the first place is ripping out the plumbing in order to hurl the kitchen sink (and the dishwasher, and the fridge with the icemaker) at Obama.

If you really want a laugh, check out Clinton's new campaign head defending and justifying this ad in a Washington Post opinion article. See, it's all Obama's fault for being "unfair," and the ad can't even be classified as "negative." To this I reply: "Wake up, Dorothy, you're dreaming..."

For this ad alone -- conflating the possibility that President Hillary Clinton will take on the dreaded Japanese military, along with today's scariest terrorist (while, no doubt, solving high gas prices before breakfast) -- Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

Have you no shame, Hillary?

 

Getting away from the campaign trail, here are this week's Friday Talking Points, provided (as always) as a public service to any Democrats appearing in media interviews this weekend.

Volume 29 (4/25/08)

 

   Attacking Iran = $8.00 a gallon gas

The Bush administration, abetted by the Pentagon, has started some serious saber-rattling towards Iran once again. As if two wars at a time weren't enough.

This needs to be put in the proper perspective. Here is a headline which does just that: "US Ship Fires On Iranian Boats, Oil Prices Rise." This is just from a few shots across the bow, mind you. Actually attacking them would make things much worse.

But this needs to be forcefully and repeatedly pointed out, so Americans everywhere immediately conflate the two.

"President Bush and John McCain think that paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline isn't enough. They both are strongly supportive of military action against Iran at some point in the near future. McCain has even joked about it on the campaign trail. But it's no joke. If America attacks Iran, we could easily be faced with a doubling of gas prices in this country. And that's definitely no joke at the gas pump."

 

   That was eight dollars a gallon

You know what? This one is so important, it gets two talking points. Here's another way to put it:

"Americans were lied to by President Bush about the costs of the war in Iraq. And look where we are as a result. So if Bush -- or John McCain -- stands before the American people and tries to convince the public that bombing Iran would be a good idea, here's the question that supporters of such a policy should be asked: If you support attacking Iran, would you be willing to pay $8.00 a gallon for gasoline as part of the price of such an attack?"

 

   Flip-Flopper-In-Chief McCain

I devoted all last week's Talking Points to a flip-flop ad for John McCain. The ammunition for creating such an ad just keeps coming.

From a Washington Post article, which focuses solely on McCain's economic flip-floppery:

McCain's concerns -- about budget deficits, unanticipated defense costs, an Iraq war that would be longer and more costly than advertised -- have proved eerily prescient, usually a plus for politicians who are quick to say they were right when others were wrong. Yet McCain appears determined to leave such predictions behind.

"He's looking forward, not back," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior policy adviser.

Everybody got that? McCain used to be right, but now he's pandering for votes, so he's saying things he knows deep down are just flat-out incorrect. This is such a HUGE weak spot for McCain, it's a wonder Obama and Clinton haven't picked up on it.

"John McCain will change any position and say anything, just to get elected President. His flip-flopping on issues large and small should be exposed to the American public for what it truly is: pandering for votes. I just wish the media would give him the same level of scrutiny they routinely give to every word that Democrats say. Let's end the free ride in the media for McCain. We don't want a Flip-Flopper-In-Chief, we want a president who says what he means and means what he says. A real 'straight talker,' not a flip-flopper on an express bus to Panderville."

 

   Heckuva job, EPA

This Earth Day week, we found out that hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists working for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report that their work has been subject to political pressure from the Bush administration. So happy Earth Day from the White House!

"I guess putting politics above competence worked out so well for President Bush when FEMA tried to deal with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans that he is using the same model to run the EPA. It's no wonder that nobody believes a word he says about fighting global warming when his political minions won't let EPA scientists do their jobs in telling us how bad things are. Good enough for FEMA, good enough for the EPA, as far as George Bush is concerned. Heckuva job, Georgie."

 

   "Military" or "propaganda" expert?

This one should be filed under "attack the media messenger." It's a dodge to any question asked of any Democrat by a member of the media this weekend. Especially the big television news networks. Because they have collectively decided to bury this story as deep as they can -- while continuing to use "military expert" consultants who are nothing more than propaganda agents for the Pentagon. So when any unfair question (especially on foreign policy or war issues) crosses the lips of some television talking head, the proper response is:

"Did you get that question straight from the Pentagon? I find it incredible that a story broke last week about your so-called 'military experts' which showed how they profit from parroting the Pentagon's talking points. You pass them off as some sort of independent analysts -- and your own news organization was not only silent on this story, you seem to still have the same retired generals on your payroll. Maybe you should put up a graphic whenever these generals appear which says not 'military expert,' but rather 'paid propaganda from the Pentagon.' It would certainly be more honest."

 

   The "bad apples" were at the top of the barrel

Attack the media messenger, part 2.

The highest levels of government were involved in approving specific torture techniques for prisoners held by the United States. The president didn't even deny that these meetings happened. He said he approved them.

You'd think that would be an explosive story. Once again, thanks to the mainstream media, it wasn't. It barely registered. Now, some of this is sheer Bush fatigue -- measuring up the most recent disgusting evidence that Bush's White House is dangerously criminal against the mountains of previous evidence. But you would think the American media would actually ask a few more questions about this. So, once again, if asked about "Obama said / Hillary said" nonsense on the air this weekend, the perfect rejoinder would be:

"Do you actually think the American people care that much about this non-story? Perhaps you were too busy following this monumentally trivial so-called 'news' to follow up on how torture was approved by meetings which held numerous Cabinet members from the Bush administration, and that Bush himself approved? John Ashcroft even said during one of these meetings 'history will not judge this kindly.' Answer me this -- how much reporting did you do on this story versus how much you did on what you just asked me about? The American people deserve better from their media than they are getting."

 

   Rush Limbaugh's dreams

Speaking of evidence of dangerously criminal behavior, Rush Limbaugh has admitted he is "dreaming" of riots in Denver at the Democratic National Convention. He thinks its the best thing that could happen to the country, and urges his listeners to make sure riots happen.

I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. Limbaugh's explanation? "Riots in Denver, at the Democrat [sic] Convention, would see to it that we don't elect Democrats."

This one is so easy to grandstand that a sixth-grader running for student council president could easily knock it out of the park:

"Rush Limbaugh said recently that rioting in the streets of Denver would be quote the best damn thing that can happen to this country unquote. I immediately call on John McCain, President Bush, the National Republican Committee, and Republicans everywhere to denounce Limbaugh's dangerous and idiotic remarks. By standing silently by while a right-wing mouthpiece publicly incites riots in an American city as a desirable thing to happen -- something he is apparently quote dreaming unquote about -- means Republicans approve of his remarks. So I look forward to the immediate denouncement of such criminal remarks by Bush, McCain, and all other Republicans. Or are they not the 'party of law and order' anymore?"

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

 

Comments

[JoDeeVa]

Ah, Chris..Kudos for your efforts! I fear you are dreaming, if you think those upright stellar Republican citizens will be speaking out any time soon denouncing Rush Limbaugh's dream, so "dangerously close to criminal behavior." Given what this administration has pulled off with dangerous criminal behavior, one need only refer to your #1, #2 and #6 to see the uphill battle you're fighting on what they would surely deem such a triviality.

Daily Kos is suggesting (in jest?), that it is part of "Operation Chaos" to get those "Republica­ns-in-Demo­crats-clot­hing" out on the streets of Denver, stirring things up, wreaking havoc and rioting. I don't know about that, but a bit unnerving is that a poll on Denver Channel 7 News Website, asking if Limbaugh crossed the line?..shows that of 33,000 votes and counting, the results are Yes: 23%-No: 77%. Hmm..Burn, Baby, Burn?
Dare I make a music reference/solution?
I'm with Cheap Trick. What is called for is...
The "Dream Police!"

[YY2H8]

Is it me, or have people reached a new level of crankiness?

Maybe this primary has been secretly sponsored by pharmaceutical companies to spur sales of mood elevators and antidepressants... :-)

[AlphaOverdawg]

Who is this Weigant guy? First he gives some perfect exemplars of the techniques The Obama has used throughout the campaign to deflect or evade questions, substantive or otherwise. Don't think he meant to go there.

Secondly, he takes umbrage at Limbaugh's "dream" of riots at the Democrat Convention in August, AND WELL HE SHOULD.

But maybe his outrage at the bald-faced threats by black leaders about "riots in the streets" if Obama doesn't get the nomination slipped past me, since I haven't been reading his stuff. I'm sure the stupordelegates got the message, even if the media didn't react. Those threats seem a lot more intimidating than anything Rush Limbaugh might "incite". So please tell me Weigant wrote something serious about that. Or that ANYONE in the media did. After all, those threats are credible, as history tragically illustrates, whereas Limbaugh's incitement is unlikely to evoke ANY action, much less riots.

If you're going to play journalist, do something journalistic.

[RobertArend]

"But maybe his outrage at the bald-faced threats by black leaders about "riots in the streets" if Obama doesn't get the nomination"

I've heard talk that blacks will sit out the General Election if Obama is wrongfully denied what he has earned, but I've heard no talk of riots over it.

Sources please....

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

AlphaOverdawg -

Sigh.

The only "threat" by a black leader I am aware of (Limbaugh even cited this one himself, from what I've read) was Al Sharpton's comment that if the superdelegates don't go Obama's way "there's going to be trouble."

That's it. Now, "trouble" in my book can mean a lot of things (like maybe African-American voters sitting out the November election, which would indeed be trouble for the Democrats), but does not automatically equate to "riots in the streets." So if you've got citations to such "credible threats" please share them with the rest of us.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, stated that rioting in an American city would be the "best damn thing that could happen to this country." Sounds pretty clear to me who is and who is not calling for rioting in Denver.

And thanks for writing.

-CW

[nypoet22]

today's points are particularly good. especially 1, 2 and 6. More war equals higher gas prices needs to be hammered over and over until it's common knowledge. as to the other point, why DID the media ignore the fact that Bush publicly admitted to approving torture?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

nypoet22 -

Thanks for the kind words. They seem to be few and far between this week!

As for the torture thing, I have no idea why this isn't a gigantic story. The mainstream media is inscrutable at times, that's for sure....

-CW

[ldvisavis]

My guess is the MIDOTW is going to be a hard sell here, in spite of the balancing MDDOTW judgment.

Most people have a sense of fairplay, and I think for many it has been violated over the past weeks. Interestingly, the 67% of voters in exit polls responded that Clinton was unfairly negative to Obama. I agree with the majority -- for that part of the PA primary, anyway.

I wonder which concerns me more, the people who deny or are oblivious to the tricks, or the people who get it and still support (and vote for) Hillary. That'll keep me thinking for awhile, I'm afraid.

[BigBen]

for the benefit of those new to politics. it is all about winning not about fairness.if they have not figured that out by now maybe they should be in some other line of work.

[ldvisavis]

Aaaah yes, one of the branches of Hillary-supporter logic. The world is evil. People are evil. Everyone cheats. Win at all costs. Take no prisoners. It is right to use tricks on the dupes because we know better, deserve it, etc. etc. Since the world and everyone in it is so bad, we need someone on our side who is really good at being bad.

Interesting philosophy. I certainly see how Hillary is comfortable in that paradigm.

FWIW I don't buy it. But go right ahead and enjoy!

[AJinCamden]

I've noticed the word of the week is CONFLATE/C­ONFLATING. At least half of the articles I've read contain the word/s at least twice. I am not impressed.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

AJinCamden -

I think I only used it once.

You got a problem with "conflate"? Um... OK... how about "correlate"? "Fuse"? "Coequate"? "Link"?

I thought I used it correctly, but it's true that there are others I could have chosen.

But thanks for writing.

-CW

[burnt]

"you've got to admit that Hillary Clinton made an impressive showing in the Keystone State."

No, afraid not...

First, I believe that it's only fair to give credit where credit is due, so at the very least that should read Clinton/Limbaugh... and although Limbaugh is not a Democrat, Clinton barely qualifies as well.

Second, after blowing a 20+ lead and barely averting total disaster, I am extremely disinclined to call the result "impressive". It took some of the most divisive and despicable tactics to staunch the bleeding... for what?... 12 delegates.

If the main subject is talking points... I would have to make this one fractional... a low fraction.

alienated in Seattle