Petey

This is old politics, sir. The times they are a changin. Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones? (er, Mr McCready) posted 05/07/2008 at 17:23:00

It's also the notion of the Bodhisattva -- the Buddha who rejects ultimate enlightenment as impossible until all are enlightened. posted 04/28/2008 at 15:23:59

He's not a pollster. posted 04/24/2008 at 13:41:53

Thanks for the terrific analysis! posted 04/21/2008 at 14:46:48

And Bill now, with a self-righteous tut-tut, saying Barack has resorted to "throwing the kitchen sink." We could go on an on with their hypocrisies... It'll be interesting to see if Rendell's embracing of Farrakhan will be be picked up in the mainstream after Hillary tried to smear Barack with Farrakhan in last week's debate. posted 04/21/2008 at 17:43:17

We're heading for a media sea change if people keep portraying this debate as simply asking "hard questions." These were swiftboat attacks. The rationale being that swiftboating will occur anyway, so we should see how Obama reacts to it.

Nonsense. When ABC News participates in swiftboating they are legitimizing it. They are abdicating their role of helping prioritize which stories/issues are fair and relevant. This was a huge error in judgment, and if we don't hold their feet to the fire we will witness a permanent quantum leap downward in the mainstream media's ethical standing in our culture. posted 04/18/2008 at 19:17:40

I think it was Olbermann who put it best: Since when is it the media's job to perform swiftboating?

The media, if they are responsible, should strive to give perspective and portray things in rational proportions. Swiftboating only works with the media's cooperation -- and in this case they not only cooperated, they drove the boat! posted 04/18/2008 at 10:32:04

Yes we can! posted 04/18/2008 at 10:37:51

Please spell out how I'm "playing into the hands..." posted 04/18/2008 at 00:59:50

You're wrong. He did apologize -- even though his words were twisted beyond recognition by the media and the Clintons (anyone who has read beyond the looped soundbites knows this is the case). Still, it's Obama's practice to express regret when his words don't come across as intended -- and he has done so. And he's done so on past occasions as well. posted 04/17/2008 at 23:32:53

"There are people's lives at stake. The future of the world's oldest republic is at stake. This is serious."

I guess, DavidJohnston, this is the kind of mindset that provokes some people to adopt Machiavellian, win-at-all-cost, ends-justify-the-means strategies. Eh?

Not that I disagree that this election is serious. Terrorism is serious too. Some people think that justifies the lifting of civil rights, the use of torture, and "detaining" hundreds of people without charges or representation. I don't happen to agree. So we have philosophical differences. posted 04/17/2008 at 23:28:24

Let me guess. You never read all his comments -- just the bites that were looped? posted 04/17/2008 at 22:51:15

Well, if you convince your candidate that hypocritical, offensive, pseudo-self-righteous sleazeball politics is not the way to engage a decent fellow Democrat, then I'm sure there'd be no need for these kinds of stories to come out. As it stands, these stories are crucial. And the only person to blame is Hillary. posted 04/17/2008 at 22:49:47

jeaninkc -- I respectfully disagree -- because Hillary is fighting an anything-to-win battle against Barack based on fraudulent arguments and tactics. She and her campaign have played an integral and cynical role in promoting certain negative narratives of Barack. Occasionally calling out hypocrisies is a way to blunt these tactics and, more broadly, demonstrate to the mainstream public the absurdities of this kind of politics.

Plus, in the same way you make a point of stating in your comment why you don't support Hillary, others find value in sharing their perspectives and anecdotes. posted 04/17/2008 at 22:45:53

Watch the YouTube video right below this. Then check back here and tell us you're not bothered by her character. If you're not, then there's nothing much to say -- we just have astonishingly different worldviews. posted 04/17/2008 at 21:50:06

You got it. And Barack -- if he is elected -- stands for the manifestation of wiping the tables clean of all the gunk.

He's imperfect (as he frequently reminds us), but this is more about us than it us about him. If we elect him we are collectively choosing a new national identity. We are saying we no longer want to play by the corrupt and nasty rules that have governed politics and culture for decades now. posted 04/17/2008 at 21:46:45

Yes, how I love all the different voices -- the little squeaks at the end of her sentences, the southern drawl, the no-nonsense tough guy... Everyone should see this. It matters because it connects the dots of her character. posted 04/17/2008 at 21:39:30

Wow. Cold-blooded. I suppose this is your usual response when people don't behave as you want? "Screw em." posted 04/17/2008 at 21:32:15

Who's moderating the comments for this piece? And why are you excluding dissenting voices? At least you chose not to publish my argument that Boehlert (and others) conflate misogyny with any gender-related reference. They are not the same thing! posted 04/17/2008 at 13:58:56

Rrafiringa was bringing his/her rational perspective on the matter to this table. So you call him/her a "hateful, uninformed, hypocritical parrot." Hmm.

Rrafiringa offers some straight talk. Certain things need to be said and considered. Shouting them down with accusations of insanity and neo-conservatism -- that's what's pathetic.

Think about this: It would be dangerous to have a liberal, peacenik president -- regardless of gender -- who was overly concerned with acquiring a reputation for toughness. Right? We need a president comfortable in his/her own skin, so we can trust his/her actions are coming from conviction, rather than the need to prove something.

If Hillary's personality is a pendulum, that's a problem -- even if it's a pendulum partly because she hasn't quite figured out which side of her feminine self to project. If she's still working through it, more power to her -- but please let's not have her sort it out while running the country. posted 04/10/2008 at 22:52:18

No doubt we all have to navigate through various biases somewhat differently. We have to get comfortable in our own skins, learning to creatively channel our own unique combination of outward appearance, inner wit, personality, etc. So, yes, the way a woman navigates may indeed sometimes be a bit different than the way a white man, a black man, or an old man navigates (but not necessarily in the cliched ways one might imagine -- just look at Maggie Thatcher).

Hillary's problem is not that she's a woman. Her problem is that she never learned to function comfortably in her own skin. So she comes across as unreliable, unpredictable, and ultimately calculating. If she were simply more grounded and trustworthy she'd sail into the White House.

We could easily elect a successful female president who was tough as nails or sweet as pie (or something in between). All that would really be important is that she'd know her own character and how to wield it effectively. posted 04/10/2008 at 22:34:38

One of the biggest misconceptions about this campaign has been the chronic conflation of random sexist comments and an imagined deep-seated misogyny presumably responsible for Hillary's tough ride. People put down others in conveniently crass ways (McCain's age, Obama's "arrogance" or his dancing). But clear thinkers (those who are not into radical feminist paranoia) know full well that Hillary has not had a smooth campaign solely because she is a profoundly flawed candidate.

Honestly, Erica, every time you allow some little sexist jibe to upset you so much you are fueling the culture wars and damaging feminism's image among the vast majority of people who reject the essentialist thinking you spend so much time peddling. Sure, a crass remark about a woman will sometimes look different from a crass joke about a man. So what? Get over it. You're deluding yourself when you conclude these little clues point to some sort of ultimate glass ceiling Hillary can't get past. Trust me, she'd be sailing into the White House if people just felt they could trust her! posted 04/10/2008 at 22:19:29

So bashing is fine in your ideal political culture -- just not among those who are supposed to have circled the wagons? And just who defines who's on the reservation and who's off? (Yes, I'm purposely being political incorrect with unpleasant Native-American-related metaphors.) posted 04/10/2008 at 12:37:08

Agreed. We already know plenty about their differences.If we're going to keep comparing them, let's compare how they take on John McCain. Hell, they should start campaigning together! posted 03/31/2008 at 15:56:19

MS reveals all we need to know about her position with one word: "Obamabots." I think the biggest reason the nomination is at such an impasse is that a lot of Hillary supporters simply cannot imagine anyone truly believing in a Barack presidency for well-thought-out, rational reasons.

Not that I expect everyone to agree with our conclusions, but as long as they're convinced we're just kool-aid drinkers they're going to think it's their duty to protect the country from us, by any means necessary.

One of these days they're simply going to have to open their minds to the possibility that many of us find Barack superior for a whole host of logical reasons. posted 03/31/2008 at 10:05:43

Fascinating. Even though I read a lot and keep up with the campaign, this is the first time I've really realized that it's possible for some people to obsess over Hillary.

I knew she had strong supporters, but I always figured that support was practical -- yes, emotional sometimes, but only for what she stands for (e.g. fighting hard for women), not for her actual personage. She has always struck me as so plastic, patronizing, contrived, etc, that I just never imagined anyone actually "falling for her," say, in an Obaman sense. I thought her hard-core supporters were hard core precisely because they did NOT approve of or trust so-called cults of personality. To learn that this is not always true helps shed light on the current state of the nomination fight. Thanks. posted 03/31/2008 at 09:53:02

Is it just me, or are some of this guy's comments politically incorrect?

I did enjoy the Monica Lewinsky/pastor line -- funny, hard hitting, AND insightful. posted 03/29/2008 at 16:43:02

In all due respect, I can imagine circumstances that would cause you to change your mind: correcting your many misimpressions and biases. posted 03/29/2008 at 10:14:40

This "you're likable enough Hillary" moment stuck in a lot of craws. I'm convinced it was a cultural misunderstanding. Are you at all open to the possibility that he was not, in fact, demonstrating contempt? Or that I am not spinning when tell you that this response would have been quite respectable among my friends? (In fact, I was surprised to see the attacks the day after that debate because, to my eyes, he had handled the moment with class.)

Granted, his tone was of lighthearted sparring, but if he had rained compliments on her -- THAT would have been patronizing. He treated her as an equal, worthy opponent, someone who could stand up for herself just fine without his paternal protection. Honestly, I think he was trying to convey respect.

Then, in Vegas, he showed more class when asked if he regretted the remark. He didn't try to over-explain himself or defend himself. He simply said, yes, he regretted the remark because obviously it didn't come across in the way he intended it.

I know, I know -- even if all this is true, doesn't it show a gaping flaw in the great unifier's ability to communicate? I don't really think so. No human will be able to find the right tone that will turn everyone on all the time. But he's doing pretty damn well overall. Like anyone with a good heart and good intentions, various people will take more or less time to warm up to him. posted 03/29/2008 at 23:07:01

How do you propose, Bish66, that the Democratic party control its nomination process in the future if states learn they can violate party rules with no consequences? posted 03/31/2008 at 10:25:40

Good points. Remember, Hillary went back on her word supporting New Hampshire and Iowa -- and they're not going to forget the insult. (This was typical Clintonian maneuvering: do whatever it takes to win and worry about the mess you make another day.)

Schlesigner's idea is provocative, and Obama might want to consider a variation of it, but it's a gamble on various levels. Part of Barack's success has been a smart, conservative nomination strategy that values each and every delegate win -- as well as respects the rules.

Also, remember human nature. Have you ever watched "Big Brother"? Almost every time that someone allows themselves to go up on the block as a pawn -- thinking they have enough support to safely stay in the game -- they wind up getting their ass kicked and evicted. posted 03/31/2008 at 10:18:33

A terrible idea. I know Gore has paid his dues, but it's just not smart or fair to coronate a candidate who has not campaigned in the current environment. He may have been a great president in 2001, but we really don't know how his political instincts would play out in today's culture. We know he's been successful recently defining himself in the areas of his choosing, but campaigning is another matter altogether.

Please, let's not forget he ran a highly flawed campaign in 2000, indicative of someone not very comfortable in his own skin. Shall we remind ourselves of the earth-tone clothing experiments, the stilted speeches, or the contrived invasion of Bush's physical space in that debate that was probably the point he lost the election? (I know, he didn't really lose -- but if he'd been a stronger candidate he would have won convincingly.) posted 03/27/2008 at 13:05:09

Yes, this electoral college argument is just another cynical, dishonest attempt to manipulate voters who aren't paying attention. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:24:03

No, actually, I've been seeing this sentiment rising in recent days on a number of blogs. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:11:11

I don't think so, LenoirLady. This Wright story will mellow just fine over the weeks and months -- especially since Barack didn't take the typical tack of simply hoping it would go away. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:09:15

You nailed it. That's the plan. The Clintons have shown time and again their philosophy: do whatever it takes to win (and by whatever, they mean WHATEVER), and then worry about cleaning up the mess another day.

I would not be feeling such an urgency to end this now if it weren't The Clintons we're talking about. Sure, why not continue the campaign even if there's only a five percent chance one candidate can win? Because... that five percent chance is based on scorched earth.

Honestly, how many of you Clinton supporters are really hoping to see Obama lose so your gal can run against McCain in 2012? Be honest! posted 03/26/2008 at 14:24:54

The ONLY scenario in which Clinton wins the nomination involves a path of continued, sweeping, scorched-earth, Tanya Harding, kitchen-sink destructiveness. posted 03/26/2008 at 14:09:41

And, my goodness, how healthy it is for fellow Democrats to be repeating these absurd smears about our almost-certain nominee!

This is precisely why we need to wrap this up now. posted 03/26/2008 at 14:07:41

Are you upset you also don't get to vote for Biden? Richardson? Kucinich? Edwards? Dodd? Do you feel they subverted Democracy by dropping out while there was still some remote scenario they could win?

Maybe Kucinich could have proven he's been in touch with Martians who were set to destroy Earth -- and he was the only one who spoke their language? In which case, pledged delegates and superdelegates alike would verily flock to him, don't you think? posted 03/26/2008 at 14:04:41

If I understand your argument, NT, it's not irrational. But it's based on a limited principle, not an absolute. There comes a point when the benefits of waiting are simply overwhelmed by the facts on the ground. If she were a different sort of candidate (less destructive) I'd feel more open to seeing it play out. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:57:52

That's simply not credible anymore. Yes, the attacks will continue. And he's shown himself extremely capable -- not only to withstand and respond to attacks -- but to see opportunity in adversity, not only for himself politically, but for the country.

Getting kneecapped by so-called elders in one's own party is far worse and more destructive than dealing with opposition 527s. Your argument might have carried weight last year, but no longer. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:54:23

Absolutely. This fake argument is like telling a minor-league team that's gone 15 innings against the Yankees, and now has the bases loaded: "What's the matter with you? Why are you so weak you couldn't have put them away a long time ago??" posted 03/26/2008 at 13:49:22

Which, of course, was the fear Carville was trying to exploit. "You will be punished, branded, never forgotten as a Judas, never forgiven..." -- hoping to convince most supers it's just not worth the effort and risk. We'll see if it works. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:44:44

Yes, and more and more of her supporters are openly expressing their anger at Barack for not waiting his turn. What used to be smug pronouncements that they liked him and hoped he became her veep has turned into "he's shown low character by entering the race before his time." posted 03/26/2008 at 13:39:02

Sorry, I'm just not interested in engaging in these sorts of Penn-Wolfson-Clinton-Trippi-Ickes-yellow-submarine dialectics. I'm happy to argue with straight talk, but I'm not going to compete with spin-lovers. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:35:51

Great point. How nice it will be to one day move beyond our habitual way of doing politics: Clintonian disingenuousness and hypocrisy. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:55:53

I, for one, have asked myself that very question. Yes, I'd be saying the same thing if Clinton were in the lead -- especially if Barack's only scenario for winning involved continued destructiveness.

Long ago I came to terms with the possibility that my guy might not win. I don't think Hillary supporters have really yet digested such a possibility -- and that's what's causing such cognitive dissonance. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:49:16

The timing of this movement has nothing to do with which states are about to vote. There will be states about to vote all the way into June. The timing has to do with the facts on the ground having to do with the meltdown of the Democratic party based purely on a stubborn insistence that there are still scenarios in which Hillary could win.

It's pretty simple: all remaining scenarios are based on further destructiveness. Politicians should (and do) consider many factors when suspending campaigns. The existence of a remote possibility of winning should not be the main consideration. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:45:13

Good for you. Although I'm not so sure about your guarantee that Clinton will be Obama's veep. I suspect some of the "revenge voting" threats going around now are at least subconsciously tactical. It's turned into a mini-battle to test each other's seriousness. Most average Dems will return to the fold before voting for McCain.

EXCEPT... there's a real danger of A) losing a lot of the excited new voters, B) diminishing turnout because of general disgust, and C) seeing significant revolt if the nomination is seen to be acquired by Tanya Harding tactics.

That's why this needs to come to an end now: the only way Hillary's fight can continue is if she invites all these dangers to come to pass. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:38:48

Well, I for one, am ashamed of you for being so disingenuous. Clearly -- as has been said repeatedly and everywhere -- the fear is what The Clintons' particular brand of campaigning is doing to the country -- simply because she sees a tiny, vague path to the nomination that would involve significant destructiveness to the party and our very likely nominee.

Candidates drop out of races all the freaking time! Talk to Edwards, Richardson, etc. They could certainly have envisioned some cynical scenario whereby they could have secured the nomination. (Clinton and Obama destroy each other, etc.) But to continue a destructive battle on the basis of such slim and negative chances takes Clintonian gall and hubris. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:28:34

When Hillary supporters display Clintonian pseudo-logic, do you believe it, or are you just being tactical? Like most Clinton dishonesties, if the comment is actually believed by the speaker, it reveals a disturbing lack of connection with reality. If it's not believed, it's a contrived, destructive discourse. How I yearn for the day when we remember how to debate our adversaries on the real merits!

The fear -- stated repeatedly -- is not Hillary winning. The fear is what she will do to the party and the country in the process of continuing to fight with no chance of winning outside a scorched-earth strategy while smearing the good name of the our future nominee.

Hillary should suspend her campaign now. She can stand aside all the way to Denver with her delegates in case Obama has the meltdown her supporters irrationally believe is coming. (Isn't there something perverse and cynical about basing one's hopes on his possible meltdown? What terrible thing has this man done to you guys, except pop your inevitability bubble?)

I wouldn't mind her continuing to campaign if both candidates agreed to channel all efforts against McCain. This would make sense right about now, but it's not, I believe, possible, given the makeup of Clinton DNA. And even if it were, the surrogates wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:11:58

Yes, the disorder is called Clintonism. It runs in the family. I thought Chelsea's performance yesterday proved her to be a chip off the old block: totally canned moral indignation (which is a form of lying) designed to divert attention from the real issue. How long had she been waiting to use that line?

And Bill... why hasn't anyone put together a YouTube montage showing the EXACT same tone of righteous indignation in this campaign ("this is a fairy tale," etc) when he looked at us and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Same tone exactly with Hillary: "Shame on you Barack Obama." A montage of feigned outrage from this family would be compelling video. posted 03/26/2008 at 10:33:32

Chelsea's performance yesterday proved her to be a chip off the old block: totally canned moral indignation (which is a form of lying) designed to divert attention from the real issue. How long had she been waiting to use that line?

Why hasn't anyone put together a YouTube montage showing the EXACT same tone of righteous indignation in this campaign (e.g. Bill's "this is a fairy tale," or Hillary's: "Shame on you Barack Obama."etc) as when Bill looked at us and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

A montage of feigned outrage from this family would be compelling video. posted 03/26/2008 at 10:39:33

Thanks, Michael, for your entirely sane reaction to this whole thing. Barack challenged all of us -- those of every stripe (racial and political) -- to practice a fresh sort of cultural/political response with this narrative. It's a hopeful sign for our future that so many, like you, are doing so.

Imagine what our public sphere would look like if we found ways to argue with our adversaries about nuanced ideas and issues without winding up in our habitual gutter of demonization and haphazard character destruction. posted 03/25/2008 at 13:21:17

Check out the very entertaining "Five Ways Clinton Leads Obama" over at Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/25/012/39464/500/483594 posted 03/25/2008 at 14:55:57

Nice. I had to re-read your post to pick up on its satire. The word "clawed" finally gives it away. Very funny -- if a bit catty. posted 03/24/2008 at 16:44:56

As is typical, the New York Times had an article with the headline that BOTH Clinton and Obama were stretching their records. They started with one small example of Obama lumping himself into a group of Senators working hard on a bill. Then the paper went on to talk about SEVERAL exaggerations from Hillary.

It's the same old problem of journalists trying to create the impression that they're balanced (by creating an equivalency between the candidates), when, really, these reporters are simply not doing their jobs because they're not reflecting reality accurately. posted 03/24/2008 at 14:23:32

Well, actually, this is an important furtherance of the story, and it could help put to bed a long-simmering resentment of Barack. More than anything, the lasting critique is "why didn't he criticize Wright until now?" posted 03/24/2008 at 10:47:59

You don't really think she'd put her ambitions ahead of the country, do you?? Oh wait, she's a Clinton... never mind. posted 03/22/2008 at 21:40:51

No, the Wright controversy will mellow nicely for Obama, showing he doesn't choke during difficult times. On the contrary, he rises brilliantly to the occasion. Sure, we'll keep hearing about it from Fox pundits et al, but the overriding message is that he's a very solid leader. posted 03/22/2008 at 11:46:27

You perpetuate a myth, suggesting that Barack is not a hard worker (and all that that implies). That he lacks some crucial quality that Hillary provides.

You also worry too much. Your example of what can go wrong with a great candidate is off the mark. As much as I admire Al Gore, he was most certainly not a great candidate. He was contrived and molded and defensive -- much like Hillary. Barack, on the other hand: there's something special there, something of the sort we only see once in a lifetime.

The sooner we allow Barack to settle into the nomination (and not have his fellow Dems throwing the kitchen sink at him) the sooner we'll see him soar in the race against McCain.

The Wright controversy was a blessing. All those who called him an "empty suit," convinced he'd choke at the first hardship, were soundly proven wrong. There's no more doubt: he's a fantastic leader, a brilliant politician, and a great statesman.

Now if he chose Hillary as his veep -- that would be a blunder! posted 03/22/2008 at 11:28:14

And... the Clinton campaign, as recently as yesterday, has been repeating the story of Obama wink-winking to Canada about NAFTA... posted 03/22/2008 at 21:37:42