I’m breaking my rule about negativity during this primary to post this, because I find the whole “Obama is a plagiarist” bullshit to be the height of asinine.
That said, I thought Clinton’s closing remarks were amazing precisely because they weren’t phony. She was laughing at how stupid the Xerox copy comment was as she was saying it, but she did it anyway, because not parroting that ridiculous charge would mean that she has to admit that the $3.8 million she’d spent on Mark Penn’s consulting fees in one month might as well have been flushed down the toilet.
But even though she was apparently borrowing John Edwards’ words, I felt that last moment was Clinton finally breaking free of the consultant albatross around her neck and being herself. And I like Hillary Clinton a lot. But one glimpse is not enough, when I felt like 90% of Obama was him being himself, showing his own judgments, and taking some fucking leadership of his own campaign.
61 Responses to “What do you call a photocopy of a photocopy?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’m reminded of an episode of “Third Rock From the Sun,” where Dick accuses an author of plagiarism because all of his words had previously appeared in the dictionary.
man, I completely hate that debate.
1. it glossed over the war. As if people isn’t dying and merely a nuisance. (Hillary gets away pushing total BS, while Obama was lame. But at least he is not dishonest.)
2. I completely despise Hillary for pulling cheap campaign gag, xerox, oh… I am suffering.. right in the face of war she vote (not to mention start beating the war drum against Iran) She should be ashamed of herself.
That wasn’t a presidential debate. It was a TV show and media gabfest/hackery, not a forum to inform readers.
…oh and I am not done ranting.
all of a sudden Hillary the centrist hawk is jabbering like peacenick populist? Quoting Edward every 10 seconds.
yeah whatever. Where was her tears when she voted for patriot act and AUMF? Where was her jabbering about fine america when she was using Cheney fear tactic to win vote in NH?
get out of my TV already. I hope Texas kicks her ass. Tho’ I am not so sure about it. It’s pretty rightwing state.
Here’s a slightly longer video, including a snippet where Hillary quotes her husband. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuEDkqVvpkk
I don’t want this to be Obama versus Hillary, but I think accusing him of plagiarism, when others have said that he had permission to quote without attribution, is deeply silly and divisive.
I found the debate mostly positive and productive. I can’t believe she pulled the Xerox line, and I’m glad she got booed for it. She knew as she was doing it that she was on the wrong tack, but somehow she just couldn’t stop herself from going there.
But, in one of the many ironies of politics, Josh Marshall at TPM identified one of her closing lines as coming from Bill’s ‘92 campaign:
Bill Clinton, 92: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.”
Hillary Clinton, tonight: “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.”
As for Obama, I don’t think it was his best performance ever, but it was solid, and he very effectively stayed above the fray and on topic when Clinton tried to go negative. That right there makes him the winner.
Amanda, you should check out this one too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U
“Fucking leadership” for his campaign? Whether or not it was plagiarism, don’t you think it was a lapse in judgment to recycle whole blocks of language from a campaign less than 2 years old? It certainly cheapens his rhetorical power, and also makes him look like he followed some bad advice of his consultants.
It’s pretty rightwing state.
I suspect our Republicans will just go ahead and vote in their own damn primary, and won’t be turning out in large numbers to vote for Clinton in the primary. A state is not right wing so much as people are. And right wingers don’t generally vote Democrat. The liberal populace of Texas bids you to remember that we are actually pretty different than the George Bush view of Texas as a see of assholish white men in pick-ups. For one thing, we’re a white-minority state.
I wondered if there were anyone who’d pick up this Obama’s a plagiarist nonsense. Thanks, RedStar, for reminding me that there are no depths so low that someone, somewhere out there won’t reach for them.
Given that they’re friends and discussed the matters before, are y’all sure that Obama didn’t phrase it himself first in casual conversation?
What I found most amusing in this whole bogus plagiarism debate was that when Clinton was accused early on of doing the same thing, either she or one of her advisers, I can’t remember which, said in essence that it didn’t matter for her because she never pretended she was doing anything other than ripping people off for their ideas, while Obama was running primarily on his rhetoric.
Neither candidate in the Democratic primary says anything particularly original in their speeches–nor does McCain. No politician ever does. They load their speeches up with abstractions and euphemisms and offer listeners an overlay that allows them to agree or disagree with the politician based on their gut reactions. Their speeches allow for self-justification of the listener’s choices–that’s it.
Ooo we’re linking “You Tubes!”
Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU&eurl=http://www.taylormarsh.com/
I don’t care if you call it plagarizm or not; he’s not speaking his own words and neither are his surrogates.
Also gwangun, when you know you’re quoting someone else, the customary, ethical thing to do is credit them at the time, not wait until someone else calls foul.
That’s not much of a response, Gail.
Yeah, this thread is only reconfirming that the only people who give a shit about this are people who are so far in the Clinton camp, they’ve lost perspective. It won’t win any new voters, and it’s likely to backfire and scare people off.
The good news is that the Clinton campaign has spent untold millions of dollars on trying to dig up some slam against him, and this is the weak shit they’re coming up with. They’ve given Republican opposition researchers nothing to work with. My real fear is that in all the flameout mud-slinging, they’ll accidentally create a slam McCain’s people can work with.
Yess!! I blogged on this at my place this morning, speculating on why her staffers are losing their perspective.
Oh, and by the way, tell me that the spontaneous warm Clinton-Obama handshake didn’t bring a goddamn tear to your eye. C’mon, I fucking dare you.
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/fucking-shitbag-campaign-staffers/
I blogged about the burn rate of the Clinton campaign at my pad, “Where did all the money people donated to Clinton campaign go?” My comment:
Hey. Here is Hillary loving America.
(walmart report. I am trying to find full video recording.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sigkAd3SxxI
Why do I get the feeling that if Obama gets the nomination, Taylor Marsh and her hangers-on will endorse McCain?
Sounds to me, Pam, that you’re talking about what the Great Orange Satan was complaining about in the 2004 election period–too much money going to people who have a vested interest in their strategies working out. He was talking mainly about media consultants who got a cut of every ad buy, but I’d say the same goes for these high-cost consultants as well. Has Clinton hired Bob Shrum yet? Because it sure feels like she has.
I support Clinton, will certainly vote for Obama if he gets the nom, and probably volunteer on his behalf so as to do my best to MAKE SURE McCAIN DOES NOT WIN THIS THING.
Amanda - pretty harsh response to my comment. I didn’t say I agreed with the plagiarism claim, I said I find the whole thing nonetheless embarrassing for Obama. It may not have stuck, it may have been a desperate flailing for Clinton, but in my opinion, when you base so much of your candidacy and appeal on your words, you should vet your speeches more carefully. I’d be embarrassed if I was an Obama supporter about this, because he’s so well known for his eloquence.
I think it’s also difficult for me as a MA resident to separate the speeches from the prior user, Gov. Patrick, who’s turned out to be lackluster and very centrist.
I’ve seen a few other MA-based commenters shouting this angle into the winds here in the ’sphere as well.
I like this post from Anglachel about this whole thing, who dismisses it as an issue of plagiarism in the second paragraph but goes on to explain what rankles her:
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/02/words-matter-when-struggles-matter.html
I’m off-line for the rest of the day so enjoy heckling me in my absence!
Hillary’s spending millions on consultants and her campaign is still tanking? Well, that’s okay. Because all those consultants are really, really EXPERIENCED, and everyone knows, that’s the only thing that matters.
“Because all those consultants are really, really EXPERIENCED, and everyone knows, that’s the only thing that matters.”
They really ARE experienced.
But all their experience is in losing…
That’s the saddest thing about her campaign–that when she seems to be herself, like in the “emotional” moment–when she’s talking about how she wants the best for the country, I actually like her. I really like her.Doesn’t come close to making up for the yes vote on AUMF or the stupid shit like proposing a ban on flag burning. Her actions have always been too “centrist” for me, but if she’d been more herself, I think more people would like her and not be so repelled.
I think Obama and Clinton are very much two sides of the same political coin, but I’m in Obama’s camp b/c at least his people have not been lying in wait for 8 years to return to power. His cronies are new cronies.
Hillary, Bill and the Clintonistas are seemed to believe the hype–the were in their bubble of DC Beltway CW and NY. They really believed that Hillary was due, that she was the inevitable candidate. That’s why they blew through their money: they were positive it would all be over by Super Tuesday, so why not live like royalty and pay their buddies very, very well?
I think they’ve just been rich so long that they were completely out of touch with most Americans.
And when reality turned out to be different from what everyone in the Bubble ™ thought? They didn’t have a backup plan. And since they’d gone to the big donors first and maxed them out, they didn’t have a lot of resources left.
It’s like W! When Iraq didn’t greet us with flowers as the Bubble(tm) expected (but the real world seriously questioned) there was no backup plan. No alternative. Just keep going and paying your friends at KBR/Halliburton/Blackwater as much as you can for as long as you can while claiming victory is around the corner.
Scary how similar it is.
Not that I think Obama’s immune to the Beltway Bubble ™ or the corruption, but at least his people will be NEW, and a bit more responsive. It will (I hope) take a little while to build up the entitlement mentality that the Clintons and Bushes have.
A photocopy of a photocopy is a simulacrum.
And Clinton has put herself in a corner that she can’t win from now, because of her lack of a consistent message. I don’t think she won anyone over last night and sounded really rattled at times, and her dodginess reflected that.
This embarrassed Clinton far more than it did Obama, in the eyes of Democratic voters. And who gives a flying fuck whether some right-wing douchhounds think Obama is a “plagiarist”?
Exactly. The douchehouds aren’t going to vote D anyway. This debate is about convincing Democrats that they should trust and vote for her.
I thought her five-year freeze on interest rates sounded really desperate. Even if it were possible, that would be a really good way to destroy the economy for five years. Can you say stagflation? It’s also a great way to ensure a Republican victory in 2012.
The race was over 2/5. It’s gotten loud and nasty in the Progshpere because the stakes are so small.
At a 4:1 burn rate Obama will take Texas by around 15 points and Ohio by 8.
Clinton postmortem?
They tried to re-run ‘96 (inevitable incumbent) and that’s always a bad idea in an open field, contested primary. But scaring off the competition or trouncing it early was probably their best shot.
Hillary is a wonk at heart. Campaigning or being the candidate is not her passion and her stump skill set is pedestrian.
She is punching out of her weight class against a more skilled candidate. I don’t know how any strategy or team could have massaged her to the nomination.
..gah…
Hillary is already downplaying Texas as her firewall.
“I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee.” -”
http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/stateofmine/index.php
I guess she will stick around even after losing Texas.
“But one glimpse is not enough, when I felt like 90% of Obama was him being himself, showing his own judgments, and taking some fucking leadership of his own campaign.”
Shorter Amanda: Obama is a real man, Hillary “became a woman” with the help of Mark “Henry Higgins” Penn!
The inauthentic, calculating Clintons who turnover control to their pollsters, once again, as a reason to vote NotClinton. And it is the Clinton people who lost perspective this cycle?
Squashed: I read that; apparently her new firewall will pit her, in some sort of space-time paradox, with Representative Snidely Uncommitted in Michigan two months ago.
The more I’m exposed to the Clinton campaign and dichotomies like that stupid plagiarism thing vs. the very well-spoken bit at the end, the more I believe one thing:
she’s yet another Democrat who got screwed over by incompetent handlers.
It comes back to the core truth behind the whole “netroots” movement: that the Democratic party is infested with absolutely incompetents, and it’s those guys that keep on screwing up promising candidates. Your Mark Penns, your James Carvilles, your Paul Begalas… the only thing they’re actually good at is self-promotion and explaining away their high failure rate. They’re certainly no good at winning campaigns, but because they’re “known” they keep on getting hired again, and again, and again
Honestly, the best part about the Clinton Machine breaking down is that these guys are either going to need to find real jobs, or at the very least learn how to do the job they’re being paid for. I believe that even these guys are redeemable, so I hope that it’s the latter, and the talents they do have will eventually be exploited for the greater good of their party and their country. At this point, though, I’d be satisfied with the former. Either shape up, or go away.
Joe, I’m guessing that the irony of accusing an openly and quite consistently progressive/feminist woman of hating on women because of their icky girl-cooties is totally lost on you.
In other words, stop projecting.
I believe that her staffers–not brilliant to begin with–are now so desperate not to have to go back to whatever their lives were before this campaign, instead of to DC to feast on spoils and power, that their judgment has become clouded.
Demosthenes: And that may actually be the most worrying thing of all. If Clinton somehow (although it apppears to be by now almost mathematically impossible) pulls out a nomination victory, then Mark Penn will be the person architecting the Democratic campaign in the 2008 general election.
These “change you can xerox” / “21st century solutions business” lines are winceworthy enough now; imagine having to put up with months of this stuff from a campaign one felt obliged to defend…
said I find the whole thing nonetheless embarrassing for Obama. It may not have stuck, it may have been a desperate flailing for Clinton, but in my opinion, when you base so much of your candidacy and appeal on your words, you should vet your speeches more carefully. I’d be embarrassed if I was an Obama supporter about this, because he’s so well known for his eloquence.
I find this argument highly dubious because it is Clinton who has insisted on campaigning on the idea that Obama is nothing but words. Obama has had to fight against the idea that his appeal is nothing but words this entire time. So it’s embarassing only if you allow Clinton to define the Obama campaign and shove Obama into the “oooh preetty rhetoric!” box. Just because he’s better at giving speeches than she is doesn’t make his appeal lacking in substance, which this argument implies. Not very fair to hold him to special standards based on what Clinton portrays him as, is it?
I’m really worried that Hillary may pull a Ted Kennedy 1980 on Barak. Ted wouldn’t give up despite losing the nomination and tried to get the delegates to change their votes at the Democratic National Convention. It was incredibly divisive and the party did not recover in time to present a united front for the general election.
Dan,
I am not sure what you suggest as my projection, but insinuating that Clinton is inauthentic less than 90% of the time is quite a stretch, especially based on one line about “change you can xerox” in the debate. Clinton speaks authentically about her policies, her life, the American people she meets, etc., etc., endlessly–in the debates, in speeches, at rallies, on tv, etc., etc.
The impression that Clinton is inauthentic is the projection, blaming Clinton for not having the “leadership” (over her male strategists) to be authentic is the irony, and dismissing Clinton supporters who call out this tripe as “so far into the Clinton camp” is the disingenuousness of someone who is perhaps “so far into the anti-Clinton camp” to recognize the first two.
I am not suggesting anyone is sexist, unprogressive, or antifeminist for saying such things, I am just calling out the common tropes that structure this mischaracterization of our candidates. Or, perhaps, you are right, and I failed to see that Clinton’s defeat in the primaries signifies that our society is not only postracial, but postgender now. Fabulous!
“I’m really worried that Hillary may pull a Ted Kennedy 1980 on Barak.”
I am not worried about this at all. Clinton will support the party.
“She knew as she was doing it that she was on the wrong tack, but somehow she just couldn’t stop herself from going there.”
Under the slight amount of pressure the debate brings on she has no ability to stay cool and avoid doing what she shouldn’t. What will she do when she’s under the pressure of being the POTUS? She has no natural instincts about how to connect with people, how to hold her tongue, and how to keep her cool. She seems to need to win micro-points at the expense of winning the big debate. That is a horrible trait in a leader. Voting for her is a huge mistake.
The liberal populace of Texas bids you to remember that we are actually pretty different than the George Bush view of Texas as a see of assholish white men in pick-ups.
…and we thank you both.
(Sorry, just too easy to let go past)
I watched the debate intensely, in fact I watched it twice, as I have the last 3 debates. I think we should be heartened by the obvious fact that we have two supremely intelligent, well educated, and knowledgeable candidates to choose from. After the mind numbing idiocy of Bush and the brain dead Reagan who was and is so loved by so many this is an immense relief. I’m trying to let go and hope that intelligence will be enough to turn them from politicians to statespersons when which ever of them is elected. Most likely Obama
The plagiarism accusation was inane, she was grasping at straws. I think she wishes she could take it back. Yet having said it she had to stick with it in the debate. The fraility of human nature and the desire to win makes fools of all I think. Obama has his share of offensive acts in this campaign season, neither gets a free pass from me. Yet I judge neither as harshly as some here realizing that each needs the votes of millions of people who as I said earlier, still think Reagan was a great president. Some times they play to the mob, both of them, in their own way.
My fear has always been that in my eyes each of them are politicians first, neither has shown sustained committed leadership to a risky position in their careers that convinces me they have the strength of character to do what is necessary to deal with the problems we face if it threatens their support. Will they frankly tell the American people about the tough choices we face as a nation or attempt to kick the can down the road another 4 years with eyes only for re-election? Only time will tell. We’ve been kicking that can for 30 years I hope they are intelligent enough to realize the road is nearly gone. All I know for sure is McCain will be a disaster. Obama will get my vote in the ge as he is almost sure to be the democrat nominee.
I think every successful leader is a politician first. You have to be, it’s the nature of the beast. MLK was a politician even though he never held political office and so was Gandhi. When you’re balancing competing interests and interest groups and figuring out how to get your message out and how and when to get things done, you have to engage in politics. This idea that we can have leadership without politics is in my view a pipe dream. So I’m happy to have two good politicians as well as leaders running for my party’s nomination.
“I think every successful leader is a politician first.”
Perhaps, but some are more principled than others, some appear to have no principles at all, and some, no matter how they started out, when faced with a crisis chose the more principled path rather than the path of political expediency. Reagan was quite a successful politician and is still considered by many to be a great leader. Bush was an extremely successful politician for a few years and if he had been able to pull off the theft of Iraq’s oil would have gone down as a great leader. Carter was very much the politician who faced the beginnings of the peak oil crisis in a truly prescient and honest manner. Political expediency played no role I can discern in his recommendations. They are not all the same.
Joe:
Hm. Maybe I’m just a little too cynical, but I think you could have replaced the entirety of these two paragraphs with a simple “I know you are, but what am I” without losing any important ideas.
Well, maybe the impression that Clinton is inauthentic is my projection, but I really feel like the Hillary her friends talk about, the warm and friendly person, has only peaked through in her “emotional” moment and the “handshake” moment.
The rest of the time, she holds herself so tightly controlled trying to do the politically right thing, that she comes off as inauthentic.
I think she voted for AUMF b/c she was looking ahead to this run for the presidency and thought that if she voted against it, people would claim she was too weak to be commander in chief. By voting for war, she “proved” she was tough.
It was a colossally stupid move. Not only was it wrong and a mistake to invade Iraq and give Bush more power, but the people she thought she’d impress with her “toughness” wouldn’t vote for her anyway.
It’s been a meme for a few years now. She tries to position herself more to the “center” to appeal to all, but conservatives never trusted her motives and always thought it was a veneer to get elected so that she could flip out and become super-liberal while liberals simply felt betrayed.
I don’t think she’s a bad person. I don’t think she’s incompetent. I do think she’s calculating, and that her miscalculations cause people to hate her. Part of that is b/c of the patriarchy and how hard she has to work to overcome it. I wonder if it would have been easier for any other woman to run for president. No matter what else, Hillary has Clinton baggage, so much so that she runs with her first name.
But any woman who got to that level of politics would have to have baggage as well. She’d have to be calculating, and that can come off as inauthentic.
I like when she talks about her hopes for the country, but I can’t forgive her voting for war.
Is that projection? Or opinion?
It was an accident that I visited this page today, I forgot to remove Pandagon from my tabbed home pages on my laptop (which I have done on my home PC). Clinton Derangement Syndrome in the progressive blogosphere just parrots and extends the reach of the rightwing noise created by the MSM, so I reworked my home pages to eliminate those sites (I was a non-posting visitor for about 2 years, though I am sure Dan will not miss me).
But, might I just say, it does not seem wise to ridicule the Democratic voters who invested in the Clinton campaign, or any other campaign for that matter. The measure of the investment is not in the win or in the media strategists’ salaries. Your efforts here, and in the wider blogosphere, will undermine what the netroots have built (and yes, the netroots have sent money to Clinton and many other “losers” in this election) during the past 5 years. Why create doubts and resentments about how money is spent just because only one presidential candidate in ten becomes the nominee? We need to encourage donations, and more and more donations, regardless of the anticipated outcome in any election contest.
The fact is that Obama was and is to the right of Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and other candidates on many issues that are important to progressives. The money spent on Dodd to forward a liberal message on the meaningfulness of the Constitution was not wasted when he quit the race. The funding that enabled Edwards to spread his liberal message about poverty and class division in the United States was not wasted when he suspended his candidacy. The contributions made to Clinton to forward her liberal message about health care, education, and families has not been wasted because Mark Penn’s company earned $3.8MM in consultation and direct mail fees. Lastly, the tithes donated to Obama’s movement in support of a liberal message on a non-interventionist foreign policy and bi-partisan, postracial social and economic society will not have been wasted if Obama loses to the Republican nominee.
The glee that seems to be sweeping the blogosphere in Clinton’s (and Penn’s) failures to secure the nomination has really changed the tone and nature of your posts in the past few months. If you all are no longer capable of asking what is in the best interest of the Democratic party (and why spreading rightwing noise about Clinton is harmful to our collective agenda interests), you might at least ask yourselves what is in the long-term fiscal and political interests of the progressive netroots. Basically, Amanda and Pam are suggesting that political contributions are like taxes on the rich for social services. If your candidate does not win, the cost of the campaign were “flushed down the toilet” like government waste.
I disagree. We need to keep as many people as possible invested, and investing, in the netroots progressive movement. Our contributions fund messages, not (wo)men or movements. We are trying to change the discourse of American politics so that liberal social and economic policies can once again find a coalition that takes back and rebuilds America. It is a polyglot effort, with many voices (I know, redundant)–that includes Hillary Clinton. Currently, Hillary is the face of universal health care (as she was in the early 1990s). Calling her “inauthentic” does not really forward our agenda in this area.
Please get a grip. Token acknowledgments that you “personally” like Hillary does not really cut it when your writings routinely sacrifice progressive goals, memes, fundraising potential, and discourses in order to forward the candidacy of another politician (and Obama is only a politician, nor more real or authentic than any other). The question of authenticity is understandable, at times, when it is pertinent to the analysis of specific subject (as many of you know on the question of the Iraq War), but making wholesale and sweeping generalizations about the character of our progressive Democratic politicians that has no basis outside of our political or personal animosities only creates self-defeating messages that will fracture (or is fracturing) the netroots.
Au revoir!
One major reason why democrat keep losing in the 90’s was failure to engage the public and party building. The bottom of the party was utterly demoralized because of how top party leader treat them. (ie. Clinton thinks party was nothing more than fiefdom where the peasants must show loyalty by paying dues.)
Of course the Clintons couldn’t give a fucks about party building at the grassroot level. They raise money in record number, they think by controlling mass media, message shaping and statistical analysis they can control the voting plebs. Throw enough money and buy the most sophisticated PR machines, yer in. It was the reagan era politics.
Then comes Dean/net era, where few disgruntled and new breed of politically active voters air out their grouch online and get organize. First in term of idea, then more active. The main theme, again and again is that the top party forgets who the people at the bottom are.
Just remember, Clinton is still partying like it’s 1992. They can get away with it until the eve of super Tuesday. After that, everybody online notice, the swingstate/50+1 vs. 50 states voting pattern. She is screwed. She does her politics like everything that is wrong with democratic party and it shows.
I think Clinton is an introvert, INTJ probably in Myers-Briggs typology. Only 25% of the population is introverts and its even rarer in politics. She faces all the problems introverts face in an extroverted world that doesn’t understand them. Not very good in large group settings unless she’s speaking in her areas of expertise, thinker. She’s reported to be excellent, warm and friendly, in more intimate settings and smaller groups. Introverts are seen to be cold and calculating unless they try to act extroverted as we are so often forced to, then we are often seen as inauthentic. Projection on my part as an extreme introvert? Perhaps, but there are experts in the field that agree with me.
As for her vote for the war, I’ll never understand why obama has gotten so much mileage over his speech and Hillary so much punishment for her vote. Its such a subtle difference to me when each chose the path of political expediency when it was more important. McGovern voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution but later became the most outspoken critic of the war from the senate floor and in speeches around the country at great risk to his career as a politician. His record against the war convinces me he would have been at the side of Sheehan in Crawford. If either of them had taken the politically risky move to speak the antiwar agenda from the senate floor or made a speech with Sheehan in Crawford it might have moved the country enough to see Kerry elected. Neither can claim the title of antiwar candidate in my eyes. Yes, hold Clinton accountable for her vote and give Obama the credit he deserves for his speech and then hold them both accountable for the subsequent years of political expediency where they both did nothing. Obama comes out ahead by a hair but neither have much to be proud of imo.
Of course the Clintons couldn’t give a fucks about party building at the grassroot level. They raise money in record number, they think by controlling mass media, message shaping and statistical analysis they can control the voting plebs. Throw enough money and buy the most sophisticated PR machines, yer in. It was the reagan era politics.
——————————————————–
This is nonsense, you’re simply spewing bile. No one, absolutely no one in any party thinks the voting plebs can be controlled. You think the Clintons and other deeply invested party members were unaware that GB the first won the election after Reagan? Do you think Clinton was unaware that he lost control of congress and never got it back in his 8 years as president not with standing the money thrown and the sophisticated PR machines bought? Do you think they were unaware that Gore lost and Kerry lost and that the plebs were not controllable? Don’t you think if they could they would have brought back the Reagan democrats?
That the party leaders have not persued the wisest strategy to recover from the Iranian hostage crisis and the Reagan realignment that followed is something I’d agree with. But your analysis as to the reasons is, hmm, I’ll just say lacking in insight.
You don’t triangulate a fucking war.
Go ask LBJ how that worked out for him.
Or .. to put it another way …
There is no good way to implement a horrible idea.
These are the millstones that Hillary Clinton decided to wear as pendants for this election.
I believe this is why she is not winning.
It is simply a matter of fact that one of the reasons the netroots came into being as a force to be reckoned with was in order to take power away from the beltway consultants who were laying down the “conventional wisdom” for our representatives about how to vote and what to say instead of asking for our vote and following our lead. The mad rush to vote for the AUMF was a symptom of this.
The Mark Penns of the world are an issue that a lot of grassroots activists take issue with. In fact, it was the knowledge that a lot of these establishment figured would be back in the white house that tipped me vote in favor of Obama.
No one accused him of not being aware. He was accused of not helping deal with the symptoms and not engaging in party building. Your rhetorical questions of whether Clinton was “aware” of what was happening is a strawman that has nothing to do with what Squashed said.oceankat February 22, 2008 at 11:51 pm
No one, absolutely no one in any party thinks the voting plebs can be controlled. You think the Clintons and other deeply invested party members were unaware that GB the first won the election after Reagan? ”
Then they should stop lying and act like voters are dumb. Or at least trying to win something. (which his organization and political method hasn’t achieved except that one presidency.)
But don’t take my word for it. They still believe their old political method is the way to go. And keep losing everywhere. How is that $5m fee doing? How is that top heavy campaign doing? Compared that to Obama’s resource allocation.
Yay Mark Penn.
‘mkay. whatever.
they think by controlling mass media, message shaping and statistical analysis they can control the voting plebs. Throw enough money and buy the most sophisticated PR machines, yer in.
Reagan won 2 terms and the party leaders said throw enough money and we can control the vote of the plebs.
GB won and the party leaders said no worries throw enough money and we can control the vote of the plebs.
Clinton lost control of the congress and laughed because he thought he could throw enough money and control the vote of the plebs.
Gore lost, not a problem because the Clintons thought they could throw enough money and control the vote of the plebs.
Kerry lost but Bill said to Hillary don’t worry. We’ll throw enough money and control the vote of the plebs.
And you think you have made a rational sophisticated analysis of the last 25 years of democratic politics.
This just isn’t worth any more of my time.
Well Tyro you might want to check to see how many establishment figures from the Clinton years are part of Obama’s campaign. And do a little research on the guy who won Mass who shares so many words with Obama and see how well he’s worked out in governing that state. But then I’m just an old cynic with out much hope. I think Obama had a few lines about people like me between change we can believe in and yes we can.
oceankat, I’m glad you were able to get off your chest the things you wanted to say. However, they have little to do with anything the Squashed and I were talking about. Pay attention to what other people are writing, next time, before you fire off a comment.
Oceankat:
here is one. Remember when Clinton was responding to “president should campaign for down ticket” because when the ticket lost it will damage the presidency. It was the media talking point. And Clinton didn’t campaign for down ticket at the hight of his popularity. (or was it right at the Lewisnky scandal)
Here is one to chew on. Right now the Clinton people is lost. Their statistic can’t tell them what is the mood of new democratic voters (they don’t show up in phone poll, but yet they are the most active participant in primary.)
If you just pay attention, you can sense the deep desperation by basic meme tracking and counter spin the clinton people are doing across the net (well, on several key sites)
It’s effing amusing. (you sort of get the sense,… these people doesn’t know how the online community operate. no connection whatsoever. Everything is pure brute force by hired hand. … total chuckle fest and last generation.)
type: ” should not campaign for down ticket”
Uh oh. Hillary is not paying her caterer and office supply store.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00431569/324192/sd/12
The following bills were unpaid as of 12/31/07, and were still unpaid as of 1/31/08. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but is illunstrative of the people and entities being stiffed by the Clinton campaign.
Vendor Amount Description
All Iowa Agricultural Assoc., $990.00 Catering/Venue
Cinema Technology Services $5153.23 Equipment
City Of Peosta, IA $600.00 Catering/Venue
Dennis Dean Catering $4250.00 Catering/Venue
Hellenic Orthodox Comm. … $800.00 Catering/Venue
Heritage Trust $630.00 Catering/Venue
Iowa Falls. Comm. Sch.Dist. $640.00 Catering/Venue
Martha Clara Vinyards $1027.15 Catering/Venue
Michael Hensley Rental … $854.00 Equipment
Mo. Vall. Comm. Sch. Dist. $900.00 Catering/Venue
Muscatine Comm. Sch. Dist. $805.81 Catering/Venue
North Iowa Fair Assoc. $1000.00 Catering/Venue
Sale & Pepe Fine Foods … $2492.63 Catering/Venue
Town of Peterborough $750.00 Catering/Venue
YWCA of Machester $650.00 Catering/Venue
Tyro, It what way do you think my suggestion you look at the Clinton establishment figures in Obama’s campaign in response to, “it was the knowledge that a lot of these establishment figured would be back in the white house that tipped me vote in favor of Obama” is illustrative of my lack of attention to what you posted?
I try to keep my comments short which really isn’t my style. Right on or way off the mark I tend to be exhastive in my analysis since I find these subjects to be incredibly complex and I hate simplistic answers to complex questions. But I’ve already posted quite a bit in this thread and I don’t want to make this comment section my personal blog. But you have attacked me twice calling my comments strawmen not referencing your comments and not paying attention. So I’ll give you the response you seem to desire.
You seem to feel that your comments and Squashed’s are supporting each other while I think they are two different takes on some similar and different issues with similarities just on the edges. I didn’t get into most of your post because I didn’t want to begin another conversation on seperate issues.
I agree that there has been substancial amounts of discussion about the right wing of the democratic party, their successes in moving the party to the right and the many party members who have taken their advice. And also that the netroots with its general lift wing slant has attempted to counter that trend meeting with both successes and failures. At least within that context I agree with your statements about the consultants laying down conventional wisdom
I totally disagree that there was a “mad rush” to vote for the AUMf or that the consultants laying down conventional wisdom had much effect. That’s a subject much too difficult to get into here but let’s at least look at the democratic vote. The AUMF lost in the house 126 to 81 and barely passed in the senate 29 to 21. That hardly seems like a “mad rush to vote for the AUMF” nor an indication of some overwhelming power of beltway consultants.
I find the idea that the netroots has become a force to be reckoned with somewhat extravagant. We have swayed a few contests, raised a bit of money, enough that the power brokers have noticed us. The radicals of the 60’s were a force to be reckoned with and they organized quite well with words on paper. They made sweeping and fundamental changes in America because they were willing to stand up to police batons, attack dogs, and fire houses. A black man and a women as the final competitors for the democratic nomination is just one of the many fruits of their labors. I’m not patting myself on the back as I say that. I was too young in the 60’s and early 70’s to take part in any of those protests. But until the netroots finds a way to organize substancial amounts of people off their asses and away from their computer screens into demands for change on specific issues out on the streets the netroots will never be a force to be reckoned with. I’m happy to say that there have been some small indications that that is beginning to happen.
I’ll stand by my suggestion that you look at who is working in Obama’s campaign to address your second paragraph. Each campaign has a sufficient amount of Clinton establishment figures and more than enough pollsters and media consultants. You may believe the netroots has won this election for Obama but I have little doubt that Axelrod thinks he’s won it for him. The amount of money he charges in subsequent campaigns will surely reflect that belief.
At any rate I think that’s enough. Agree or not but don’t accuse me of strawman agruments or of ignoring your posts
The net root raises money. Several small house races are already on the map, while presidential race have been made competitive against any money machine since Kerry.
One only need to see facebook or youtube to see what people are doing online, nevermind various other more precise net indicators (not gonna help Clinton campaign sorry. Go pay your expensive consultant to figure them out.)
Hey, you can always pay viral marketing consultant. bahahahaa…..
How is that NYTimes article helping Hillary shaping public perception?
This is not good.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clintons_client.html
A new chapter to the Hillary’s biography, and one that cuts sharply against a central part of her image: That she’s spent her whole career fighting for children:
[T]here is a little-known episode Clinton doesn’t mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.
[snip]
[Clinton’s] account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to aNewsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.
Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out “older men” like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed “Hillary D. Rodham” in compact cursive.
Clinton’s aides point out, accurately, that she was bound to present her indigent client the best defense available, which she did: He was able to plead down to a much lesser offense.
But read the whole story. Thrush reconstructs the crime, Clinton’s role as a legal “bulldog,” and her defense through court and police documents, and interviews a range of parties, including the alleged victim.