For the life of me I just don’t understand the thinking inside the Clinton campaign (and insided the heads of surrogates). Strong supporters of Clinton — please clue me in; I don’t know how the following developments make any sense in terms of political strategy that’s helpful to the candidate:
* Bill and Hillary continuing to promote the idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket with her at the top when she’s behind in delegate count;
* Promoting the idea of Obama as VP after spending time and money on ads to convince voters he’s not ready to answer the 3 AM phone call - why would she want someone she’s declared unqualified on the ticket?
* The assertion by Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson that somehow Obama could cross the imaginary 3AM-ready “threshhold” that Hillary has by the convention and thus be qualified for the VP slot.
More after the jump.
* And the latest misfire - Geraldine Ferraro, 1984 VP nominee, claiming Obama has only gotten as far as he has because he is black.
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.That one is pretty breathtaking on several levels, considering her selection as VP was most certainly due in part to the fact she is a woman.
In any case, using this particular line of thinking…
* If Clinton were a black man, Hillary would have been told to drop out of the race after losing 11 contests in a row, after all, John Edwards had to get out after losing only 3.
* If Obama were white, as it has already been noted elsewhere, he’d already be the nominee, because it’s pretty clear that while there are blacks voting for him because of his race, there are certain demographic groups who didn’t vote for him because he’s black, and those are the Reagan Democrats that Hillary is chasing.
In any case, since he’s biracial, does that factor into Ferraro’s deluded thinking? What would happen, for instance, if Obama were not visibly identifiable as black (as in, he could pass), but identified as such — does that make any difference in perceived advantage? It’s crazy-making. DHinMI at DKos:
It’s not a fringe belief. It’s at the heart of the belief system of the so-called Reagan Democrats—swing voters and even some Democrats who were cradle Democrats but defected to Reagan and have been up for grabs in most elections since 1992.I suppose Obama has an advantage of some kind because his race has placed a target on his back by organized hate groups. Who wants that advantage?Some of these Reagan Democrats will hear Ferraro’s comment, and they’ll think about the job they didn’t get because, they believe, it went to an affirmative action hire. They’ll think about the guy promoted over them because, they believe, he’s black. And they’ll think “here we go again.”
Believing African-Americans are affording unfair advantages certainly isn’t a belief that prevents people from voting Democratic. In 2006, for instance, Michigan Democrats picked up offices and a weak Democratic governor won reelection, but at the same time 40% of Democrats voted to ban race from being a factor in state government hiring or university admissions.
One can give Ferraro the benefit of the doubt, and assume that her comment was just a “slip of the tongue.” One can assume that the wife of Bill Clinton—the man from Hope known for his passionate desire to bring about racial reconciliation in America—would never hope to benefit from racist envy and distrust.
I know there are a lot of white people who believe that blacks have some kind of advantage (and I hear from them on occasion, for those willing to step on the third rail), but somehow these folks choose not to see the incredible mountain of institutional and social white privilege that exists. The denial is deep; I mean really, would these folks like to trade places, to wake up and live as a black person for a month to put these perceived advantages in daily life to a test? To make it more interesting in this “post-racial world,” have them live in a town with few minorities, perhaps one of those classic Reagan Democrat towns or a heartland neighborhood in Sally Kern’s or Steve King’s districts.
All of my professional life I’ve had to bear the burden of being “the first” (black woman) in so many of my jobs — the world of publishing has always had a dearth of minorities — and trust me, it’s no fun. I was — and am — always aware that my performance could, fairly or unfairly, be a standard to prejudge other POC that would follow me in ways white job candidates don’t have to worry about in competing for a position. I think many affirmative action efforts while laudable, should place additional focus not just on race (or any other oppressed minority or gender), and on socioeconomic opportunity. After all, a poor black kid who is achieving in spite of crap schools is certainly more disadvantaged than a child of upper middle class black parents, but they are often given the same weight if race is all that matters in that program.
Anyway, it’s an interesting topic in the abstract — the backlash effect of affirmative action (on whites and blacks), that is discussed in detail in Randall L. Kennedy’s Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal, a book I did a Firedoglake salon for last month, but living it, as we can see, results in yet another aspect of the third rail of race that few people are willing to put themselves out there to discuss their fears and issues with it openly.
Lobbing this grenade about so carelessly, as Ferraro did, does zero to help the party, let alone her preferred candidate.
***
Even former Clinton adviser and weasly consultant/columnist Dick Morris said last week that the continuing charade needs to come to an end.
Will Hillary win Pennsylvania? Who cares? Even if she were to sweep the remaining primaries and caucuses by 10 points, she would move just 60 votes closer to Obama’s total of elected delegates. And she won’t sweep them all. Even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania, the largest prize up for grabs, Obama will probably win North Carolina, which is almost as large. He’s likely to win Mississippi and Wyoming and has a good shot in Oregon and Indiana. The most likely result of these coming contests is that Obama will be roughly where he is now, about 140 elected delegates ahead of Hillary.And about the superdelegates?Suppose that Hillary will carry those states by enough to offset Obama’s delegate lead. The proportional representation system makes a knockout impossible and so mutes relatively narrow victories as to make them almost inconsequential.
Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates? No way. They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.I’m really trying to step back and look at this just based on the information at hand and exclude all the emotional sway due to the unique nature of this race.
If we change the names of these candidates to anonymize them without anything that might cue you to race or gender — oh hell, just make them two white guys since that’s all we’ve ever had has president — and you had one candidate, John Doe with an insurmountable delegate lead (but not enough to win), and the other, James Smith, who is running a fairly close second, but cannot win either without swaying superdelegates to go his way — you’d have Gary Hart and Walter Mondale all over again.
Gary Hart, in fact, weighed in on this mess last week. Sigh.
95 Responses to “Has the Clinton team gone stark raving mad?”
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>
Perhaps their first choice just imploded in a prostitution scandal?
I was wondering about that “possible VP choice” thing. Not only is Clinton NOT nominated AND behind in the delegate count, she’s ruining any chances she has of being VP.
and since when does some paid hack get to decide who is and isn’t qualified to be president? I think we have a process going on right now. Just because East coast politicians are fundamentally allergic to plebecites doesn’t mean that the process set up by and heavily weighted toward their very own corrupt establishment gets to make these decisions on their own!
BTW, while we are stereotyping, Ferraro is a BAD MOTHER because her adult son did drugs.
So there!
Clinton’s campaign tactics have gotten so bizarre. I went on a bit of a tirade against her methods after she made those positive comments about McCain while painting Obama as unqualified. I started to question whether the Clinton campaign was acting out of desperation (which was what I originally thought) or out of ruthless ambition. The VP talk was transparent and somewhat comical.
The writing has been on the wall for some time that this is the year for Obama. Instead of accepting that and bowing out, she’s resorted to “I want to win, to hell with my party” tactics. She could be shooting herself in the foot for the next time around.
You forgot this gem:
For some reason, the MSM has mostly ignored this utterly amazing statement, but in a campaign she’s basing on “experience,” she just told y’all to vote for John McCain before Barack Obama!
As nearly as I can see, Mrs Clinton has decided — perhaps subconsciously — that if she can’t win the presidency, then no Democrat can be allowed to win it. If I were going to put some sort of rathional thinking behind that, I’d say she’s thinking that if Mr Obama wins the presidency, she can’t run again until 2016, while if Mr McCain wins, she can run in 2012, but I don’t know if there’s really considered options behind such a scorched earth campaign as much as sheer rage that she’s not being handed the position she believes she is so obviously owed.
As for the “Obama as Vice President meme,” it’s just another ploy, one for which I doubt he’d fall, even if Mrs Clinton won every remaining contest. He’s too polite to say it, but she’s basically offered him the position of “house Negro.”
Ms Kate: Because of a constitutional provision, which states that the electors may not vote for both a president and vice president from their home state, it is impractical for a party to nominate a presidential and vice presidential candidate from the same state.
Said in jest Dana, said in jest. I’m well aware it isn’t allowed, otherwise she’d be wooing Bloomberg.
A few things:
I actually sort of think Clinton was trying to signal to Obama that she was willing to be his Veep. It’s sort of like, if she mentions him as a potential veep, then maybe he’ll consider her if/when she runs. But then they got pressed on the issue, and couldn’t very well fess up to that, and so it all went to hell.
But I also think there is this very deeply ingrained idea that Obama will not win. I’ve noticed this in the media, and even talking to friends who are also supporters (as I am), there’s this really subtle, but really stubborn, idea that no matter how well Obama does, Clinton will win in the end. I think it’s partly his race, partly his age, but I also think there’s this sense that he’s just too good to be true. Rude Pundit riffed on this beautifully.
The other thing I think going on is that, again, the Clinton campaign is showing that they are not aware this campaign is being waged in the 21st century. In the olden days, these sorts of things would be seen very much as “inside baseball.” Might raise some eyebrows among the “insiders” but wouldn’t affect the masses, except maybe as a trickle-down effect. But now everyone can hear and see this stuff, on the political blogs or on cable news, and it’s so much more important to be careful with your message, even on “insider-y” stuff like veep picks. Obama’s campaign gets this.
Oh, and as for Dick Morris: as much as I’d like to believe his opinion is held by many of his ilk, he’s proven himself to be such a Hillary-hater that I don’t know if his analysis can be trusted. That’s one frustrating thing this cycle, even for an Obama fan. I want to believe every pro-Obama piece of analysis, but so many pundits are colored by their intense dislike for Hillary, I feel like I have to take eeverything with a truckload of salt.
The “Obama as VP” meme is based on the Clintons’ belief that Hillary is owed the nomination, and that she will get it, eventually, by hook or by crook.
So offering the VP to Obama is a way to get to her nomination quicker. If Barack says, “Great, I’ll be your VP,” then the process is over with.
Safe within their bubble, the Clintons still think that Hillary has to get that nomination, and that Barack must know that. It’s the conventional wisdom, after all.
When reality seeps in a little, they just get angry and hate and bile spill out. The most recent crap was enough to turn my mom and her friends off of Hillary for good.
Go Obama! Yes we can!
I’m still trying to figure out exactly what Obama’s supposed to have done wrong here:
Apparently Obama is supposed to maintain Colbertian levels of color-blindness, and it’s dirty politics to “get chummy with the voters in language he thinks will work”…?
(But of course, it’s perfectly fine when white Clinton supporters use the same “racial language” to claim Obama is “bamboozling” the American voter, and the “Jesse Jackson” comment from Bill Clinton is Obama’s fault too.)
No, look, you don’t understand…When an upper-class white woman wants something, she’s entitled to it, and anyone who’s getting in her way is a tool of the patriarchy, the Bush Administration, getting by because he’s black, an al Qaeda Manchurian Candidate, or God only knows what else. The point is, he’s in the way of her H3 Hummer’s path to the nomination, and he needs to be stopped. Go back to stocking arugula at Whole Foods, where you belong, Barack.
Okay, so I try really, really hard not to be really, really angry at the sense of entitlement that I see in rich white people, but things like the Clinton campaign make that virtually impossible. I am firmly convinced that the only reason that her level of vitriol and underhanded campaigning is considered a sign of strength or legitimate tactics is because it’s a white person talking about a black person, period.
If the situations were reversed, and a black candidate were to attack a candidate who was a rich white woman with a fraction of Senator Clinton’s vitriol, it would be “The Birth of The Nation” all over again and there would not only be more media calls for him to cease his tactics, stand down from his candidacy, but the party would have intervened by now to shut him down.
It’s just truly astounding to me how much Senator Clinton is able to get away with.
Idiocy.
Clinton saying she would consider Obama as a veep if she is nominated. It was an olive branch invinting him to respond in kind, not saying he would ask her necessarily but that he would consider. With so many saying their “dream ticket” is Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama, that would have been the smart, grown up, professional thing to do. Insisting it is an insult just makes Obama look childish, oblivious and very green.
Not to mention this, which coopts Invisible Man to claim that white baby-boomer women are “invisible” (yeah, just like American Christians are persecuted), and this, where commenters jump all over the “back of the bus” metaphor.
No, look, you don’t understand…When an upper-class white woman wants something, she’s entitled to it, and anyone who’s getting in her way is a tool of the patriarchy, the Bush Administration, getting by because he’s black, an al Qaeda Manchurian Candidate, or God only knows what else. The point is, he’s in the way of her H3 Hummer’s path to the nomination, and he needs to be stopped. Go back to stocking arugula at Whole Foods, where you belong, Barack.
Okay, so I try really, really hard not to be really, really angry at the sense of entitlement that I see in rich white people, but things like the Clinton campaign make that virtually impossible. I am firmly convinced that the only reason that her level of vitriol and underhanded campaigning is considered a sign of strength or legitimate tactics is because it’s a white person talking about a black person, period.
If the situations were reversed, and a black candidate were to attack a candidate who was a rich white woman with a fraction of Senator Clinton’s vitriol, it would be “The Birth of The Nation” all over again and there would not only be more media calls for him to cease his tactics, stand down from his candidacy, but the party would have intervened by now to shut him down.
It’s just truly astounding to me how much Senator Clinton is able to get away with.
Helen, you are drinking some fine kool-aid there.
Kare to share?
I don’t see an olive branch. I think it is a cynical ploy to swing undecided voters or voters who like them both equally into voting for her by suggesting — with absolutely no obligation — that they can vote for her guilt-free and she might bring him on board as veep.
I suspect Clinton figures that if Obama ends up with (as expected) a clear majority of the pledged delegates, then the superdelegates will feel obliged to make him at least the VP candidate. So a Clinton/Obama ticket might be her only reasonable hope at being the Dem’s candidate, and all this chatter is trying to set that up.
Remember that both Gore and (especially) Cheney were/are extraordinarily powerful vice-presidents for the modern period, and that in the past the VP was viewed as almost ceremonial unless something happened to the president (think Dan Quayle or, for that matter, G.H.W. Bush). So if Obama was Clinton’s V.P., she could basically ignore him once in office, and there’s no doubt he’d be a major asset on the campaign trail in the general election.
Yeah, I’ll vote for Clinton if she wins. But man, she is seriously causing me to dislike her. Didn’t think she could do that.
For some reason, the MSM has mostly ignored this utterly amazing statement, but in a campaign she’s basing on “experience,” she just told y’all to vote for John McCain before Barack Obama!
She sure did.
That’s damn near unforgivable, as far as I’m concerned. More than that, it’s unbelievably stupid. I haven’t been all that impressed with her “experience” argument, but that’s because I don’t consider experience to be paramount in deciding who to vote for. I do, however, consider judgment to be crucial, and for the last several weeks Clinton has shown that hers is lacking.
We really are watching the Democrats very slowly, very painfully, very stupidly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
If FDR had run this kind of campaign, the Republicans would have achieved their rich man’s “paradise” 76-years ago. 1984 would have described America, not Britain.
Offering Obama the VP slot IS insulting, and Clinton expecting to be offered the same is just plain arrogant.
The Democrats should close ranks around Obama and start going after the REAL target - chronic Reichwing misrule and incompetence.
Instead, they go after each other, and the survivor enters the general campaign needlessly weakened and more vulnerable than ever to vicious Reichwing attacks…
If this shit keeps up, we might as well sign the country over to the Bush Dy-Nasty and get it over with. There’s only about 50 of them just waiting for their chance to bend America over. If they just go in alphabetic order, we can have the American Bourbon’s for the next several centuries…
Moderation is our friend,
Moderation is our friend,
Moderation is our friend,
la la la la la…
I’ve reached the point were if Hillary does get the nomination the only reason I would vote for her is the Supreme Court nominations. Otherwise, I’d sit this one out for the first time in my life.
If the way her campaign is being run is any sign of how she’d run the country, the Presidency wouldn’t be in much better hands than it is now.
What was it Chris Rock said to a mostly white audience?- something like “not one of you would trade places with me… and I’m rich! ‘Maybe I’ll just ride this white thing out & see where it takes me.’” Back in January I was discussing this with a couple of other white women, all from lowerish to working-middle-class backgrounds, all with degrees, and all southerners, and we agreed that we were lucky to be white females even with the many slights and dangers, given that choice. That’s pretty sad, and Ferraro’s full of shit as far as I’m concerned.
Well, if he has a vacation home in another state, perhaps he could change his residency like part-time Wyoming resident Dick Cheney did.
He’d be nuts to do it, since Bill would be the de facto VP (and as I often say, would even take all the best funerals), and I really can’t think of too many pols whose close association with the Clintons did much for their credibility. Gore came out well, but IMO that was mostly due to his clear struggle with their political operation and his courage once free of them and other constraints of political office.
There is some very sound peer-reviewed research* that shows that when white men do not get the best or desired outcome in a situation, and a woman or racial minority does, they ASSUME the woman/minority was not more qualified than they, so it was obviously because of their racial/female status. This can be overcome by giving clear information that the other person was indeed better qualified. But what is so telling is that the white males (but not other groups) in these studies react exactly the same way when they have NO information on qualifications as when the have clear information that the minority/female person was less qualified but got the position anyway. They have this HUGE assumption that they are obviously “better” and really need in-your-face evidence to ever acknowledge that may not be the case.
Now, think about jobs you have not gotten. How often did you know the real qualifications of the person who did get it? Their education and previous experience, what their references said about them, professional affiliations and service and such? REAL information, not rumor and assumption? Such information is very rarely known to unsuccessful job cadidates. So we have essentially the “no-information” condition in the studies described above, and the white men assume they were actually better qualified, so obviously the successful candidate got the job because of their race or sex.
This is why I am extremely skeptical of anyone who maintains they didn’t get a job because it had to go to a minority instead. And I will challenge them — “do you know FOR A FACT that that person was less qualified than you?” Of course, they usually do not (and “for a fact” does not include what so-and-so who is your best friend who works there told you over a beer; they likely have the same biases and lack of info you do).
I’m sure it happens sometimes, but it is hardly the massively-widespread “reverse discrimination” so many of these guys think is going on. That belief is a direct result of their totally-unsupported assumptions about ability levels of women/minorities.
How that affects presidential voting choices in this case, I can’t really say, but I wanted to throw the research out there.
*I’m at work, can’t take time to dig up too much, but here’s one I could find easily:
Information as a deterrent against sex discrimination: The effects of applicant sex and information type on preliminary employment decisions. Heilman, Madeline E.; Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, Vol 33(2), Apr 1984. pp. 174-186.
I think it’s a good move on Hill’s part; she looks confident and gracious about reaching out a hand, while BO looks petulant for slapping it away. If he’d said “I’d rather she would be MY VP.” then he would have looked cool and the story would have gone away. As it is, she looks like the one who’s advocating party unity, and he’s the one demanding “My way or the high way.”
Flame away; I’m wearing my abestos jammies.
You know… I think I’m starting to understand this whole thing.
You have two candidates who are amazing in their own fashion, but amazing in different ways.
No wonder people have a bitter, angry “it’s not fair!” feeling when their favored candidate isn’t making it.
But I wish they would recognize that, while it’s not fair in a cosmic sense, there’s really no other way it could be, given the circumstances, and stop digging for reasons that the other candidate is horrible for stealing the clean victory for their favored one.
Ah yes, the “Obama got through life because of affirmative action” BS again.
Here’s a hint: Once you actually get into Harvard Law, the grading scale is colorblind. And Obama MADE REVIEW PRESIDENT, on that colorblind measure of his academic ability against his competitors.
(Of course, beyond that, anti-affirmative action people use that colorblind grading scale to argue that a “mismatch effect” causes black students to get into elite law schools over their heads and hurts them, ignoring how it’s almost ALWAYS better to place mediocre at an elite law school than very high at a lesser law school. I especially like the “affirmative action causes lower bar pass rates” argument; you don’t become dumber by going to a better law school.)
I have no desire to flame you, Blue Jean, I think that you are falling prey to two very American errors:
(1) the belief that a force two apology (or gesture of reconciliation) can and should automatically wipe away a force ten insult;
(2) the belief that somebody who quite properly refuses to accept an apology that is almost as insulting as the original insult automatically has the churl label transferred to them.
Sorry, but such assumptions are not facilitators of good manners, as you erroneously believe, but they are quite the contrary: a reward system for ill-mannered swine linked to a punishment system for those who refuse to meekly submit to denigration.
I’m continuously amazed by some people’s response to pretty harmless behaviour by the Clintons. Like this VP thing that seems, after reading the links, be concocted out of a perfectly reasonable answer to a question (though since no one directly quotes Clinton on the Obama as VP issue, it’s difficult to tell).
As for Geraldine Ferraro’s comment, I can see where she’s coming from, since I’ve seen so many supporters of his do the “post-racial” song and dance, that he’ll move beyond the “identity politics” that is the supposed bread and butter of the Democratic party as a Great Uniter kind of figure. It will be interesting to see the reaction of *those* voterrs when they realise that Obama is still a black man.
But I agree her comments were rather lacking in nuance and she should definitely take some more time to explain herself when saying something like that.
Blue Jean, to the two added above I would add another (which is less American and more North American):
(3) the rudest thing that you can do is call somebody out on their rudeness.
Say, any chance she makes up the delegate deficit? Didn’t think so.
But I agree her comments were rather lacking in nuance and she should definitely take some more time to explain herself when saying something like that.
Perhaps spend some time to put on blackface makeup so she can say it is all a joke later?
I think it’s a good move on Hill’s part; she looks confident and gracious about reaching out a hand, while BO looks petulant for slapping it away.
Just like she looked soooo confident and gracious stating that McCain is a better candidate than Obama, and he just seems petulant and immature for thinking that he’s the frontrunner. How dare he!
Why on earth would Obama want to offer Clinton the position of his VP? To give validity to her claim that she’s ready to take on the presidency? To look polite because she “offered” it to him first? Oh swell, then he’d look like he was manipulated into selecting his VP! And he’d be stuck with Hillary Clinton as a running mate and what would she bring to the table? Other than the loathing and contempt of the entire Republican party and a sizable chunk of the Democratic party?
Her “offer” was insulting and manipulative and I think Obama is right to reveal it for what it is.
There’s also Hillary’s reinventing history:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
Aw, isn’t that sweet? Not only was she hanging with Bill, she made peace in Ireland. Serbia, same thing.
What a piece of work she is. Complete lunatic.
And then there’s this, regarding Serbia and Kosovo:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1720720,00.html
And here’s the Clinton campaign’s recently released photo of HRC breaking down the Berlin Wall!
http://supergirl.astraldream.net/panels/Supergirl%20and%20Team%20Luthor%20-%20Pin%20Up%204.jpg
My thinking is that neither O/C nor C/O is a “dream ticket.”
It’s not a dream ticket because (1) their strengths don’t compliment each other, (2) their styles are divergent (Obama is more a consensus builder, Clinton is more a damn the torpedos full speed ahead type), and (3) one’s strengths do not reach over the other’s weak areas.
It’s just not a good idea no matter which one gets the nod - they don’t have the makings of a good team.
I hope neither falls for the concept.
Excusem moi, but I believe she’s only a hundred or so delegates behind right now. Y’all might not like it, but she represents half the Dem party, the half that could stay home or vote for McCain, since McOld doesn’t seem bent on telling them to “fuck off and die” like the other half.
Soo…by calling Hillary rude, you are ipso facto ruder than she is? Got it.
It’s like Clinton took all the ridiculous Reichwing criticisms of her for the last 15-years and decided to just embrace them.
Is the power, prestige, and ego-stroking one gets from being POTUS worth selling your soul for?…
It’s politics people. No punches HRC has thrown are anything like what he’s going to experience from the GOP.
He has to learn to fight back - which is difficult to do given his whole theme is he’s a uniter and above this kind of thing.
But the voting public likes toughness and likes a fighter. Enormously qualified people lose the general because in trying to stay above the fray, they are perceived as weak, (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) while village idiots win the WH by maintaining an illusion of toughness.
For Gods sake see MoDo yesterday with the
“effette and vaguely foriegn” bit if you want an example of how this can happen again as it happened before.
BO needs to find a way to fight and still maintain his image. That’s not easy.
It’s politics people. No punches HRC has thrown are anything like what he’s going to experience from the GOP.
He has to learn to fight back - which is difficult to do given his whole theme is he’s a uniter and above this kind of thing.
But the voting public likes toughness and likes a fighter. Enormously qualified people lose the general because in trying to stay above the fray, they are perceived as weak, (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) while village idiots win the WH by maintaining an illusion of toughness.
For Gods sake see MoDo yesterday with the
“effette and vaguely foriegn” bit if you want an example of how this can happen again as it happened before.
BO needs to find a way to fight and still maintain his image. That’s not easy.
It’s politics people. No punches HRC has thrown are anything like what he’s going to experience from the GOP.
He has to learn to fight back - which is difficult to do given his whole theme is he’s a uniter and above this kind of thing.
But the voting public likes toughness and likes a fighter. Enormously qualified people lose the general because in trying to stay above the fray, they are perceived as weak, (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) while village idiots win the WH by maintaining an illusion of toughness.
For Gods sake see MoDo yesterday with the
“effette and vaguely foriegn” bit if you want an example of how this can happen again as it happened before.
BO needs to find a way to fight and still maintain his image. That’s not easy.
Ms. Kate, I think she was pointing to a completely different thing than to what you are referring: not that Obama is there because of affirmative action or anything, but that his campaign can be seen as being more uniting.
Sort of like.. let’s see, what kind of comparisons do people usually use.. Nixon opening trade with China or a woman winning an election because she’s running as a conservative.
It’s politics people. No punches HRC has thrown are anything like what he’s going to experience from the GOP.
He has to learn to fight back - which is difficult to do given his whole theme is he’s a uniter and above this kind of thing.
But the voting public likes toughness and likes a fighter. Enormously qualified people lose the general because in trying to stay above the fray, they are perceived as weak, (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) while village idiots win the WH by maintaining an illusion of toughness.
For Gods sake see MoDo yesterday with the
“effette and vaguely foriegn” bit if you want an example of how this can happen again as it happened before.
BO needs to find a way to fight and still maintain his image. That’s not easy.
It’s politics people. No punches HRC has thrown are anything like what he’s going to experience from the GOP.
He has to learn to fight back - which is difficult to do given his whole theme is he’s a uniter and above this kind of thing.
But the voting public likes toughness and likes a fighter. Enormously qualified people lose the general because in trying to stay above the fray, they are perceived as weak, (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) while village idiots win the WH by maintaining an illusion of toughness.
For Gods sake see MoDo yesterday with the
“effette and vaguely foriegn” bit if you want an example of how this can happen again as it happened before.
BO needs to find a way to fight and still maintain his image. That’s not easy.
Yup, there it is. I was waiting for that. That threat seems to be coming out quite often amongst Clinton supporters.
Sorry the dupes people. Damn browser refresh!
sekker, I’d believe it more if she were wearing a pantsuit…
and damn my really cold fingers- can’t type ANYTHING.
I think we are looking at desperation. “Vote for me even though you like Obama because he will still be on the ticket.” “he isn’t qualified to be president but under my wing, he will be ready… in 8 years.”
BadKitty, as I’ve mentioned before on this comment space, that while I think anyone who says such a thing is an untrustworthy voter anyway, I’ve seen it a lot more from Obama supporters. And in fact, it’s on parade in this discussion as well, where people hint quite blatantly at not wanting to vote for Clinton because she’s a horrible, horrible person.
I’ll be 100% behind whoever gets the nomination, personally, and I don’t blame Obama for media coverage I don’t agree with. It’s politics, people, if you’re going to get disillusioned so quickly, don’t pretend to be a Democrat between elections.
Dunno about POTUS, but apparently it’s worth it as a politician’s wife!
Gah!! All this crap, from the Clinton camp and from supporters of BOTH camps, who cannot be civil in their discussions of the other’s strengths and weaknesses just scares me so so much. I want the primary to be over NOW NOW NOW because I’m afraid by the time it is done we’ll have two factions of democrats who hate each other so much that they can’t win in November. Badkitty, you referred to the expressed fear that people whose candidate isn’t the nominee will stay home as a “threat” as if there was nothing realistic to fear there. I’ve spent years watching the democratic party shoot itself in the foot and be bested by vile evil rethuglicans, so I don’t think the fear is unjustified. We have GOT to manage to get through this primary without ending up hating each other, people!
Word Anders.
HRC supporters are much more likely to be dyed-wool Dems. They’ll vote for the nominee, and down-ticket blues too.
BO supporters much more likely to be younger, passionate (and we need that) new-to-polictics, and I don’t see them supporting HRC as easily.
People have been saying this all along, but if you look at Obama’s poll numbers, he’s steadily trending upward with his “above the fray” approach. He responds calmly and with truth, and it works. His numbers took a brief hit with the NAFTAgate (most of which has been debunked now), but he’s back up to pre-Ohio numbers now, and the trend line is still in his favor.
His campaign is working just fine, and he’s still pulling in votes and delegates (super and otherwise). The only people who really want to see the mudslinging are the media, who make money off mud, and political junkies, who just get off on it. (I confess, I’m probably in that latter category.) Oh, and the Clinton campaign would love to see some mud, too.
Obama has run one of the smartest, most effective campaigns ever, and it’s fun to watch it confuse and confound “conventional wisdom” and old-school politics.
Mr Ess wrote:
Meaning: we were right all along!
I really can’t see either candidate being willing to settle for vice president, because it’s a bad move, though a worse one for Mrs Clinton, due to her age. Whoever takes the VP nomination will not be able to run for president until 2016 if the ticket wins, and would then be facing either trying to follow a two-term presidency from the same party, which usually doesn’t work, or was defeated for re-election in 2012, and has to face an incumbent Republican president, also a poor idea.
Whichever candidate would have to settle for the second slot would be better off just staying in the Senate.
His campaign is riding on his personality, with few specifics. Personality is less appealing to older white working voters which make up a lot of the base he needs. His campaign lost a bunch of mo with just a couple of days of slightly negative press. I am far from convinced that he can stand up to the extreme negative mud slinging that’s going to happen in earnest should he get the nom.
Certainly hope he can.
smott wrote:
Actually, other than the potential Tony Rezko fallout, I don’t think John McCain could throw worse punches.
Mrs Clinton has been using the “experience” card, even though she doesn’t have more experience than Mr Obama does; John McCain could use that far more justifiably. Mrs Clinton can’t really hammer Mr Obama on the issues, because they simply aren’t that far apart on anything; Mr McCain can use issue differentiation, but we’d all agree that is fair. Mr McCain won’t use the race card, because the Clintons already did, and it didn’t work. (Besides, the GOP doesn’t have to do it; the professional media are so unimaginative that they’ll do it for us!)
This is Clinton spin. He has plenty of specifics. Just go to his website. He doesn’t bring up his specifics in his stump speeches because those are about inspiring, not wonkishness. He trusts his supporters enough to get to the specifics themselves, and he brings up specifics as needed on the campaign trail. Do any serious reading at all about him, and you soon realize he’s plenty thoughtful and understands policy.
There’s also been no real need to get into specifics in the primary because he and Clinton don’t diverge much on basic policy. The general election will afford much greater opportunity for policy differences, and we’ll see much more then. The more important difference in the primary has been the ability to bring fresh energy into the party.
Of course, the media doesn’t report the specifics because that would require, you know, *work* on their part. Also, critical thinking and analysis, and we all know how that goes over with the networks.
Well, Dana, there’s always slander (e.g. Swift Boating).
Dana, since Obama has made so much of his platform that a vote for him is a vote away from “Washington As Usual”, I just cannot see how he could select Clinton as VP. It would be disingenuous on his part and a huge error.
Actually I have been to both their websites. His is great if you like “click here to read the speech”.
I’m a wonk and I like specifics. They diverge considerably on Soc Security and his health care plan is (in my mind as a cancer survivor) a whole lot less inspiring than hers.
I think white people just don’t see their advantages because they don’t often get a taste of the otehr side.
I went to an IHOP in Macon with my sister and brother recently. We were literally the only white people in the packed restaurant and we got plenty of curious/nasty looks from the other clientele. My siblings were visibly uneasy, but I just shrugged and smiled and thought “Well, this must be what it’s like to be black and walk into about 80% of the places you go into”.
And as you noted above, this is politics, not a coffee-shop reading of white papers. Wonks certainly have their place in politics, mostly as a validity check, but voters are needed to win elections, after all, and few enjoy poring over endless .pdfs written in Techocratsese.
Or as a somewhat less obsessive political watcher than myself said recently, after I explained the healthcare mandate debate, “so she’s ready on day one to enact healthcare legislation from the executive branch?” At least some non-wonks have taken civics classes.
Sheesh, I had a similar experince when my mother came down from Maine to stay with us in Baltimore for a few days years ago. She had been south of New England once in her life; I had been living and working in Balto for 5 or 6 years by then.
The “highlight” of the visit was when driving her around and she said something about “feeling like an Oreo cookie!” I always knew my father was a racist but never knew my mother was equally so until that point. It’s hard to love your parents and dislike so much about them at the same time…
Nobody said anyone was going to enact legislation on Day One and of course that’s the rub, whether or not they can actually do it.
But if there’s a chance of anything actually getting passed in to law, I still prefer her plan to his.
Listen they’re both playing to their strengths, hers are more wonkishness, his is speechifying. I happen to like hearing plans better than hearing speeches.
I don’t understand this “their strengths don’t cover their weakness” meme. Her strength is she’s an experienced pitbull, his is that he’s inspiringing and eloquent idealist. She would be a GREAT VP, she would attack the Republicans, and he would be the idealist in the front.
Oh, and by the by, I’ve heard just as many Obama supporters say that they’ll stay home just as much as I’ve heard Clinton supports say they’ll stay home if the other gets the VP, so yes, it is legitimate to point out that we don’t want a fractored party if we want to be the Republicans.
(All of this spoken as a nuetral party: I voted for Kuccinich, I’m riding the fence between the two of them).
Maybe it’s a more appealing plan, but I decided long ago not to support her in the primaries in part because a) she has too many enemies to actually be all that effective when fronting the party, and b) her history strongly suggests that she’s a political coward whose own survival is her top priority (above policy, principle, loyalty, etc.) anyway. You could say it’s a character issue.
I don’t know that I need to hear too many specifics from a candidate. I used to eat that stuff up, but now I think style and character count for more. You know what they say about the best laid plans. Real life has a way of screwing up plans. I’d rather have someone who will be flexible and do as much as possible instead of getting lost by too strong a commitment to a srict agenda.
I agree that unity of the Democratic party is crucial; so stop trying to kneecap each other.
The long knives come out, and John McCain smiles and smiles.
Antigone -
It’s a meme?
I’ve discussed it only with my partner, and she doesn’t read blogs at all. Her assessment, with which I agree, comes through observation of what the candidates themselves say, as well as from being a manager herself and how, when hiring persons to fill assistant roles, she needs to find people people who are good managers and also whose strengths fill the gaps in her weaknesses in order to make for a strong team.
She doesn’t see how Clinton’s strengths cover Obama’s weaknesses to make for a strong team, nor does she see how Obama’s strengths cover Clinton’s weaknesses to make for a strong team. That’s all.
I’d really like to read information to the contrary, showing that O/C or C/O would make a strong team but so far I haven’t come across much to convince me, either from the candidates themselves or from various observers, that my partner’s observation is incorrect.
[And note that I do not think any less of either Clinton or Obama for this. There are just some good managers that would not not be as good when paired with other good managers.]
But I don’t know from memes there.
Actually, other than the potential Tony Rezko fallout, I don’t think John McCain could throw worse punches.
Oh? You think the GOP is going to restrict its attacks only to Obama’s political life? Get real. They will go after anyone and anyone even vaguely associated with him. They will push-poll and spread rumors and lies and distortions before anyone has a chance to catch up with them. And almost none of it will come directly from McCain himself, so his hands will be clean. Obama has no idea what he’s in for. No idea.
I’ve said it before: Clinton is tickling Obama with a feather duster compared to what the GOP will pull on him. I don’t like Clinton’s tactics either, but let’s face it, if he can’t handle the Clintons, he shouldn’t be the nominee.
if he can’t handle the Clintons, he shouldn’t be the nominee.
I think he’s handling them quite well, unless you are wedded to certain ideas of politics that pertain north of age 50, east of Ohio, and north of the Mason-Dixon.
He is, after all, the front runner.
By the way, an alternate view on Hillary Clinton, Northern Ireland, and Lord Trimble’s depiction of her as “silly” or active only in a “woman politicky sort of way” from a commentary at the Women’s Media Center. http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/031008.html
Try 150+, if we’re going by elected delegates. And she’s not doing much to make her case to potential superdelegates with Geraldine Ferraro flying off the handle.
It goes both ways. You’re theatening Obama supporters that you’ll stay home if Clinton loses?
How many black voters and youth voters do you think are going to show up if Hillary is nominated only by the will of the party elites, despite losing at the polls?
I had forgotten this Margaret Carlson quote (July 6, 2006), but it’s an apt one these days:
courtesy of FireDoglake
http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/23/late-nite-fdl-obama-suggests-his-supporters-wont-vote-for-hillary/
Barack Obama:
“OBAMA: I think there is no doubt that [Hillary Clinton] has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates, that’s just a fact. And there are some who will not vote for her. I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?”
Hillary
“As soon as we have a nominee, we will be strongly united because the most important thing is to put a Democrat in the white house starting in January 2009. ”
Give people enough rope, that’s what I always said.
I have an honest question, seriously. If Obama weren’t black, and weren’t as charismatic would you people honestly care what he did? Would he have even gotten as far as he did? I don’t think so, but hey thats just my opinion. To be perfectly honest it’s Obama’s history, or lack there of that sort of turns me off him and even moreso his supporters who become more like the unwavering mass of Ron Paulites as time wears on.
I am keeping my comics squarely on McCain.
But I do want to point out that when smot says “They’re both playing to their strengths” I don’t think playing the race card is Clinton’s strength. I do think being a good wonk is, but she’s not being a good wonk. She’s race baiting.
I heard on Countdown that this latest race-based attack is an appeal to the Pennsylvania electorate. I do know more than a few Clinton supporters who are regretting their vote for her because of the cheap game she’s going for with Pennsylvania.
That’s unfortunate because those voters are now feeling they’ve been played for fools. After all, if Clinton does get the nomination, staying home and letting McCain win is not an option, and they’re loyal and won’t let that happen.
At the same time, Clinton sure won’t get contributions from those people, or get ground game support.
Ferraro made the same comment about Jesse Jackson in 1988
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html
In a conversation I had with my husband a few days ago I suggested that the “kitchen sink” tactics that teh Clintons and their proxies are using may actaully keep Obama from becoming her VP or campaigning for her should she get the nod. That because of the tone and racism if he were to do so he would be open to charges of being an “Uncle Tom” and it would damage him now and in the future.
I can’t see how he can help her now if she get’s the nomination
This is an interesting read
Does the Democratic Party want my vote?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/11/203345/338/340/474601
Thank you MikeEss - I’ve been saying that for days, if not weeks, now.
Thank you MikeEss - I’ve been saying that for days, if not weeks, now.
And that why she feels she can do this shtuff with impunity.
Yes the Republicans will hit Obama with worse. Thinking he can’t stand up to it is absurd, his been trained in it all his life. But it’s that fact tha Hillary has been hitting him this way, and giving ammon to the Republcians is what makes Hillary’s *and her proxies) attacks much worse.
I feel that Obama has not responded to Hillary as he would a Republican because they are in the same party. He probably is following the rule:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/breaking-the-final-rule_b_90420.html
Nor is she likely to get it from Obama supports who will vote for her but do nothing else
Good links and points, clytemnestra…
But one point made to me that I’d like to share- there are folks stepping up to the podium and gabbing in support of Clinton, including Ferraro. (WOW, what a mess she is…) But-
Where are the heavy hitters for Obama? We know they exist, but why aren’t they standing up, voicing their support loudly, and laying into the Clintons (or now, Ferraro)? We see Obama handling it well by himself- but it does make me wonder what sort of support he’ll get later on.
Or, as a newly minted member of the Dem party, am I seeing the Democrats taking the “safer route” and waiting until Obama’s won the nod? If that’s the case, no WONDER they’ve been labelled as spineless. Fuck.
I think Senator Clinton’s goal is simply to irreparably damage Obama in the minds of white voters so badly that even if he wins the nom, he won’t win the general election.
I don’t know what she and her camp are thinking either. But whatever it is, it is not productive. She is starting to really make me angry.
Soopermouse, if only Clinton would actually walk that talk and enforce it in her team through solid leadership.
Please note the McCain-related quotes, above. These seem to indicate that she is a creature of immediate expedience, not firm conviction in this matter. She will say it when it is expedient to do so, but run entirely counter to it when she thinks it serves her purposes. Either she has no control over her team, campaign, and consultants on this matter or she chooses to let them continue to play “me first” politics as if all will be later forgiven.
Being the age that I am and raised where I was raised, I don’t consider that acceptable. It seems to be standard operating procedure in MA, CT, and NY, but I don’t like it and Obama is riding on the votes of a slew of others who don’t like it either.
whoops, the Clinton quote from Soopermouse was cut off:
Again, it is a nice quote - but read down this thread and you will find plenty of referenced statements where Clinton directly contradicts this statement - unless, of course, she assumes that SHE will be the nominee and that will make it all okay.
Ms Kate, I was floating the idea to spouse last night that if FL/MI aren’t allowed to be put into the Clinton column “as are”, we’ll see the idea of litigation to make it so come from her camp.
Okay…why isn’t there more of shit storm surrounding her response…
“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” she told the (Torrance, California) Daily Breeze. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”
WTF???
I think Ferraro was a token who needs to prove once and for all that she is a token. Either that, or she only succeeded in politics by negelecting her family to the point that her kids got seriously druggy.
I mean, if you trade in stereotypes, ya gotta expect some blowback here! (never mind that her husband wasn’t exactly present, either)
Boy, are HRC and BO tickled Spitzer announced that he is resigning on Monday today so neither has to continue to tip-toe around Geraldine’s continued rantings… plenty of schaudenfraude for the media and pundits right there.
I know I’m a little late on this thread, but might she be appealing to voters/delegates who are on the fence by giving them a non-choice choice. If they vote for Clinton, they are assured (by her VP comments) that they can have both Clinton and Obama. It does seem appealing for those of us who like both candidate. Plus, there is no way for Clinton to remain in the race and also say she’d be willing to just be VP. It’s not a good campaign strategy (assuming she can close the delegate gap).