I was going to do the same thing, but I was dissuaded by the memory of the bottle I was going to bring to Copley square in November 2004. (I kept that bottle until the 2006 elections.)
Celebrating with a bottle of old grand-dad Kentucky bourbon whiskey. BTW - John McCaine's speech is sucking.
Not much suspense to the presidential primary anymore, but I'll be keeping an eye on the congressional races here. This post gives a (very) basic overview of the situation in the race for Domenici's Senate seat, but it doesn't emphasize that all three candidates in that race are current members of the House who are giving up their seats there for a shot at the Senate. They are, in fact, the entire NM congressional delegation, and all of their seats are up for grabs, with contested primaries on both sides for all of them. Should be interesting to see what happens.
You mean to celebrate in case Unfogged came back online?
That makes sense, but why would everyone else be doing the same?
NBC declares Obama winner. It's kind of silly watching them try to fit the primary election into their template of coverage for a usual election.
Poor Montana. So close to finally mattering.
Knew not y'all were down, a side effect of occasionality.
Holy shit, did anyone watch McCain? He looks like a wax statue that someone animated.
Chris Matthews lost it hours ago, drunk on himself for hours now.
MSNBC just cut McCaine's speech off to announce Obama the presumptive nominee.
12: great, thanks MSNBC. Give the whingenuts some more ammunition, won't you?
McCaine
This is an interesting idea. A war-mongering but charming cockney launches an improbable bid for President, with his campaign team traveling the country in a fleet of Mini Coopers.
I am going to celebrate upon arriving home by making an experimental drink: the Little Five Points. In short, a Manhattan using Southern Comfort.
Will the severed hand get him or Superman?
ManPants -- I was in the liquor store debating Southern Comfort vs Old Grand-dad and though I am a Southerner myself, thought SC would be a bad idea tonight.
Hey drunk husband, log on so we can talk about buying a house already.
The state stores have a sale on big bottles of Jim Beam this month - with packets of beef jerky attached.
If I were still single, I'd probably live on that for the month.
I'm afraid Rah and I did for all our bourbon this weekend when we had a couple of friends over for drinks. SoCo is all we have left; that's OK, though, it's what I drank on election night 2006 and that turned out pretty well. Hell, it's the same bottle.
I had a bottle of wine last night on accident. So no more for me.
Do real people drink Southern Comfort? I thought that was only for teenage girls, and the dates that plan to take advantage of their inebriation. http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures251_html.htm
Hmm. A trip to the liquor store for purposes of toasting, and perhaps getting toasted? Not a bad idea. I wonder what Bill Clinton will be drinking tonight.
||
Balfour seems like an inauspicious name for a pitcher.
|>
Celebrate away, but I think things could get uglier.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton told colleagues Tuesday she would consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket.
26: That's the other reason I'm not celebrating. It's not over until she concedes, and who knows who will be disenfranchised or turn out to be black in the next month.
24: I have no idea where that preposition came from.
I was actually questioning the sense rather than the phrasing.
26 and 28: I dread the possibility of her being on the ticket. It sounds like she won South Dakota.
Balfour seems like an inauspicious name for a pitcher.
Well, Offerman (Oh for man) hits OK. http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/offerjo01.shtml
I have to admit that there was a period when I thought that MrBitchPhd was a phony, because the real Mr. B would go as "Mr. B."
Congratulations. Party hearty. whatever. Bye.
bob is just envious of the carefree excitement which none of the commenters here are expressing.
34: Sadly, I couldn't talk him into changing his name, because he's a feminist.
Teri Garr rocks my world http://video.aol.com/partner/cbs/star-trek-the-original-series-assignment-earth/JvHY5w85n8TFOWJ_MPNmaCt_2XjagMf4
39:Without even clicking on the link, I see that MrBphd has a profound respect for tradition and most excellent taste. I am very impressed.
Robert Lansing was always way cool too.
NM results are starting to come in. Pearce is beating Wilson by a margin of 65% so far. These results are mostly from the conservative eastern plains counties, so their predictive value is limited.
MrBitchPhd is a man after my own heart. I'm sure you have the tape of Teri showering for David Letterman.
True, enough Mr. BitchPhD. I surely don't.
Fuck Hillary Clinton and her "Yes We Will" supporters.
On accident?
I thought this was deliberate, capturing that frame of mind where you do something slightly irresponsible but fun by way of semi-consciously not switching on one's higher brain centers in case they veto things. Like accidentally-on-purpose, only better.
Well, after watching her speech just now, we can all be certain she will not be VP.
She's basically saying that she won.
Actually, not just that she won, but that she is the one who can carry the swing states that are necessary, etc.
Oh, ugh.
Fuck Hillary Clinton and her "Yes We Will" supporters.
Like Fatman says, I envy you the carefree excitement you are not expressing here.
What?? I am multi-tasking, but didn't she just say she isn't making any decisions tonigt?
I am thinking that this speech shows the best side of her, and that having made it very clear in the beginning that the goal now is to support the Dems, period, she's being quite gracious.
No she didn't. She just said, on my teevee, "I will be making no decisions tonight!" And everyone screamed. And she wants everyone to go to her website and "give her advice."
Mr. B, don't fuck with those of us without cable. What's really happening? NYT and CNN.com are useless.
I apologize in advance for dragging shit down to this level, but I think she looks great.
By saying she is not making decisions' she open the door to getting out. She hasn't even cracked that door before this moment, she is paving the way for an exit. Otherwise, if she was serious about taking it to the convention, she'd have said damn the torpedoes instead of setting no course at this time. Hence, she just conceded.
By saying she is not making decisions' she open the door to getting out. She hasn't even cracked that door before this moment, she is paving the way for an exit. Otherwise, if she was serious about taking it to the convention, she'd have said damn the torpedoes instead of setting no course at this time. Hence, she just conceded.
Her speech was broadcast on NPR.
No one in a nomination race this close has ever dropped out so far before the convention. Conclusion: Hillary is the most noble and generous losing candidate in the history of American politics. Some here seem unable to see that.
Tina Turner playing now...hey, she was beaten by a black guy too!
39: Shit, I don't have 50 minutes to fart around.
Where was this this afternoon, when Unfogged failed us all?
And she wants everyone to go to her website and "give her advice cash money."
Mr. B, are you posting using Safari? I've had double posts when I used Safari to post here instead of Firefox.
59: I was too busy listening to the Pirates lose 2-0 to a team on a 5 game losing streak.
Score runs, losers!
60.last: Whoa.
a Manhattan using Southern Comfort.
The BAR(N), adjunct to Flatbush Farm restaurant, makes something like this that they call the Brooklyn. It's yummy.
she was beaten by a black guy too
Now that's some funny sexism.
I am thinking that this speech shows the best side of her, and that having made it very clear in the beginning that the goal now is to support the Dems, period, she's being quite gracious.
You don't believe the theory that she and/or her people think Obama has a 0% chance of winning in November?
She didn't drop out.
They are claiming now on the teevee that this event was held in a 3-floors-below street level sub-basement with no wireless or cell phone service so that the people there would not know that Obama had already been named the presumptive nominee.
They are also claiming that McAuliffe introduced her as the "next president."
69 which teevee station is claiming that?
Also, B, I wanted to say that I have felt sort of shitty all day about stirring up the battle posts today at your place. Probably not the most opportune moment. I get so punchy when I am thinking about air travel.
I always predicted Hillary would drop out before mid-June. Some doubted me, but my faith in her fundamental decency allowed me to foresee the future with astounding accuracy. She's good stuff.
The Tom Petty thing is unfortunate, though.
There's Hillary's smoking hot Middle Eastern personal assistant. Let's see more of her!
Dearest Bostonian,
No, I quit using Safari months ago. I'm on Firefox. Just a couple of finger bounces upon clicking "post".
Oudemia, I love you, but 69 sounds crazy.
Of course, if it's true - holy shit, that's crazy!
68: No. I believe the theory that she's a mean campaigner, and that as soon as her campaign is over, she will shift into whatever mode is appropriate.
My next prediction: Hillary will campaign hard for Obama.
MSNBC.
I was sort of annoyed that Clinton said in her speech that "South Dakota has had the last word in this election!" when, of course, polls hadn't closed in Montana yet.
You don't believe the theory that she and/or her people think Obama has a 0% chance of winning in November?
I don't. I think they believe any Dem--inc. Ted Kennedy in his current condition--will win. I think that's what the majority of Obama superdelegates think, too. Which is why the Dem nomination is so valuable, and why she can burn as many bridges as are available as long as it might reasonably bring her the win: if she gets the nomination, she'll win, and everyone in the party will bow to power as they always have and will.
She's not giving up her hopes for the golden ticket. She'll just have to hope for something to happen between now and the convention.
There's Hillary's smoking hot Middle Eastern personal assistant. Let's see more of her!
Screen shot, please?
I must say, the best thing about the whole HRC clusterfuck of a campaign was stated on TAPPED like 6 months ago: HRC has elevated dozens of women to positions far beyond what most [male] candidates make available. Even a decently-balanced campaign like Obama's still ghetto-izes women in predictable, low-level positions, but HRC (according to the piece - this is all second-hand, of course, and not meant to be inflammatory) put a lot of women in solid positions from which they'll be able to build more solid careers.
I know the top level is dominated by old male hacks like McAuliffe and Davis, but (assuming the reporter was right) it's a great thing to have 50 (or whatever) newly-minted "experienced campaigners" who are women, not just the same ol' boys' network.
She came so damn close. If her organization hadn't sucked so badly and basically given up all the February caucuses, she would have won the nomination and I think almost certainly the Presidency.
B, what the hell is going on in CA? If you're voting today, what was all that Feb 5 nonsense? Some sort of fake election to trick the immigrants?
70: Don't be silly. "Marie" is a total troll, and people are feeling all wound up. It'll be fine. I'm immensely grateful to you for posting as much as you do, you have no idea.
If her organization hadn't sucked so badly and basically given up all the February caucuses, she would have won the nomination
Ahem. War vote.
Fist Bump!
Obamas: Down with the Gente!
79: come on, Donna Brazile ran the Gore campaign, and I think there have been other women campaign managers. Mary Matalin was almost at that level for the Republicans. There are lots of powerful behind-the-scenes women in DC.
Tapped:
The message: She's not quitting. She's not calling Obama the nominee. As she said to an elated New York crowd, "This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decisions tonight. ... I want to hear from you, I hope you'll go to my website. ... In the coming days I will be consulting with Party leaders and supporters to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our Party and our country guiding my way."
79: I'd heard that, too, and that is definitely a plus for Clinton and her campaign. Still, woulda helped if they'd had someone who knew that the primaries weren't like the general, because there were caucuses.
83: right, she definitely would have won if she'd voted the right way on the war. But that war vote was I think essential to her character (over-cautious), she couldn't have avoided it. Even with the war vote, though, if she'd just run a competent and well prepared campaign in January and February she would have taken it. That's the so close part.
CA, like NJ, voted in primaries for congress and senate. Not prez.
I hope PGD and Bitchphd is right.
This long nominating process has been great for registering voters as Democrats and building up local party operations while Republicans feel no urgency to do so. Everyone overlooks that.
But it will all be for naught if the nominee is still being torn down by members of his/her own party in September.
81: They split the primary so we could vote early in the primaries. Today was the 'second half' of the primary. In which one voted for such things as Representative and a couple judges and a couple bad propositions.
Obama speeches. Tune in now if not yet tuned in.
Huh. Obama is saying really nice things about Hillary. I know it's calculated, but it's still kind of sweet.
Even with the war vote, though, if she'd just run a competent and well prepared campaign in January and February she would have taken it.
I've come to doubt that after reading the GQ article (or post) on Vilsack that someone recently linked. In any case, it's hard to know how it would have gone down: as many people noted earlier in the year, it was almost as if the voters wanted them both to stay in.
His calculatedness is kind of sweet, but her sweetness is coldly calculated.
85: A few high profile women is no substitute for the hundreds of low profile, but highly-experienced men that are generated every cycle.
You don't see institutional change from occasional, exceptional people; you see it when the leadership ranks are heavily seeded with new/different people.
I wonder (idly) whether an Obama Presidency will result in a really large number of new African-American leadership types, or whether his "post-racial" image will mean a comparable number to what's become the bipartisan norm. The more exciting possibility from him, of course, is the elevation of community organizer types into positions of power - a real culture shift, potentially.
The only way California elections could get better would be to add primaries for the initiatives.
"SHALL the AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT. TAX CREDITS. INITIATIVE STATUTE be on the ballot, or SHALL the AIR QUALITY. TAX CREDITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE be on the ballot?"
His calculatedness is kind of sweet, but her sweetness is coldly calculated.
They're both very calculated, they're politicians. He's just more charismatic. Especially to our demographic. When Hillary finally found her charisma, it was a sort of stubbornly defiant lower-middle-class sort of charisma. Obama soars.
"I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine." Zing! He's good.
Obama pivoted beautifully to the attack on McCain. He's just so good, gonna be a pleasure to watch him work over the next five months. More of a pleasure than Hillary would have been, I have to say.
A few high profile women is no substitute for the hundreds of low profile, but highly-experienced men that are generated every cycle.
The thing is, the relationship between politicians and their advisors and assistants is an intimate, 24-hour one. And good advisors are often quite self-effacing and sacrifice themselves for the politician in the spotlight. Lots of male politicians like women in that kind of position with them, and lots of women are good at that kind of self-effacing work. So I think there are a fair number of female high-level staffers.
do-over?
"100 to the sweet days of yore"
This is very generic Democratic rhetoric -- I can imagine big chunks of this in a Hillary stump speech -- but that's great. The public wants a generic Democrat desparately right now. They understand that the Republicans are the party of the rich, and they're pissed off about it.
Nice pivot to the clean politics theme, which is both good in its own right and the correct political move for him.
Giant Subtext: JOHN MCCAIN IS INESTIMABLY OLD.
I thought he set a good tone for the speech: not dismissive of Clinton, but definitely acting as though he knows he's the nominee, they know he's the nominee, and doesn't it suck to be McCain....
I thought he said awfully nice things about Hillary. At this point I'd take her as veep pretty cheerfully, if she wants it.
The campaign cancelled the part where Michelle gets up there and gets the crowd to chant "down with Whitey!" I think they're responding to the rumours and criticism about that. Moving to the mainstream for the general election.
But you can bet she'll be doing that before the SOTU if he gets elected.
His calculatedness is kind of sweet, but her sweetness is coldly calculated.
You tryin' to be analytic, sociologer?
105: This is very generic Democratic rhetoric
Checking in without having read much of what went before, but yeah: the switch from his treatment of the primary, the state of the Dem. party -- all of which was rather brilliant -- to policy differences between Obama and McCain was really noticeable.
Also, they've stopped using "Fuck Tha Police" as the post-speech music. He's trying to hide his true colors.
You tryin' to be analytic, sociologer?
Nah, see 93 for context. I love me some charistmatic leadership, but let's not get carried away.
At this point I'd take her as veep pretty cheerfully, if she wants it.
Oh hells no.
Congrats to Mrs. Gonerill, by the way. I squeeed a happy little 'squee!' for her.
I'm still envious of the carefree jouissance, needless to say. I only wish I could be so footloose and fancy-free...
Hillary really rocked the pants suit, though, and in more colours than the rainbow, not to mention a diverse assortment of fabrics. And then Yves St Laurents had to up and die just yesterday or so (allowing for the necessary transatlantic adjustments, of course)! A portent for real, and let there be no mistake. Which only goes goes she must have been Lady Macbeth along, 'Out Damned [De]Spot' and etc.
I don't think she's a good veep choice, just because they both seem to be taking the party in different directions (as opposed to two candidates playing the same game, with one losing.)
I don't think she's a good veep choice, just because they both seem to be taking the party in different directions (as opposed to two candidates playing the same game, with one losing.)
I don't think she's a good choice either, but they're taking the party in pretty much exactly the same direction policy-wise. You have to be a serious expert to tell the difference between their stated policy agendas.
New York Times headline: "Obama Claims Nomination; First Black to Lead a Major Party Ticket".
Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, reductive? And when did we stop calling them "negroes"?
118: I don't either, but I don't think she's a terrible choice, and if she wants it and her people want her to have it, and it'll get them on board, hey, whatever.
15,000 people outside the stadium? Holy crap.
I wasn't talking policy. I was talking in terms of what they see as the electoral map, who their coalitions are, etc. Policy-wise, they're not different enough to have problems as a team.
Hillary's right-hand woman:
http://niralimagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/abedin.jpg
All I'm saying is that if HRC becomes the VP, get used to seeing lots of nastygrams from "a source close to the White House familiar with these conversations who requested anonymity because the internal deliberations of the President and his staff are supposed to be off the fucking record already dammit."
I've been convinced all along that there was no chance of an Obama/Clinton ticket, but I'm beginning to come around on that; I could see him playing a Lincoln-style keep-your-rivals-close strategy and picking her. I wouldn't be happy about it, though. Maybe if her husband were sent into exile.
123.---God, that's a beautiful dress. Covet covet covet.
124: eh so she doesn't get to go to the meetings. Remember, outside of Cheney the VP has typically had as much influence over national policy as (to quote my cob loggist) the mayor of Spokane.
Yeah but the mayor of Spokane's name is Karl Rove.
Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, reductive?
Totally. I think I'd have been only slightly less taken aback if they'd written "First Colored." In November, can we look forward to "The Ethiope Elected"?
Covet covet covet.
I had the same thought, but you can have the dress.
outside of Cheney the VP has typically had as much influence over national policy as (to quote my cob loggist) the mayor of Spokane
And inside Cheney, it's too dark to govern. Any more cheap quickies I can do for you all?
126: That is a beautiful dress, but... uh, was this a fashion feature about politicians?
HRC as VP -- eh, we've been around this block. It's up to her to be gracious and all-supportive at this point; we can't afford in the general for her supporters to be disaffected. The Vanity Fair thing about Bill is a little problematic with respect to independents.
Then, in the general, it's a question of whether anybody's willing to sling the mud that's required at McCain. (He called his wife a trollop and a c--t! That carries more weight with a lot of people than accusing him of flip-flopping.)
All told, I'd be okay with an HRC VP slot.
Remember, outside of Cheney the VP has typically had as much influence over national policy as (to quote my cob loggist) the mayor of Spokane.
That certainly wasn't true for Gore, who was a serious player in the Clinton administration. Okay, maybe Obama could keep Clinton to the receptions- and supermarket-openings-circuit, but jesus, she's already been First Lady once: I'd be astonished if she didn't make access to meetings and some policy responsibility a resquisite to signing on as number two.
Ari when'd you learn to troll like that?
I'm (sniff) so proud of you.
I'd be astonished if she didn't make access to meetings and some policy responsibility a resquisite to signing on as number two.
And her leverage would be what, exactly?
Ari when'd you learn to troll like that?
Right around the time you suggested that Ogged ban me as some kind of karmic sacrifice. I realized then that this place is dog eat dog. Also, you're missing a comma above -- loser. (Shit's gonna be ruthless from now on.)
And her leverage would be what, exactly?
She could threaten to be Bob Barr's VP.
She hasn't agreed to stop being a giant pain in the ass yet. That's her leverage.
139: look I would have suggested myself but nobody would have taken me seriously.
I'd be astonished if she didn't make access to meetings and some policy responsibility a resquisite to signing on as number two.
And this would be absolutely horrifying beyond belief how?
If Bill conveniently died naturally with a team of doctors and forensic pathologists right there on the spot verifying that he was really dead and had died naturally with no suspicion of foul play, an Obama - Hillary ticket would work. But I don't know how you'd manage to get all those doctors and forensic pathologists together at the right time without rousing suspicions among the black helicopter crowd.
142: if you do that, I'm voting for Apo.
If she's the VP, I'm voting for Ari.
RON DELLUMS
"I humbly accept the Lur Party nomination and promise a stand mixer in every pot."
Even with the war vote, though, if she'd just run a competent and well prepared campaign in January and February she would have taken it.
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. If she'd done better, she'd have done better.
At this point I'd take her as veep pretty cheerfully, if she wants it
If she's the VP, I'm writing in Eugene Debs, punching out my local canvassing board and Burning Shit Down.
Seriously: no more Clintons. Primary the motherfucker.
Wooo! Now that's something I can get behind. (I love the longevity of the stand mixer thing.) Except I think I should be elected instead.
It's remarkable how long the horse-race period has stretched out this year. I've actually liked it more than the other nominating seasons I can remember.
Tonight I bumped into a clinician friend and got an earful about the irreversible, ongoing effects of trauma on people who survived civil war as children. All I could think of was how we're going to stop the next wave from being created.
I'm still so angry at HRC over the war that I can hardly see straight. Yes, she's done a lot that I admire and appreciate on a lot of levels, but good !^$&($^!$%& God.
she definitely would have won if she'd voted the right way on the war. But that war vote was I think essential to her character (over-cautious), she couldn't have avoided it.
Hillary Clinton definitely would've won the nomination if only she weren't Hillary Clinton.
123: I don't know if we want a VP candidate who is getting advice every day from Salman Rushdie's ex-wife. As if it wasn't bad enough having an apostate who must be assassinated for the glory of the so-called "Allah".
I assume this-all is what's going on behind the scenes. She's insinuating that this could go hard or this could go easy, you know what I mean; Obama is saying, you know, I really respect you, while sending go-the-fuck-away signals; party officials are variously trying to sound out how dead-set-against Obama/HRC Obama is and trying to persuade her to give up already and play nice. I assume that someone has pointed out to HRC that after Samson pulls down the temple around him to get his revenge, the story rather abruptly ends whereas she would have to go on and be a pariah in the Senate.
Yes, she's done a lot that I admire and appreciate on a lot of levels
Such as?
151: I thought you said you weren't drinking tonight.
Strasmangelo is definitely not a troll, but he is definitely trying to bait this thread into an uproar of bad vibes.
Such as?
Plan B, for one. She could have ignored that while FDA officials kept on resigning over it, but she didn't.
I'm not! Me drunk is a lot more self-monitored.
Also, she didn't lose; he won. He ran the best campaign a Democrat has run since, god, I don't even know. Seriously, can you imagine another candidate dealing with the Wright stuff and still winning. Plus, he managed to survive Michelle's problems with white people. Not to mention the voter registration, fundraising, and GOTV. It's simply unbelievable that he won. And yes, it helped that her campaign sucked (Viva Mark Penn!).
Plan B, for one.
Plan B happened without Hillary Clinton. What exactly happened that was good that wouldn't have happened if Hillary Clinton wasn't in politics?
Jessica, we generally expect trolls to bring baked goods. Spammers are asked not to bring food at all, and certainly not comments.
Can we make a list of Hillary people to go to the hog farm yet? Mark Penn goes first. Who's second?
She's insinuating that this could go hard or this could go easy,
Maybe so, maybe so. I understand you.
I am worried about winning the general election. I can't decide whether she'd be an asset toward the votes of those who might otherwise stay home or vote for McCain; or whether another VP candidate would suffice. I prefer to think in those terms, in any case.
Terry McAuliffe and Lanny Davis. Everyone else gets probation, I think.
I listened to the speech on the radio. Plenty of chances to take the high road, but instead she's asking her supporters to beg her to fight on to Denver. If they do -- and enough will -- she'll say that she can't play nice and break faith with the 18 million people who voted for her.
I think if I were Obama, I could be talked into Clinton as VP only if her husband could be shipped off to an island for the next eight years.
And her leverage would be what, exactly?
The Clinton machine Obama would have let live: donors, policy people already in place, his policy people, her campaign people, his campaign people as some shift over. If he does it, he does it, but I just can't imagine.
McAuliffe third. Not mostly for the campaign. Mostly for everything else he's ever done.
The lovely subcontinental lady is safe. w-lfs-n will be released to Ben's custody. I'm unsure about Carville. The fact that he's one from Cheney every day of the week gives me the creeps.
NM-SEN
(54%)
Pearce
51%
Wilson
49%
whoa.
all I know about Wilson is she has been mocked ad infinitum on the Howard Stern show for her groundbreakingly moralizing "You knew" speech.
Stras, it's my understanding that Hillary throwing her weight behind a hold on the FDA guy's confirmation was a factor in getting them to get off the fence about making Plan B over-the-counter.
In general I don't buy "without whom" arguments for anyone in politics -- there is precious little that happened ONLY because one single individual made it happen.
Another thing that I admire and appreciate is that she has put herself forward as an elected official. In general I think it's a good and important thing to have more women as elected officials, and I think it has far-ranging although intangible effects on our ability to imagine and react to future candidates.
173 is right. He's trying to build a new party apparatus*. You can't do that with the Clintons just down the hall.
* Perhaps this is scary. I don't know. Or care right now.
172: see 145. I would not trust Bill on Elba.
175: That is hilarious. How did her political career survive that?
Strasmangelo is definitely not a troll, but he is definitely trying to bait this thread into an uproar of bad vibes.
You bet your ass I am. I've said from the very beginning that my hatred for both of the Clintons predates their behavior during this primary and their status as obstacles on Obama's path to the nomination. They've been incredibly destructive influences in American politics, and it's a good thing that their reputation is in the dumpster right now. I'd like everyone to hold onto their bad vibes for Bill and Hillary Clinton, and maybe even bother to learn about what went on during Bill Clinton's administration - about the way he gutted habeas corpus, initiated the program of torture outsourcing that Bush would later expand, gutted welfare, increased mandatory minimum sentences and presided over the largest increase in the prison population of any president in centuries. That these people are seen as anything but monsters is pathetic.
If Napoleon, a man who usually wooed with cannons, managed to persuade his way off Elba, no way that Bill Clinton couldn't.
Thanks strasmangelo. Be assured that our anger has been rekindled. Your work has been done.
166: No, we need Mark Penn to lead them there. His vast incompetence can still be an asset to us.
He didn't need to persuade, he was ruler there, "Emperor of Elba," a sort of political Prospero. On St. Helena he was a prisoner.
I can't decide whether she'd be an asset toward the votes of those who might otherwise stay home or vote for McCain;
There are other well-qualified white politicians in the Democratic party; other well-qualified white female politicians, even. She brings a lot of baggage and no apparent benefit that can't be found elsewhere.
initiated the program of torture outsourcing that Bush would later expand
If Napoleon, a man who usually wooed with cannons, managed to persuade his way off Elba, no way that Bill Clinton couldn't
For Bill, Diego Garcia.
Someone at Pandagon just suggested "Chocolate City" as Obama's theme song for the general. That would lock up Apo's vote, for sure.
185: Aha, just set up Bill to fill that role on South Padre Island.
McCain apparently came out to the Indiana Jones and the Battle of the Paunch theme.
181: don't forget the clipper chip, the fact that he institutionalized the cavalier attitude towards amoral profit-seeking pioneered in the Reagan era, caved on gays in the military, signed NAFTA, actively abetted the creation of anti-democratic international organizations like the WTO, ceded the high ground to the republicans at every turn, fucked up Universal Health care for the better part of two decades at a minimum, and blew nearly every other chance he had of doing something good to make some time with an intern.
Still and all, I don't think he was that bad. Certainly not compared to GWB or Reagan.
Someone at Pandagon just suggested "Chocolate City" as Obama's theme song for the general. That would lock up Apo's vote, for sure.
The Emperor of Elba was not supposed to leave Elba, however. Napoleon managed to talk the guards into abetting his return to France.
"Hillary? Bill stopped by to visit, and I warned him not to walk through the hog yard, but you know how he is about being told what to do. Anyway, you can run for VP now."
There aren't very many islands left where an Emperor would have a lot of real power. Sealand, maybe. Or one of those tax havens --- but they're all made up of multiple islands.
If Hillary Clinton is the VP, I'm voting for arugula. Wait, I think I fucked that up...
Hillary for VP talk? I thought it was accepted conventional wisdom that A) Obama wouldn't wan tthat and B) Hillary wouldn't want that. It would be a bad move for both of them.
||
I just made a quick remix of LB's kids' piano duet. Here. Made with one of these things.
=>
195: I used to know a guy who did IT on Sealand. A rusting oil platform full of black-trenchcoat nerds, no women, and automatic weapons: oh what a libertarian paradise it be!
What exactly happened that was good that wouldn't have happened if Hillary Clinton wasn't in politics?
Hillary is love. Love. You can't put a price on that.
200: at the time, I suspect it would have been OpenBSD, or possibly Linux.
Yeah but the mayor of Spokane's name is Karl Rove.
Mary Verner, actually. Sounds like an interesting person.
He ran the best campaign a Democrat has run since, god, I don't even know.
I haven't been as involved with the campaign as others, but I did go to the RBC meeting on Saturday and I was struck by the smarts and discipline of the Obama organizers: they told us to dress up and just wear an Obama pin and not to boo even when Ickes "reserved the right" to have the party cannibalize itself in Denver. That's the part of his campaign that, I think, gets undersold: the combination of idealism with competence.
203: indeed. But her greatest achievement is that delicious ginger soda.
203: since that post originally went up, there has been a lot of turmoil in that post, and the current office-holder is, indeed, interesting and quite possibly very good for the city. Probably not fair to lump her in with Dick "THEGREATEVILLIVINGWITHINTHEEARTH" Cheney.
199
So he was either gay or an information technology professional?
NM-SEN
(54%)
Pearce
51%
Wilson
49%
Sounds like every other race she's ever run. God, I hope she loses this one.
186: She brings a lot of baggage and no apparent benefit that can't be found elsewhere.
She brings god knows how many voters I'm unsure are on board with Obama. I hope they're a negligible number. But again, I'm concerned about that. (Be aware, I do not particularly want HRC as Vice President.)
And stras, yeah, we know what was wrong with Bill Clinton's administrations.
'Night all.
204: that's vernor's, and it's gross.
Well, I love Emerson too, of course. But I think he's totally wrong on this one, and someday maybe his Québec cousins will step forth to say so.
Jesus Christ, people! Take genuine joy in your victory, and its historic resonance, and stop with the ugly ressentiment of the Hillary-hatred.
That's the part of his campaign that, I think, gets undersold: the combination of idealism with competence.
I'm not sure this is undersold: a lot of superdelegates have mentioned it in explaining their choice to back Obama, and I've certainly heard it around. I think it's becoming part of his pitch: "he may not have a lot of national experience, but look at that campaign!"
Teo-- My parents don't seem to like Wilson, but is that because she's too moderate? Is Pearce easier to beat because he's more wingnutty? (TPM said "fiery right-winger" or something like that.)
208: God, I hope she loses this one.
Amen. Pearce will be a wonderful opponent for Udall. Pearce's truly the wingnut's wingnut.
so, this is the first time since I've been old enough to vote that a presidential candidate I supported has won either the Democratic primaries or the general. (Bradley-Gore-Dean-Kerry, obviously. Just 0 for 2 election cycles--I turned 18 a few days after Clinton won in 1996--but man, it felt like longer.)
211: MC, you seem to be ignoring the healthy number of people in the thread who say that Clinton should be the veep -- or at least that they'd be fine with her as veep. In other words, I think that, as often seems to be the case, the Clinton hating isn't quite so widespread as Clinton partisans seem to think.
stop with the ugly ressentiment of the Hillary-hatred.
We'll stop when she does.
MC, only Hillary's male lackeys, and Bill, go to the hogs. She and her lovely left hand woman are safe. I'm sure that she will blossom under these circumstances. And she gets to be VP, under me plan, once we're sure that Bill is, god forbid, gone forever.
216: I'm right there with you, though my preferred candidates have been losing for a lot longer than yours have. Because I'm old, see.
211: MC, you seem to be ignoring the healthy number of people in the thread who say that Clinton should be the veep -- or at least that they'd be fine with her as veep.
Speaking of, Ari, you gotta admit I can troll like the wind.
210 gets it wrong.
It's great with rye whiskey.
Everyone who made a conditional vote threat above, with the possible exception of Opinionated whatever, lives in a safe Obama state and has already cast their only meaningful Presidential vote this cycle. So vote for whomever you like, but don't blame me: I'll have voted for Gayatollah abu Labs.
222: Your art is subtle. And it moves mountains.
I can troll like the wind.
I can comment like a candle.
220: under me plan
You've been thinking about savage brutality and battles for the wheel of the Democratic Party ship for too long. Stop before you become a full-fledged pirate.
And yet it moves mountains. For fuck's sake.
Her lovely left-hand woman is dating Anthony Weiner, who kind of sucks in his own right.
w/d, did you see Nadal v. Almagro today? Insane.
227: hey, bigafool has a pirate island he could hang out on.
I submit that Obama should pick Bill Clinton as VP, thus cementing the Clinton supporters but assuruing—barring a constitutional amendment—there won't be another Clinton Administration.
the Clinton hating isn't quite so widespread as Clinton partisans seem to think
It's about all they've got left, Ari, leave them to it.
I hope Hillary gets to be VP, but that's just how I troll.
You know who would never have picked Hillary as VP? Hitler.
222: Speaking of, Ari, you gotta admit I can troll like the wind.
Hey, wait! I'm still here. You were trolling? Fuck that, man, what does playing devil's advocate count as, then?
Vernor's supporters, I admit that I've only had it once, and I was young then. I be wrong; perhaps, if I had it again now, I would enjoy it. But why revisit the past like that?
Even Obama supporters admit his similarity to Hitler!!
236: who did you think Trolls work for? The turnpike authority?
New York Times headline: "Obama Claims Nomination; First Black to Lead a Major Party Ticket".
Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, reductive? And when did we stop calling them "negroes"?
Now reads: "Obama Claims Nomination: Marks End of Epic Battle with Clinton" and (separate article) "Will Be First Black Candidate on Major Party Ticket."
LLEWD DID I LIVE. ABLE WAS I ERE I SAW ELBA. EVIL I DID DWELL.
But why revisit the past like that?
"Although both Hires Root Beer and Vernors claim the title of first American soft drink, some argue that while Hires Root Beer was just another root beer, Vernors was not just another ginger ale, due to its unique aging process and unusual sweetener. For many, Vernor's Ginger Ale is, in fact, the first true American-born soft drink."
"Vernors is a golden ginger ale with a pungent flavor, more like a ginger beer."
And it's a soft drink that's aged 4 years in an oak cask. Surely that's worth a try.
229: You should have trusted me, W/D. Obviously any BF of the lovely left-hand woman was going to be to the hogs.
239: hrmph. Under the bridge. Got it. I have such a broad, appreciative, smirking smile on my face. (There better fucking not be an emoticon for that.)
240: Or as my neighbor says "Looks like the n*igger's going to get the nomination."
hey ben, remember like 3 years ago I told you I didn't like fennel and you were like "what?!?!" I've been meaning to get some ever since and finally purchased some at the farmer's market last weekend. Just wanted to say I liked it.
Meanwhile, McCain wins 70% in SD. If Obama names Ron Paul VP, they'll wipe the floor with the old man.
240. Now WashingtonPost.com has a very similar headline.
Obama Wins Historic Presidential Nomination. Becomes First Black Candidate To Head Major-Party Ticket
240: Obama Claims Nomination: Marks End of Epic Battle with Clinton" and (separate article) "Will Be First Black Candidate on Major Party Ticket."
Soon to read: "Obama Claims Nomination" and (separate article) "Obama and Clinton: End to an Epic Battle" and (separate article) "Challenges Await First Major Party Black Candidate" and (separate article) "OMFG: She Said "Whitey!""
Or as my neighbor says
My otherwise racist old-man neighbor ("fucking Messicans next door; why they here anyway?") across the street: "I see you that you like that Obama feller. I do too. Better than McCain. He's too old to be president. Shit, he's my age. I'm too old to be president."
All-purpose headline: "Obama Wins Nomination; You Know He's Black, Right?"
Shit, he's my age. I'm too old to be president."
Funny, that's how I feel wrt Obama. I don't conclude that Obama is too old. I'm just jealous of his having all that energy at such an advanced age.
"I see you that you like that Obama feller. I do too. Better than McCain. He's too old to be president. Shit, he's my age. I'm too old to be president."
I've also heard this from the older folks. Some great ads could be made with an endless string of old people giving the "McCain's just too damn old" spiel.
So just pay me no heed, o joyless daggers to my own heart, I'm not even a citizen.
Someday, maybe, I will haul out that chart which shows just how backward in the political representation of women the US actually is. It's quite shocking, really, and Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are not exactly firmly committed to a reversal of its sad fortunes. I mean, there are "third world" countries that could actually teach America a trick or two on the election of women, if America actually wanted to learn, and to listen. Which increasingly I doubt to be the case, frankly, but anyway, who asked me? And all these women in an veritable ecstasy of submission to the narrative of "she''s a monster!" and "how do we beat the bitch?" Votes for kisses? Well, you're a "sweetie" to agree to this bargain, and no mistake. I give up, I really and truly do.
Ari! I'm not ignoring anyone. I'm just, you know, exercising due diligence, not to mention a prudent caution.
I don't remember that, Michael, but I'm glad to hear you enjoy fennel.
Someday, maybe, I will haul out that chart which shows just how backward in the political representation of women the US actually is. It's quite shocking, really, and Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are not exactly firmly committed to a reversal of its sad fortunes.
Who said otherwise? But all of that does not change the fact that being a woman is not why Hillary lost.
I'm going to celebrate the Red Wings' victory with a Vernors and whiskey.
MC, this is annoying, I'm afraid. Hillary Clinton is not recommended as President of this country, and we will not support her simply because she's a woman.
But all of that does not change the fact that being a woman is not why Hillary lost.
Yeah, ask Geraldine Ferraro. Obama being black is why Hillary lost.
. I mean, there are "third world" countries that could actually teach America a trick or two on the election of women, if America actually wanted to learn, and to listen.
Any of them in on the invasion of Iraq?
256. there's no good reason to remember it. I just think it's funny how long I'll keep things on my mental "to do" list.
"Votes for kisses?"
Wow, what condescending crap.
Any of them in on the invasion of Iraq?
What about Poland? You're forgetting Poland!
Good lord, Mary Catherine, you sound like you're commenting from deep inside the Clinton bunker. There's been plenty of misogyny in this race, and very little of it from Obama, and there's been plenty of racism, and quite a bit of it from Clinton (not to mention all the other maddening things she's done and said, not least her refusal to concede graciously tonight). If you're predisposed to see this as another triumph for misogyny, you'll have plenty of evidence, but it will only be a small part of the story.
Another point in favor of Vernor's is its logo. If I got a tattoo, it might be that guy.
I actually prefer the more stylized and less ingratiating bearded guy who is on the more recent bottles. This is the best I can do as far as finding a picture of the current logo.
It is undrinkable sweet once it goes flat, though.
and we will not support her simply because she's a woman.
Oh please. Yeah, Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate. I see that, and with eyes wide open, believe you me. And you know what? So is every male candidate deeply flawed that I have ever seen.
This idea that a female candidate has to exceptionally not-flawed in order to even run think of running against the inevitably imperfect male candidates....just reinforces the masculine as the false universal.
Also, this "just because she's a woman" or "just because he's black," is pretty much bullshit, let's face it. As if the white male had long since reached the pinnacle of excellence, if not even climbed a higher mountain, and we could only hope to humbly ask, 'Is our children learning?' Jesus God.
I've seen speculation that Obama and Clinton are working out a deal where he offers her the VP slot and she turns it down. That seems...fraught. What if she accepts? What's he going to say, "we had a deal that I wasn't sincere?" And if she turns it down, how do people feel about him making the offer? It seems strange to me that he has to be respectful toward someone who race-baited the electorate against him, but that's how politics goes, I guess.
This idea that a female candidate has to exceptionally not-flawed in order to even run think of running against the inevitably imperfect male candidates....
I have no idea who you're arguing with here. Who is saying this?
So is every male candidate deeply flawed that I have ever seen.
You judge by context, and a lot of people here were against the war in Iraq. And given that it has effectively destroyed the Republican party, it appears that a lot of other people don't love it either. So there are degrees of difference even in deep flaws.
I've just skimmed the comments, so maybe this has been discussed, but did I heard a report that the VP discussion between the two campaigns has nothing to do with Clinton actually wanting to be VP? Apparently the Clinton campaign simply thinks that, given how close the race was and the fact that 18 million people voted for her, Obama has an obligation to offer her the spot as a sign of respect. She reportedly has no interest in actually accepting. However, in response Obama said that he will only offer her the spot if she unconditionally promises to turn him down! I guess his thinking is that Clinton is trying to trick him into unwittingly making her his VP, which would be awesome if it were true.
a female candidate has to exceptionally not-flawed
In 2008, any Democratic candidate had to not have voted for the war. None of the candidates, male or female, who supported the war got the nomination. Her nomination was absolutely not sunk by misogyny, regardless of how much of it she got received. Her nomination was sunk by getting the single biggest issue in 21st century American politics completely wrong, and then refusing to admit that she'd made a mistake.
I really don't think Clinton's campaign is useful for making larger societal points.
I've seen speculation that Obama and Clinton are working out a deal where he offers her the VP slot and she turns it down.
I don't see at all how this would signify to Clinton supporters that Obama's not such a bad guy after all. Throughout this race, he's been fairly gracious and she's made it plain that she thinks he's a totally unacceptable candidate. This is why her refusing to concede gracefully pisses me off. If I were a Clinton supporter, I'd be thinking, "She must know something really damning about him. He must be totally unacceptable."
What if she accepts?
I don't understand, why would she accept? It seems her choice is between being a major lawmaker in a Dem congress under a Dem president, or attending funerals and making phone calls to congratulate astronauts. To pick VP...what possible motivation for that?
If I were a Clinton supporter, I'd be thinking
I occasionally check in on the Clinton-supporting blogs, and they think he's been very nasty to her and terribly misogynist. I didn't read enough to figure out what he's supposed to have done, but they certainly don't think that he's been gracious.
265 is pretty harsh. It's a gray area sometimes as to which public figures should be seen as merely "favoring Obama", and which are full-fledged "Obama surrogates".
But I too was confused by Mary Catherine's statements in an earlier thread, now reprised here, about how the arrogant Obamans had assumed he would just skate to the nomination and are now unjustifiably furious that this Clinton upstart thought maybe she had a right to run for president too.
Seeing as how in the media/pundit/conventional wisdom universe that I'm familiar with, Clinton was seen by an overwhelming consensus of Insiders as the inevitable nominee from roughly November 5, 2004 until mid-January 2008, and Obama was denying he'd even enter this race until sometime in the spring of 2006.
But I think you live in another country, Mary Catherine? Meaning that your perception of the media/pundit/conventional wisdom universe is probably a lot different.
But I think you live in another country, Mary Catherine?
Heh.
I occasionally check in on the Clinton-supporting blogs, and they think he's been very nasty to her and terribly misogynist. I didn't read enough to figure out what he's supposed to have done, but they certainly don't think that he's been gracious.
Very nasty to her:
"You're nice enough, Hillary"
Terribly misogynist:
"Sweetie"
Ah, you're right. I think there's other stuff, but definitely those two. It was "you're likable enough."
I'm going to get flamed for this, but a not insignificant portion of the Angry Clintonista Brigades are women who are tirelessly projecting their own psychological conflicts onto the presidential race (and, I suspect, everything else that comes into their field of vision).
In 2008, any Democratic candidate had to not have voted for the war.
I'm sorry, Apo, but much as I love you, this is really quite willfully stupid. Edwards, your initial first choice, I believe? voted for that war, and much to his shame. As did Clinton, and much to her shame also. Obama did not vote for it, but neither did he vote against it either. He did not vote yay or nay at all, because he was not yet a US Senator when that vote was taken, and he did not have to take a stand. Nothing I have seen in Obama's subsequent voting record leads me to believe that he would have been a Russ Feingold (my true hero, and my beau ideal), but whatever gets you through the night, I guess.
I was against the war before it even started, and publicly stated my opposition in no uncertain terms. I'm willing to make certain allowances for a naive misunderstanding of the logic of Empire, but naive righteousness in the service of massive hypocrisy just gets my back up.
Good god. I think I could beat McCain in the general. I might have to watch the debates just to see him get completely demolished.
"women" s/b "people"
I might have gotten a little of my psychological conflicts on the blog there.
Edwards, your initial first choice, I believe? voted for that war
And he lost.
Obama did not vote for it
And he won. What's your argument again?
Obama did not vote for it, but neither did he vote against it either.
You can punish a war vote by voting for Obama. You can't--and she won't let you, as she won't admit the mistake as Edwards did--by voting for Clinton. This is patently obvious. Some people want to raise the cost of voting yes on war. That's not a small deal.
and he did not have to take a stand.
Though he did, anyway, in 2002. When did Clinton come out against the war, again?
Obama's Iraq speech. And since he's been planning a run for president since kindergarten, we can't dismiss it as meaningless.
Speaking publicly at antiwar rallies, as a U.S. Senator or Senate candidate, was a stand much fewer people were willing to take than voting no on the AUMF as a Senator. There is still no reason, none, to believe that Obama would not have voted against the war. Attempts to paper over this difference with Clinton & claim that there are no real policy differences between them are still as utterly unconvincing as they always were. Edwards was smart enough to apologize for his war vote & lead on domestic policy. Clinton was the least progressive candidate. But go ahead, keep wishing this away and pretending I was brainwashed by Chris Matthews & the men in my life.
I feel like we're ganging up a bit here, but seriously, what is you're argument, MC? I don't think anyone here would deny that female candidates have a tough row to hoe, and misogyny is alive and well in America. But are you arguing that she lost because of misogyny, or that it was first among several reasons for her loss, or what?
There's been plenty of misogyny in this race, and very little of it from Obama, and there's been plenty of racism, and quite a bit of it from Clinton
This is true; but I don't see where MC said that Obama, specifically, has been responsible for the (overwhelming) misogynist reaction to Clinton's candidacy. It shouldn't be too hard to recognize that a reasonable person might feel that the hostile media coverage has been largely responsible for Clinton's failure, especially given that we all assumed she was the front-runner a year ago, and feel pretty bitter about that.
And he won.
Well, success is its own justification, of course, and need not answer to anyone. And virtue is not its own reward, no, no matter what the losers say. So: Go Dubya! He ran a far superior campaign to Gore, I think we can all agree, and also to Kerry.
I don't see where MC said that Obama
She didn't. I was offering it as a reason for some people to prefer Obama.
hostile media coverage has been largely responsible for Clinton's failure
Is that the argument? I genuinely don't know what MC is saying here.
And virtue is not its own reward
Perhaps this is where we're talking past one another. I'm not talking about the relative virtue of any candidate. I'm talking about what the voters in the Democratic nominating process went out and did. A huge part of the new Democratic registration wave was driven explicitly by opposition to the Iraq War. This created a real bind for any candidate who's gone and supported it.
That Clinton came as close as she did speaks mostly to the fact that she was the biggest brand name in the Democratic Party.
Throughout this race, he's been fairly gracious and she's made it plain that she thinks he's a totally unacceptable candidate.
This seems to be undeniably true under any fair recounting of the last three months. What pisses me off is not the fact that she attacks his qualifications to be President, which I think is a fair and good faith criticism. What pisses me off is that somehow she has created the reality in many people's minds that Obama has manipulated the system to steal the nomination, run a sexist, dirty campaign, and disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters, all of which is demonstrably untrue. The Clinton campaign's manipulation of the press to create false realities is almost unforgivable given the extent to which the rejection of these tactics has been central to the Democrats' criticism of the Bush Administration. Defending Clinton's tactics by appealing to the cynical view that all politicians do whatever it takes to win really misses the point.
Also, I continue to be puzzled that anyone seriously thinks that Clinton wants to be VP.
It shouldn't be too hard to recognize that a reasonable person might feel that the hostile media coverage has been largely responsible for Clinton's failure
It just doesn't seem that reasonable to invoke misogyny and hostile media coverage in the face of other reasons like the war vote and a bad campaign strategy.
292: What does that mean? Apo made a claim about how the race would turn out, and the data points seem to fit. It's not a question of good campaign/bad campaign. It's a question of whether or not the candidate voted for the war.
I think if I were Obama, I could be talked into Clinton as VP only if her husband could be shipped off to an island for the next eight years.
Oh no you fucking don't. We'll do a lot to put the local boy in the White House, but there are limits.
Ugh. Apo and the rest who are on about this, I love ya and all, but Clinton is not a bad choice for president (unless we had no better choice) sheerly because of her war vote.
I know this is your thing, but really. It's not just about the war. Cf. various reminders about what the Clinton/DLC neoliberal understanding of our world, foreign and domestic, should be.
Also, let's remember that Obama is not going to pull the damn troops out forthwith, nor is he going to be reversing the buildup of permanent bases in the region.
You're missing my point, parsimon. There are plenty of reasons why I believe HRC would be a bad president, but I'm not talking about who I support or why. The war turned massively unpopular. A wave of people went out and voted to register their disgust with the war.
What apo said. It's a bit absurd how often the war vote is missing from the conversation when the pro Hillary camp talks about why she lost.
It's a bit absurd how often the war vote policy generally is missing from the conversation when the pro Hillary camp talks about why she lost.
It's a bit absurd how often the war vote is missing from the conversation when the pro Hillary camp talks about why she lost.
It's strange how often it gets left unsaid by the media, too. Did they miss the whole Dean boomlet in '04? It seemed like it was a big story for a little while.
Also, I continue to be puzzled that anyone seriously thinks that Clinton wants to be VP.
1. Clinton wants to be the President of the United States of America in the worst way. 2. The VP has two constitutional functions, one of which is a greased rail into the Oval Office. 3. Obama's needed Secret Service protection from jump. 4. She has to play the cards she's dealt.
300: Okay. I'm not entirely sure that's the overwhelming reason they went out and voted, but okay. (The economy, I'd suggest.)
I don't get the feeling the economy played much role in Democratic voters' preferences of Obama versus Clinton.
I'm talking about what the voters in the Democratic nominating process went out and did. A huge part of the new Democratic registration wave was driven explicitly by opposition to the Iraq War.
Honestly, I wish I could agree, but you're tripping hard, darling, if you truly believe this. What you need to understand, I guess, is that you are not only a citizen of a republic, but also (and admittedly against your will, and probably also against your better judgment) the more or less privileged subject of an empire.
And to blame all of this on a woman (that bitch! and sure, she's a monster! and the mother of us all, no doubt) is at the very least comical, but probably not so very funny, after all. There's a lot of displacement going on here, I can't help but think. Not that I'm a pyschoanalyst, or even a citizen. But I do know misogyny when it's staring me in the face, and I guess I want to stare it down and let it be the first one to blink...
I'm not entirely sure that's the overwhelming reason they went out and voted
There's more than one question here. These results aren't quite up to date, but it's true that the economy is by far the most important issue to people who voted in the Democratic primaries. But Clinton's lead among economy-first voters is pretty slim. Iraq is the second most important issue, and Obama wins those voters usually by more than 10%. And we can't tell from these numbers how many of the economy-first voters are first-time voters, and how many of the Iraq-first voters are. I'm not a poll reading whiz, but it does seem clear, given the closeness of other issues, and Obama's margin among iraq-firsters, that the war was the difference.
And now, to bed...
And to blame all of this on a woman
Mighty cool under the shade of a strawman that size.
MC, are you drunk? Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.
What you need to understand
I'm with McManus, minneapolitian, and stras on the question of American empire.
And to blame all of this on a woman
Dude, what? All I said was that her war support sunk her chances in the nominating process, the implication being that absent that, she'd have easily wrapped up the extra hundred or so delegates it would have taken. That's a pretty simple statement and it isn't clear to me how your comments relate to it.
307 without having read anything else: The Clinton supporters I know remember Bill's (economic) years fondly and feel that it would be good to bring that back. Obama is unknown, probably doesn't have the chops, they figure, to pull it off, and Hillary does, having been there.
They really don't distinguish between the war positions of Clinton and Obama: they both want to pull the troops out, that is good, we like that, blah blah, what about the price of gasoline, eh?
parsimon, a lot of people don't distinguish b/w Ob and Clinton on the war, but at the same time, this primary was really close. The war issue only needs to give Barry-O a slight, slight margin. Certainly that's plausible?
The Clinton supporters I know remember Bill's (economic) years fondly and feel that it would be good to bring that back. Obama is unknown, probably doesn't have the chops, they figure, to pull it off, and Hillary does, having been there.
Uh, but Obama won. So maybe victory in the Dem primary can't be attributed to economic issues?
And to blame all of this on a woman (that bitch! and sure, she's a monster! and the mother of us all, no doubt) is at the very least comical, but probably not so very funny, after all.
I'm not aware of anyone, anywhere, of any political persuasion, who has blamed the American empire on Clinton. But walking the foreign policy position back to something--still empire--less malign requires, or is at least helped by, certain steps. One of them is punishing war votes.
I felt like Clinton's position was "grownups voted for the war; get over it and support me"--infuriating. that said, why do people obsess over monocausal explanations of complex phenomena? she lost because of the war vote; because of a lousy campaign; because of misogyny; because Obama ran really well. if I thought that the war vote was really what brought HRC down, I'd be delighted. but I don't see the dirty fucking hippies as suddenly having gained massive leverage in American political discourse....
and honestly, when it comes to press coverage, Hillary's biggest problem wasn't misogyny. The perception of misogyny probably helped her. No, her biggest problem was her infighting and dramatic campaign staff. That circus sideshow distracted from the candidate. Her second biggest problem is that she put off liberal supporters with her disparaging comments about "so-called experts" and her boosterism of McCain over Obama. This election was hers to lose. And she did.
I'm not aware of anyone, anywhere, of any political persuasion, who has blamed the American empire on Clinton.
Maybe stras.
I thought that the war vote was really what brought HRC down, I'd be delighted. but I don't see the dirty fucking hippies as suddenly having gained massive leverage in American political discourse....
What's all this hippie talk? Lately the war is about as popular as the clap.
the dirty fucking hippies as suddenly having gained massive leverage
"Do you think going to war with Iraq was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?"
Right 33% Wrong 62% Not Sure 5%
Shrug.
The link, though it hardly seems necessary.
The perception of misogyny probably helped her
That's misleading. It helped solidify her support, but there's no way that it was a net plus. That's like saying Obama won because he's black.
316 is basically right, but if you follow the link in 309, you'll see that Iraq was the only issue with a big break for either candidate, and the break went to Obama. I haven't been able to find anything about how important Iraq was to newly registered voters.
Ok, now to bed, for real!
That's like saying Obama won because he's black.
That's what I've been trying to tell you!
Dude, what?
First time ever I've been called a 'dude'! Woo-hoo!
C'mon, Apo, don't play dumb, or don't play like I'm supposed to play like I'm dumb. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I recall it was you who first linked to the story of Clinton's "tears" and asked, all mock-concern-like, if it was all over for Hillary on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. Will you dare to deny it? That was pretty fucking gross, and yeah, you were all about working the misogyny angle if you thought it might help your candidate. That's the story of the Obama campaign, I guess.
Are we separating misogyny in the electorate from misogyny in the media? Of course the former was a negative for her, but the latter not only backfired but was used as a real rallying and selling point. I have no data on this, so I'm talking out of my ass, but it's not immediately obvious to me that Chris Matthews et al.. were a net negative.
324 is lame. I thought it was over for Hillary at that point, and I spent quite a bit of time volunteering on her campaign after that.
Actually, after 324, I don't think MC is worth engaging with. Night.
I normally stress that these things aren't monocausal, but I wouldn't put misogyny in the top five causes of her loss. A lot of the press coverage was grossly misognyistic, no doubt, but I don't think most Democratic primary voters gave a fuck about Chris Matthews' et. al's psychodrama about women; I think the largest group who did give a fuck were, if anything, more likely to support Clinton as a result. See the NH primary. For one thing: the Democratic primary electorate is majority female, and while they may not prize feminist issues as highly as MC would wish, there are not a huge # of ladies against women, either. For another: look at the demographics where Obama did best. Is his overwhelming support among black voters fueled by higher misogyny among black voters than the democratic electorate at large? I don't think so--for one thing, there's an obvious alternate explanation; for another, they were perfectly prepared to support Clinton over Edwards. Are more educated Democratic voters more anti-feminist than less educated Democratic voters? I don't buy it. Are younger Democratic voters more anti-feminist and misogynist than older Democratic voters? Again, I don't buy it (though younger women are probably less likely to prioritize voting for a female candidate). Are younger and more educated voters more bitter about Clinton's war vote? Yes, I think they are. I think younger voters are also more likely to associate Hillary Clinton with a democratic establishment that has utterly failed them for 8 years, than with the successes of her husband's administration. And younger & more educated voters are more likely to go all swoony and whirly eyed for Obama's rhetoric.
MC can now commence to calling me post feminist, blah de blah.
working the misogyny angle if you thought it might help your candidate
You misunderstand. I'm under no illusion that my influence sways any voters, and especially not in a hyper-informed crowd like this. My interest in the minutia of what drives and shapes political campaigns on a large scale long predates this campaign (I was a poli sci major). I've also talked about Edwards bizarre eye-blinky thing, and Obama's race, and Giuliani's psychotic tendencies, and McCain's 175-year-old host body, and Richardson's foot-in-mouth disease, and all the other reasons this or that candidate's campaign fails or succeeds, and have done so in every election since I was a teenager.
It's like discussing why the Celtics will or won't beat the Lakers. I'm not trying to will one of them to victory or convince Laker fans to wear green.
329: Won't. Just for the record.
Will you dare to deny it?
No, of course not. Why'd I ask? Because it had sunk a presidential campaign in the past.
working the misogyny angle if you thought it might help your candidate. That's the story of the Obama campaign, I guess
Honestly, it's at this point that I lose my bearings. MC, I truly can't understand how you believe the above. I'll grant you that misogyny helped Obama. And I'll go so far as to say, again, that I wish he had addressed the issue head on. Hell, I even think he could have run against the press on the issue, which might have helped him with a significant chunk of the electorate. (Though I can also imagine that taking on journalists seemed like a bad idea, and not simply because reporters buy ink by the barrel, but also because they seem to love McCain.) But I just can't see how anyone thinks that Obama ran a campaign that actively traded in sexist assumptions as part of its strategy/tactics. I'm really stumped on that point. And, to be clear, I'm not seeking a which-candidate-was-more-morally-reprehensible, the-racist-or-the-sexist? answer. I just want to understand how it is that Clinton partisans think that the Obama campaign traded in misogyny.
I recall it was you who first linked to the story of Clinton's "tears" and asked, all mock-concern-like, if it was all over for Hillary on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. Will you dare to deny it? That was pretty fucking gross
Apostropher's offending comment:
Sorta off-topic and not at all fair, but I suspect this is going to kill Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Jesus, Mary Catherine, you're giving me a Reverend Wright moment in this thread. I understand you're angry that Clinton lost, but seriously.
(Going to bed is kind of like going on hiatus.)
I just want to understand how it is that Clinton partisans think that the Obama campaign traded in misogyny.
By the sneaky semiotic subtexts of "periodically", "kitchen sink", and "monster". I have to admit, it *is* entirely more subtle than "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again".
Vernors is a golden ginger ale with a pungent flavor, more like a ginger beer
it's a ginger ale that tastes like a ginger beer? Who on earn falls for this transparent rubbish?
In related news, have a look at the "Joint Declaration on Darfur" that all three candidates have signed up to. It's pretty depressing.
I don't think MC is worth engaging with. Night.
So true, Michael, so sad but true. Like I said, I'm not even a citizen, so my opinion ain't worth shit. Just ignore me, or else just studiously ignore me. I got nothing. I'm not even here, probably, I'm just a figment of my of imagination, more than likely. Sweet dreams, though!
That was pretty fucking gross
I recommend the rest of my comments in that thread for context. Good night, everybody.
Whatever else the merits of Hillary Clinton (and she is a monster, that's just a fact; it's one of the few issues on which I've agreed with Samantha Power - hey and whatever happened to the Power interview), or any of your other utterly interchangeable candidates, I think we could all agree on one point of blog ettiquette:
If you don't think someone's worth engaging with, then don't engage with them. To write "I don't think you're worth engaging with" is engaging with someone, and doing so in about the most insulting way possible. It's not an OK way to behave - it's just a childish way of throwing in a last insult and then running away.
your other utterly interchangeable candidates
I understand you're angry that Clinton lost, but seriously.
Honestly, Ogged, I'm all but over it. It's the prissy self-righteousness of the anti-Clinton camp that really raises my hackles and makes me want to stay in the game. Otherwise, like I said above, I've given up and I don't even care anymore.
334: I was serious, just to be clear. Very smart people, including MC, believe that the Obama camp hasn't just benefited from misogyny but traded in it. I haven't seen evidence of this, and I was curious what I've missed.
339: sadly, even John "The Impaler" would almost certainly, on achieving office, dump all the vampire stuff and set about a few more tax breaks for financial services. I draw your attention to H'Angus The Monkey, famous for simulating sex with an inflatable doll at Hartlepool football club matches. After being elected Mayor of Hartlepool, he turned into an identikit local pol and even dropped his one fucking campaign pledge of free bananas.
It was at about this point that I realised that democracy as a political system had had its day.
democracy as a political system had had its day
Comity?
343: Yeah, comity, at least temporarily, because dsquared will insist on citing the anecdote that will allow him to have the last word. So: 'night all. But I'm warning youse: I will be back after half a good's night sleep, and no worse for wear, more or less.
Sleep well. Dream of maple donuts (or your equivalent).
If they wanted free bananas, they should have voted for an actual monkey, rather than the guy who dressed up like one. I'll bet he's never groomed in his life. I, for one, would very much like to have a beer with a monkey, and thus any such beast achieving the age of 35 has my vote.
344, see 334: saying "well, you're not worth talking to so I won't" is the height of passive-aggressive rudeness. It's behaviour like that that lost your crappy candidate the crappy election.
346: Remember these people are from Hartlepool - they're probably not very good at telling the difference between a real monkey and a man in a funny costume.
I think that in addition to being still for the war in 2008, part of what sunk Clinton's campaign was the extent to which it was a business-as-usual campaign. It ignored the 50-states strategy, it was staffed by an archetypal figure of the DLC establishment, it was predicated on the usual bunch of idiot self-styled geniuses getting all the positive outcomes they predicted and no negative surprises, it was obviously managed with more reward for loyalty than for competence, it was riddled with internal divisions spewed into the press...it was, in short, clearly the style of campaigning that has cost the Democrats so much over the last couple decades, and glorying in it.
I think that Clinton actually did as well as anyone could, given the combined human and policy constraints of running as that kind of Democrat. No male DLC buddy would, for instance, get the sort of working-class support she does except perhaps her husband, and he can't run. But if you want to run as the defender of the war on Iraq, of talking tough to everyone and never appearing weak by never engaging in serious diplomacy, and all of that, then you're going to end up with someone who isn't necessarily Mark Penn but may as well be and the rest of those clowns, and a strategy that won't work if there's any effective challenge, and so on. The enduring popularity of the Clinton administration and her substantial personal strengths got her (I think) farther than anyone else could have with those views.
FWIW, I didn't see MC saying--anywhere--that the Obama *campaign* had been misogynist. Saying that (some) Obama *supporters* have been is a different kettle of fish; it's true, and it's part of what's frustrating for Clinton supporters at this point.
Ironically, over at my own blog, Sybil and I are on the other side of this particular argument.
I also think, while I'm winding down, that it would have been a triumph for the feminist cause for Clinton to win only if we assume that feminism has nothing to say about war or economic stratification, for starters. And at that point one starts to wonder (well, this one does), should we also see Thatcher's victories as triumphs for feminism? There must be some room for the concept of a woman running for office who is good on some issues but not on all, and who simply can't be taken as an alloyed champion of the overall drive for a more just society.
There must be some room for the concept of a woman running for office who is good on some issues but not on all, and who simply can't be taken as an alloyed champion of the overall drive for a more just society.
Right, that would be feminism, which doesn't claim, I don't think, to be the answer to every problem.
324: By that logic, ogged was working for the Clinton campaign when he wondered whether the Wright thing would hurt Obama. And was a secret racist.
And all these women in an veritable ecstasy of submission to the narrative of "she''s a monster!" and "how do we beat the bitch?" Votes for kisses? Well, you're a "sweetie" to agree to this bargain, and no mistake.
Ecstasy of submission? The hell? Votes for kisses? Are we supposed to be locking up our daughters now because, have you noticed, Obama's black?
Seriously, I'm not sure what your point is here. Clinton wasn't required to be more perfect than Obama. He wasn't out there arguing that women just weren't real Americans or McCain would be a better candidate for having a penis that our enemies would respect.
And you know what? I don't see many Obama supporters arguing the same either. Is she getting a lot of misogynist commentary? Sure. Is it rising to the level of 'you do know that Clinton is a woman, right? You really gonna nominate a chick? Real Americans won't vote for broads.'
She ran a campaign that probably would have beat anyone but Obama one on one, not because he's a god that's promised to kiss me, or because being black is so much easier than being female, but because his GOTV organization seems to be absurdly good and he could capitalize on the anti-war vote. I don't think she expected him to get out of Iowa or to have the funds, and she pulled the traditional strategy and almost won.
Are we supposed to be locking up our daughters now because, have you noticed, Obama's black?
What utter nonsense, Cala. I neither said nor implied anything about Obama's being black, and you damn well know it. Seriously, not everyone who doesn't like Obama is a racist.
I neither said nor implied anything about
MC, at least half a dozen people have now said that they can't figure out what it is you're trying to assert or imply. You seem to be having an debate with a set of interlocutors that the rest of us can't see.
Nothing much turns on that line; it was originally 'are we supposed to be reaping millions of orgasms now because we got a man with a PENIS in the nomination?' That big O in his sign! That big O!
But I'm not really sure what you meant. Surely you're not suggesting that I've been overcome by jungle fever, but the alternative seems to be that I'm an idiot. And we all know that dog don't hunt, so... again, the hell?
There is still no reason, none, to believe that Obama would not have voted against the war.
Katherine, to spare us another fruitless journey into counter-factual land, we can phrase this a different way: Would Obama vote to support the war if such a vote came up when he was in the Senate ? Would he adopt Republican talking points in doing so ?
We don't need to speculate. The history is there. Obama voted to fund the war, and when asked to explain, he offered Republican talking points about supporting the troops.
Actually, one does need to speculate, because it's still a counterfactual.
(And to the counterfactual, hard to say. Plenty of people who had voted against the war voted to continue funding it.)
Surely you're not suggesting that I've been overcome by jungle fever
That is for sure. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, and the "jungle fever" notion hadn't even occurred to me. But go ahead and accuse me of it, anyway! Because of course there can only ever be two possible alternatives, and since you're obviously not an idiot it's obvious I must be a racist.
I'm not aware of anyone, anywhere, of any political persuasion, who has blamed the American empire on Clinton.
Maybe stras.
I realize that's a joke/cheap pot shot, but "person X doesn't like American empire" plus "person X doesn't worship Bill Clinton" does not equal "person X traces American empire to Bill Clinton." America has been an explicitly imperial project since its inception, and every president since at least World War II has sought to expand the power of its empire.
No, no, there's plenty of other alternatives. I take us to have ruled out my stupidity and your racism. Which still brings us to 'the hell?''
Seriously, what is 'ecstasy of submission' supposed to be about? I just needed a man to rule over me? And I'd get some ecstasy out of it?
Is this gonna be about drugs?
I interpreted it as saying that Obama's female supporters thought our boyfriends and husbands would give us more kisses if we submissively supported Obama, not that Obama turned us on. A variation on the Robin Morgan bullshit: "Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they're not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can't identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her."
It's true, I completely shunned my wife while she supported Clinton, but once she switched to Obama, I knocked her up but good.
At the time of Hillary's Iraq vote, it was much-speculated among the punditocracy that as a woman, she was poorly positioned to oppose the war because if she harbored presidential ambitions, she needed to demonstrate her toughness.
YMMV, but this strikes me as a roughly accurate approximation of the political situation. In any event, it also shows that the conversation about whether the war or sexism led to Hillary's defeat fails to take into account the complexity of the situation. Even if Hillary's war vote were the sole relevant factor, the politics behind that vote were dictated in some measure by the sexist country she lives in.
357: I've heard this before; I think it is not a tiny bit convincing. A vote on funding is different from a vote on the AUMF. Lots of Senators voted against the AUMF and voted for the funding for a while. Tell yourself there's no difference between them of you want, but I find it absurd & not a tiny bit convincing. And in 2003, Obama spoke at an antiwar rally and opposed the war as a Senate candidate. The antiwar rally I went to couldn't get a more prominent war opponent than Congressman Dennis Kucinich. There were two other Senators who were up for re-election who publicly & forcefully opposed the war, Dick Durbin & Paul Wellstone.
Also, guys? John Rogers has this covered.
wait a sec, Durbin & Wellstone was the 2002 election cycle. But it had gotten, if anything, MORE difficult to find people willing to speak against the war between Fall 2002 and spring 2003. Anyway, I love how we're supposed to think at the same time that Clinton's war vote was forced by the 2008 presidential race, but that just because Obama opposed the war as a prospective & then declared Senate candidate in 2002-2003, we have no indication at all of what he would have done in the Senate.
We don't need to speculate. The history is there. Obama voted to fund the war, and when asked to explain, he offered Republican talking points about supporting the troops.
Ted Kennedy voted against the war, and has voted to fund it. In the Senate alone you can find Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, Barbara Mikulski, Dick Durbin, Bob Graham, and pretty much everyone but Feingold in the same camp (and even Feingold has voted for some of the funding resolutions). So Obama's votes for war funding don't tell us anything about how he'd vote for or against the actual war authorization; funding the war in 2008 is considered a lot less controversial than authorizing the war in 2002. That's pretty fucking shitty, but that's where we are.
since you're obviously not an idiot it's obvious I must be a racist
Perhaps if you'd just plainly state what you're trying to say rather than exasperatedly tossing out opaque non sequiturs ("The war vote cost HRC the nomination? That's stupid. You need to understand that you're the subject of an empire!"), it would help.
it was much-speculated among the punditocracy
Surprisingly enough, the punditocracy was dead wrong. As usual.
117
the carefree jouissance
Really? On national television? Wow, what is with these Clintons? What a family of perverts.
... oh yeah, there's another meaning to "jouissance."
229
Her lovely left-hand woman is
Eerily reminiscent of the president's aide in Battlestar Galactica. And we all know how she's turning out. Sorry, but I picked up the miniseries on DVD more than a year after it was on TV, and last night I got caught up to what's aired for the first time ever.
I realize that's a joke/cheap pot shot,
Now bring yourself to admit that it was funny.
we can phrase this a different way
s/b "ask a very different question."
John Rogers has this covered
That's a very good post.
Last night, Clinton cited an 11 year-old kid (in Kentucky?) who sold his bike and donated the money to her campaign. Seriously, what kind of (multi-millionaire) person sells that?
Here's Clinton's web site where she's asked for feedback by requiring mailing list data while making comments optional...next to a more prominent contribution request.
Asking hard-working, working-class people for money when you've been mathematically eliminated is sad.
375: Mmm. Not one I can really endorse. I've been trying, largely, to stay out of this because I've got a lot of sympathy for the way people who are upset about the treatment Hillary's gotten feel, but I can't spell it out articulately. I still can't, but that post isn't something I can agree with.
Come on in, LB, the water is fine roiling. What are your reservations?
A vote on funding is different from a vote on the AUMF. Lots of Senators voted against the AUMF and voted for the funding for a while.
You need to read my comment again. I could have argued this point, but I explicitly declined to do so. Again, we have no need to travel to counter-factual land, and no need to discuss what Obama might have done on the AUMF. We know he's capable of voting for the war long after the folly of that war was exposed for everyone to see, and we know that in doing so, he's willing to adopt false Republican talking points to suggest that opponents of the war weren't sufficiently willing to support the troops.
Tell yourself there's no difference between them of you want, but I find it absurd & not a tiny bit convincing.
Look, I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt by not emphasizing the differences. In fact, the war funding vote took place long after WMD and related issues were exposed as nonsense. The war funding votes took place after public opinion had turned significantly (though perhaps not decisively).
I'm struggling to get your point: The only justification you've given for Obama's pro-war vote in this context is by saying he wasn't the only one. And I'm not sure you've even tried to defend how he spun that vote in a way that was helpful to Republicans trying to bludgeon actual anti-war Democrats.
A vote on funding is different from a vote on the AUMF. Lots of Senators voted against the AUMF and voted for the funding for a while. Tell yourself there's no difference between them of you want, but I find it absurd & not a tiny bit convincing.
The difference between "voted for the war" and "voted for funding," to me, maps pretty easily onto "push the fat guy onto the trolley track" and "don't throw the switch to save the fat guy but kill five others." There are lots of arguments as to why the two are the same, but my intuition tells me otherwise, and I trust my intuition.
If McCain doesn't win, it's pure sexism.
This argument would make sense if he were running against Russ Feingold. He wasn't. Like Ted Kennedy & Dick Durbin, he's not been as good on war issues & willingness to call the Bush administration on its crimes issues & civil liberties issues as Feingold, and yet, they're all way the fuck better than Hillary Clinton. (He is not quite as good as Kennedy or Durbin either on those issues, by the way, and yet, still way the fuck better than Hillary Clinton. Amazing how that works.)
(Also, my approach to the last 300-ish comments in this thread is to twirl about, happily, not a thought in my head, while noodling guitar rock plays in the background and my sundress shimmers in the afternoon.)
What are you guys talking about? Anybody want a doob? Anybody want to ball?
378: I'm not LB, and I only skimmed the post, but I'm not crazy about that post, either. Dismissing the anger of Clinton supporters as a function of their need for validation strikes me as the wrong note to strike and, more importantly, wrong.
Surprisingly enough, the punditocracy was dead wrong. As usual.
Yglesias's cluelessness is particularly revealing on this point. As a guy with something of a personal stake in the matter, he has no trouble seeing that journalists and other opinion-makers were professionally punished for being right on the war, and rewarded for being wrong.
Except for politicians who had a national platform in '02-'03. Those politicians, alone in the opinion-making elite, would have seen their careers benefit from opposition to the war.
And Yglesias can't even imagine a scenario where taking the brunt of jingoistic, sexist abuse over the war might have pushed a person out of contention for the presidency - it's not even a matter worth discussion. It's just axiomatic to him.
Eh, I have to quit and get to work -- the following is impressionistic and not aimed at anyone particular, and I'm not going to be around to defend it. But posts like the linked one seem to boil down to "Look, just admit that misogyny and sexism weren't important in this election, Clinton lost and people hate her because of her policy and her tactics -- if you think misogyny was a serious issue, you're paranoid and deluded."
And I voted for Obama, on policy issues, and I think he'll be a better president than she would have been. And I think her campaign used a lot of unpleasant tactics, some racist. And I still think that sexism was a game-changing factor in this election, to the point that I don't think the question of how the election would have played out in its absence is answerable; it would have been totally different.
I'm delighted that Obama won: it's historic, he's a pleasure to listen to, maybe he'll get us out of Iraq, there's a very good chance he'll be the best president of my life. But I'm still kind of cross about what seem to be arguments saying media, electorate, and even Obama campaign sexism weren't an important factor, and that Clinton supporters are deluded fools if they can't see the truth of that.
In this new McCain ad, HRC endorses McCain by name. Is there a better way to describe it?
Say, (dazedly coming to a stop, hazed in a choking cloud of blue smoke) I didn't much like that post either; he's right, of course, from my perspective, but he identifies the problem (the inevitability of relativistic effects) with what he's trying to do right there at the top. Who's he trying to convince? Why is he just as bitter as any old anyone? His guy won! Yay! Let us unitize!
(Twirling, twirling, twirling.)
This argument would make sense if he were running against Russ Feingold.
Katherine, again, you persist in misreading my explicit language. What argument have I made that is in any way related to the people Obama was running against ? I can't keep repeating every comment twice.
385: because he thought by 2008 the war would be an unpopular disaster? Hey look, it is.
The amazing thing about Clinton's war vote is that unlike the 2004 presidential candidates' votes--which were still dumb--the election she was trying to win was six years away. If politics forced her to support disastrous, immooral polices for an election six years away, imagine how unwilling to take risks to do the right thing the day she was sworn in--less than four years from re-election!
||
In New Mexico, Heather Wilson has lost to Steve Pearce for the Republican nomination for retiring Pete Domemici's Senate seat. Pearce will face Tom Udall, and almost certainly lose, flipping one Senate seat R to D. I'm hoping that this augurs a filibuster-proof Senate.
Heather Wilson's House seat (NM CD1) will probably be won by Martin Heinrich, a progressive Democrat, flipping one House seat R to D.
You may now resume talking about sexism.
|>
Now bring yourself to admit that it was funny.
It wasn't funny. It sounded bitter and put-upon. Yes, hating on the Clintons is one of my hobbyhorses. But it's an important fucking hobbyhorse. When Democrats claim that they're opposed to torture, that they care about the poor and about inequality, that they care about social justice and civil liberties and opposing pointless violence committed overseas in our name, and at the same time hold up as an icon of the party a president who took a giant dump on all of those things, they reveal themselves to be great big fucking hypocrites. Worse, they make it all the more likely that the Democratic Party will elevate another president like that in the near future.
Now, I realize that most Democrats are hypocrites. But for those few who might actually have some abstract dedication to civil liberties, who actually care about poor people and minorities, who think that foreigners aren't worth less than people born within the borders of the United States, they might actually want to know about the bad shit Bill Clinton has done - not just the mean things he's said about Obama on the campaign trail, but the millions of poor women and children he cut off welfare, or the thousands of people who died in the Sudan as a result of his bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, or the massive spike in the prison population that came about as a direct result of his crime bill, or the way AEDPA made it easier for states to kill people by making it harder for prisoners to appeal their sentences.
One of the most depressing things about this primary season has been just how superficial it's all been. In the midst of a supposed reevaluation of the Clintons, there's been no attempt by Democratic policy-types to look at the actual legacy of the Clinton years in terms of the damage done to liberalism. Instead there's been a relentless obsession on the horserace and on Clinton's self-destructive tactics. But if all you're mad about - or if all you're willing to think about - is a contentious primary season, then it's relatively easy to forgive the Clintons once they eventually make nice for "party unity." If you try to think about everything they did that bridged the gap between Reaganism and Bushism - in terms of gutting welfare, in terms of torture, in terms of warrantless surveillance, in terms of corporate deregulation and DOMA and NAFTA and AEDPA and the crime bill - it's a lot harder to see why they've any place in a nominally liberal party at all, much less a place at the top. And the explanation for why they're there - that those positions don't seem to bother that many people in the party at all - isn't funny in the least.
sorry, PF, I've only ever heard arguments like this from Clinton supporters dishonestly trying to erase the most crucial policy difference between the candidates. It's a raw nerve. And your argument depends on pretending that Boxer, Kennedy, Durbin, etc. etc. etc. etc. do not exist.
sorry, PF, I've only ever heard arguments like this from Clinton supporters dishonestly trying to erase the most crucial policy difference between the candidates. It's a raw nerve. And your argument depends on pretending that Boxer, Kennedy, Durbin, etc. etc. etc. etc. do not exist.
America has been an explicitly imperial project since its inception, and every president since at least World War II has sought to expand the power of its empire.
I thought Carter only tried to maintain the power of the empire. Although maybe Afghanistan cancels out whatever good he did.
I still think that sexism was a game-changing factor in this election, to the point that I don't think the question of how the election would have played out in its absence is answerable; it would have been totally different.
Well, but there are n (for some very large n) factors about which this is true. The white men lost in this election, and not because they weren't strong candidates. Where does race or gender come in to the success of failure of any given candidate? It's almost impossible to say. The war vote as a causal factor seems, to me, to rest on much more solid ground. The fact that the Clinton campaign used race as an intentional wedge to an extent vastly greater than the Obama campaign used sexism also seems, to me, a pretty strong case. Now, is this because sexism is so ingrained that the Obama campaign didn't have to do that? Could be, could be.
it's an important fucking hobbyhorse
I do not think this works.
Seriously, what is 'ecstasy of submission' supposed to be about? I just needed a man to rule over me? And I'd get some ecstasy out of it?
It's a phrase from Christianity, describing people's relationship with God. Saint Theresa, you know.
Yep, that ad in 387 really says it all. Thanks alot you stupid motherfuckers. And what does she say in her speech last night? "Congratulations, BUT, I'm going to continue to disempower you until you cave in to my amorphous demands for respect for my supporters." I'm really trying to avoid reading this as "that black man isn't givin us enough respekt." Perhaps she just wants him to include a mandate in his health care proposal.
388: Oh, I thought Sifu was twirling the ends of his moustachio (and mwahaha-ing), but reading up I see that Drums/Space is playing and he is making his ankle bracelets jingle. OK, then.
And what does she say in her speech last night? "Congratulations, BUT, I'm going to continue to disempower you until you cave in to my amorphous demands for respect for my supporters." I'm really trying to avoid reading this as "that black man isn't givin us enough respekt."
I think it's more "that man" than "that black man". There's more women than men among Democrats, after all.
His record in Nicaragua is no great shakes either.
I still think that sexism was a game-changing factor in this election, to the point that I don't think the question of how the election would have played out in its absence is answerable; it would have been totally different.
Um, I haven't read the thread. But I thought Clinton's campaign managers bungling this campaign so overwhelmingly incompetently was the main reason she lost. A brilliant Obama campaign would not have beaten a decent Clinton campaign.
>I've only ever heard arguments like this from Clinton supporters dishonestly trying to erase the most crucial policy difference between the candidates.
Katherine, please. Not only are you hearing this argument from me now, you've heard similar arguments from me and other Obama supporters before.
That is an excellent ad for the RNC in 387.
I am not feeling charitable toward Clinton.
whoops, 407.1 should be italicized.
If McCain doesn't win, it's pure sexyism.
>whoops, 407.1 should be italicized.
I think the > is sufficient to indicate that it is what you are responding to. Just like in the email back-and-forths of old.
Ah, those days...
Also for the record, politicalfootball's theory that his counterfactual isn't a counterfactual is counterlogical.
412: What am I misunderstanding here ? I really did try hard to avoid any counterfactual speculation. Where did I fail ?
413: well, with the whole "voting for an interim funding bill several years into a war means, by definition, that somebody would have voted to authorize the war in the first place." With that whole thing.
i really just wanted to throw in an another "counter-"
If you don't think someone's worth engaging with, then don't engage with them. To write "I don't think you're worth engaging with" is engaging with someone, and doing so in about the most insulting way possible. It's not an OK way to behave - it's just a childish way of throwing in a last insult and then running away.
I'm completely out of time for blog commenting this morning, so I'm afraid I'm just going to have to tell you you're wrong and move on.
I liked the Rogers post for telling everyone to stop already with the transference and "weaving ourselves and our emotional journeys into some grand historical high-drama ... epic." It helped me understand what the Europeans keep saying about "he's just a politician," which I kept reading as "he'll lie like everyone else" as rather more like "he's just a guy doing a job, and you have to distance yourself emotionally and hold him accountable." Obvious advice, in a way, but something I (and lots of Americans) seem to be really bad at.
I don't think 417 is even worth responding to.
415: Yeah, I thought that's what you were getting at. Never said it. Explicitly avoided it.
I liked the Rogers post for telling everyone to stop already with the transference and "weaving ourselves and our emotional journeys into some grand historical high-drama ... epic."
But that's what we do! Next you're going to tell us our puny lives are insiginificant and meaningless compared to the motions of stars and planets, evolution's glacial march, and the ineluctable forces of history. Mean!
420: well, okay, good.
But I'm still kind of cross about what seem to be arguments saying media, electorate, and even Obama campaign sexism weren't an important factor, and that Clinton supporters are deluded fools if they can't see the truth of that.
I'm not arguing anyone is deluded, but I don't think sexism was a decisive direct factor. She came out ahead of Edwards. I didn't see polls about 20% of WVians saying they couldn't vote for a woman. When we ask for 'direct' we get 'Obama said 'kitchen sink.'' That's not Clinton's fault her supporters got a little dumb, any more than youtube commenters are Obama's fault, but it's striking that we're not saying 'Well, there was the op-ed in the Times by the Obama surrogate that argued that women couldn't lead because you know, in Saudi Arabia, women have to be veiled.'
But we should look to the subtle things, and I think it's arguably true that Clinton has had to position herself on certain issues in certain ways to look tough. I think her posturing on Iran in particular is part of that.* And this leads her into an unfavorable position: if she isn't tough, she looks feminine and weak (has not the penis to frighten the hordes); if she is tough, she doesn't come across as charismatic because there isn't a good way for a woman in our culture to come across as tough without looking like a bitch. It would take an enormously talented politician to pull that off.
So she goes for looking tough at a moment where being tough has cost the country thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
All that said, though, the thing about arguing that sexism, as opposed to pisspoor campaign management or the Iraq vote, is the reason she lost, doesn't seem to line up with the demographics. You'd have to seriously hold that older people and blue collar voters are more tolerant of women in power than younger people despite all evidence in other walks of life to the contrary. (Maybe we're guilty of being too overconfident, that we know there will be a female President in our lifetimes. But that's hardly sexist in any standard sense. That means feminism won a lot of battles.)
*Assuming that she just isn't a hawk, in which case, it's really just coming down to the %age swing in voters that thought Iraq was more important.
421.last continued: but the problem is, unless you're trying to create an equivalence between voting to authorize the war initially and voting on the specific funding bill he voted on, there's no real reason that I can see to make the point you have, and then the explicitly avoided becomes implicit, which introduces the same problem of comparing unlike-to-unlike.
What happened to the notion that the only woman who could come close to the nomination had to be a woman more steely and warlike than the average Democrat? That sort of disappeared when it turned out that she was the inevitable nominee/choice of the party establishment/etc. anyway.
Assuming that she just isn't a hawk
She has consciously and overtly positioned herself as a hawk ever since she was elected to the Senate. This didn't change until well into the campaign, when it became apparent that was a minority position within the Democratic electorate. And even then, she went on national TV to talk about obliterating Iran if they somehow launched an attack using weapons they don't have.
That is to say, I take her at her word that she's a hawk.
Never said it. Explicitly avoided it.
Would Obama vote to support the war if such a vote came up when he was in the Senate ? Would he adopt Republican talking points in doing so ?
We don't need to speculate. The history is there. Obama voted to fund the war, and when asked to explain, he offered Republican talking points about supporting the troops.
We had this conversation with you before, PF, and it died after you'd moved the goalposts several times. I don't understand the point you're making but not asking for clarification.
if she is tough, she doesn't come across as charismatic because there isn't a good way for a woman in our culture to come across as tough without looking like a bitch. It would take an enormously talented politician to pull that off
I've been thinking about this line of argument a lot, and I have two responses:
1) Every politician has these positioning issues, given his/her identity, past positions, etc. A black politician running for national office has to seem tough without seeming angry, a white politician running for national office has to seem inclusive without being pandering, etc. You could go on with this list. Whether you can negotiate those dilemmas just is a measure of whether you're a good politician. Some may leave less room to maneuver than others, but there's nothing really unique about any one of them.
2) Elizabeth Edwards. What if she were running? Her manner actually is as ball-busting as Hillary's is supposed to be, and yet 90% of the Clinton-haters would piss themselves with excitement if she were running. It's not impossible to be tough and likable, you just have to be likable.
Yeah. I mean, I think there is something to the idea that it would be harder for a woman to push a strong, sane diplomacy angle. It would be very hard not to be painted as frilly and silly compared to all these military men who are tough, and have huge cocks, etc.
Not sure if that explains Clinton; also not really caring, because whether she's a hawk because she feels forced to or because she really likes the idea of war, it's not a good year for hawks in the electorate.
That is to say, I take her at her word that she's a hawk.
Indeed; it has been perhaps the most consistent position she's held, after health care.
On the other hand, did she take hawkish stan, from the very beginning, because of what she perceived about women in this country and what they'd have to do to succeed? It could well be; she may well, outside of the political arena, hate war as a general principle. So on that level, it could well be that her entire political persona -- the one which led her to take the wrong stand on Iraq, and which may well have done more than anything else to lose her the election -- was based on her own (very possibly correct) perception of this country's sexism.
But then, you know, to think about it another way, her failure was due to an overt willingness to work within opponent's frameworks, a problem that has affected her, her husband and their political allies in way more realms than just gender politics.
Another point floating around my head: no one tries to distinguish animosity that's expressed in misogynistic ways from animosity that's caused by misogynism. Maybe there's not much difference in terms of harm to society, or even if you're using the election as a measuring stick of progress, but it makes a big difference for the claim that misogyny affected the outcome.
427: We've had the discussion before about likability and charisma, but even assuming that it isn't just largely marketing, it would be very hard for someone with Clinton's history to be presented as likable, even if she actually is. (I'm sure Obama's a bit of an asshole in person. Someone that smart and that good at code-switching is probably a wickedly cruel mimic at times.) Most of my childhood was filled with Republicans screeching that she was a heartless cold ambiitious bitch of a babykiller. A lot of those attacks were sexist; that's a lot of baggage (har har) to overcome.
Just bumbling around upthread I clicked into some old comments where I was pronouncing the race over pre-New Hampshire, proving once again that my political predictive abilities are crap. But! I am still right about Empire.
Elizabeth Edwards. What if she were running?
I'd also vote happily for Nancy Pelosi if she were running, because she wouldn't come with a toxic voting record trailing behind her and we'd have an honest-to-god liberal sitting in the White House. Half of Clinton's Senate career has seemed specifically calculated to piss me off.
423: That's right - I am trying to say the are two similar phenomena. Did Obama (and Clinton and the others who supported war funding) bow before what they perceived as political necessity and eschew a principled stand on an important issue ? You bet they did.
Now one might say, as Katherine does, that funding the war and promoting the false Republican line on war funding is very different from supporting the AUMF, and parroting false Republican talking points on that. That's not a crazy view, but I personally don't agree, and I'd like to explore it.
To be really, really explicit here: I prefer Obama's record on the war to Hillary's. Furthermore, even though (I'm pretty sure) Edwards waited until he was out of the Senate to oppose war funding, I prefer his record on the war to Obama's. But it seems pretty apparent to me that when Obama, Clinton et al were backing war funding, the pressures on them were much different than the pressures on Edwards.
We ought not demonize Obama - or at least we ought not insist he is radically inferior to Edwards - just because Obama chose to to push a pretty repellant Republican line on the war.
Half of Clinton's Senate career has seemed specifically calculated to piss me off.
Right there with ya.
On the other hand, did she take hawkish stan, from the very beginning
and hawkish stan took gram the one eyed snake.
I just realized I didn't say "it could well be" nearly enough times in 427. It could well be the great mistake of what could well be the comment where I could well be one day lauded for having said "it could well be" as many times as it could well be fit into a comment.
If Clinton's biggest problem was that toughness sets a trap women can never overcome, it seems to me that Obama isn't just going to be the first black president, he's going to ensure the existence of future female presidents by helping America past the toughness framework. Which is, arguably, only something a man could do (and is, arguably, the reason America is taking so long to elect a woman; such a step is too entangled in very well-entrenched issues—our foreign policy, and the way we relate to our leaders—to go away without some interim movements).
From NYT (2/18/07) via Tiny Revolution:
One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.
Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize -- even if she viewed the war as a mistake -- arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.
In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry's when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.
....
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).
At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.
....
Navigating the antiwar anger, and toughing it out for 11 months until the primaries, is now perhaps Mrs. Clinton's biggest political challenge. Indeed, in many ways at this stage, Iraq has overtaken her and other candidates' campaigns, as was evident yesterday as she rearranged her schedule to appear briefly in New Hampshire before returning to the Senate for a debate on Mr. Bush's war strategy.
(Emphasis mine.)
(A) There was misogyny in the media and elsewhere that hurt Clinton somewhat.
(B) Clinton's policy positions, especially Iraq, didn't fit with the Democratic electorate's.
(C) Clinton's campaign was badly managed - too much inevitability, not enough delegate-counting.
(D) All of the above.
I think the basic logical overleap of some Clinton supporters is if Clinton was hurt by misogyny, that must be the main reason she lost, and therefore it's a terrible tragedy and setback for feminism. It would be silly to deny she got treated poorly, but she was able to put up a good fight regardless. And there were plenty of other reasons she lost - the misogyny wasn't enough. On the whole I'd call it not a triumph for feminism but still a step forward. Not worthy of oh-woe-is-this-country-ism (at least, no more than usual).
Come on, people, be happy! Both the black guy and the woman would have been able to beat the reactionary, so we had the luxury of deciding which was the better candidate. The only real loser is bigotry.
if she is tough, she doesn't come across as charismatic because there isn't a good way for a woman in our culture to come across as tough without looking like a bitch. It would take an enormously talented politician to pull that off.
Ann Richards did it. I think Clinton was hemmed in, in part, by her manner of speech, which is a lot like Kerry's.
387:In this new McCain ad, HRC endorses McCain by name. Is there a better way to describe it?
And some people think she should be offered the VP?
440
don't forget
E) Clinton was deeply entangled with elements of the D. party that have pissed a lot of people off ...
And some people think she should be offered the VP?
Yeah, I can already see Tim Russert playing that during the VP debate. "Senator Clinton, what specific experience has Senator Obama gained since that press conference that made you change your mind about his qualifications for the presidency?"
The anti-Clinton stuff here is just absurd. Hillary Clinton has done more for progressive causes in the U.S. than Stras ever will.
Obama has been about as cautious as Hillary on Iraq since 2004. It's not like he took any kind of bold stand on defunding, withdrawal, or anything else once he actually became a Senator. He even endorsed Lieberman over Lamont in the Democratic primary in 2006 (he quietly switched in late October, in the general, once it was clear Lamont would lose -- already positioning himself as the anti-war candidate for the general. I admire his shrewdness, actually).
These people are politicians. They respond to their environment and they seek power. They choose to be generally on the left or generally on the right, occasionally they have some autonomy, mostly they drift with winds and pressures.
These people are politicians. They respond to their environment and they seek power. They choose to be generally on the left or generally on the right, occasionally they have some autonomy, mostly they drift with winds and pressures.
And that's why Illinois Senators Fitzgerald and Simon had identical views.
He even endorsed Lieberman over Lamont
I understand that Lieberman mentored Obama when he first came into the Senate. It seems a lot like the Wright issue actually: Obama was personally close to someone who had views with which he disagreed, and at a certain point the tension between the personal and political was too much.
These people are politicians. They respond to their environment and they seek power.
Which is why the coalition--or to use the word from the NYT article, "faction"--that grants them power matters so much. And given a viable politician who voted for the war and one who didn't--for whatever reason--the anti-Iraq war sub-faction was going to back the latter. That's how you punish a war vote. This isn't that hard.
441- Don't stop there, Tim. There are 16 female Senators in Congress, covering 13 states. Four voted against the war and three of those were re-elected after 9/11.
He even endorsed Lieberman over Lamont
Once Lamont had won the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat, Obama supporter Lamont.
I wish only to report that the Little Five Points is probably a mistake and should not be consumed by people. Not sick-making, but way, way, way too sweet. Further experimentation is possible but I don't recommend simply substituting SoCo for whiskey in a Manhattan recipe.
And was super pwned.
OK, back to work!
These people are politicians. They respond to their environment and they seek power.
And this is just remarkably shallow analysis generally. There are more and less principled politicians, there are people who try to win with this rather than that coalition, there are people who are particularly good or particularly bad on a given issue, etc., and there's the interplay of all of these. This "they're all just practicing politics" is a lazy debating move that's meant to absolve a particular politician (Everyone's an opportunist! Vote for Romney!) for bad decisions, or to remove the sheen from politicians who have shown some backbone.
448: I just meant to get at "female, tough, and charismatic," nothing else.
Oh, I realize that, Tim, but nothing drives me to drink more than 'Hilliary had to vote for the war to get elected.'
Hillary Clinton has done more for progressive causes in the U.S. than Stras ever will.
And more for killing and displacing Iraqis than baa ever will. Similarly, Joe Lieberman has done more for progressive causes over his career than this entire community combined. Is there supposed to be a point under there somewhere?
Hillary Clinton has done more for progressive causes in the U.S. than Stras ever will.
Fortunately, when calculating which politicians are most progressive, my metric isn't, "I wonder how Senator X compares to a blog commenter I've never met and know nothing about?" Sheesh, PGD, you should try reading some of the anti-Clinton comments before flinging your poo at the commenters. But I guess that would make your trolling more difficult.
Fuck you, Apo, that sentence was mind to work with. You're a selfish host.
Mind s/b mine. And fuck you again for making me make that mistake.
Hillary Clinton has done more for progressive causes in the U.S. than Stras ever will.
It's pretty simple, really. The electorate in NY state is progressive enough to safely re-elect a Dem every six years who doesn't reflexively support war, and Sen. Clinton surely knows that. So either she voted to authorize the Iraq War out of sincere conviction, like Lieberman, or she voted for it as a tactical necessity to win the Presidency at some future date. I think either one is enough to categorize her as "not progressive enough", irrespective of her other accomplishments. Moreover, as Yglesias has pointed out, the criticism of HRC is not just the cowardice and opportunism of voting for war out of perceived tactical necessity, but the poverty of imagination that led her to conclude that it was a tactical necessity, when subsequent experience has shown that assumption to be utterly wrong.
And this is just remarkably shallow analysis generally.
Well, everybody has their own view of shallowness in this context. There are people (especially a certain type of Edwards supporter) who say that Obama's unprincipled position on war funding makes him a despicable figure.
But that's an analysis that strikes me as remarkably shallow.
Sure, I supported Edwards over Obama, and I support Obama over Clinton - Tim's 447 describes one very important reason for this, but there are others. I just see the loathing for Obama and Hillary as being waaaay overdone.
Looking over some of the comments on the more fervent Clinton-supporting blogs, I've learned some remarkable True Facts. For example, that Obama is an America-hating, White-resenting, Marxist Chick-tract cariacature. This is just a guess, but I think a whole bunch of these people are about to discover that they're outraged by Chappaquiddick.
Which is why the coalition--or to use the word from the NYT article, "faction"--that grants them power matters so much. And given a viable politician who voted for the war and one who didn't--for whatever reason--the anti-Iraq war sub-faction was going to back the latter. That's how you punish a war vote. This isn't that hard.
I agree completely with this statement, and it's one reason why I voted for Obama. But it's entirely different than the kind of romanticization of him and demonization of the Clintons that's going on. Basically I agree with PF in 460.
Obama has ver-ry carefully staked out an Iraq position 10 permissible degrees to the left of Hillary, mostly based on stuff he said before he got elected to the Senate. He *is* the candidate you want to vote for to send an anti-war message in the Democratic primary, but he did exactly what he needed to do to get that position and nothing more. Not that I really fault him for that personally -- there's a reason he's going to be President and Russ Feingold won't be -- but he's a pragmatist like the rest.
to remove the sheen from politicians who have shown some backbone.
Obama hasn't shown much backbone on the national stage. Fortunately for him, he wasn't on the national stage during the mass backbone failure of the Democratic party during 2001-2003, so unlike the rest of them you can't conclusively say he doesn't have one.
He has shown a great deal of intelligence, shrewdness, organizational ability, discipline, rhetorical skills, and drive, which are all impressive qualities likely to make him a good advocate for the base Democratic agenda he shares with Hillary and others. But the backbone question is to be revealed during his administration.
And this is just remarkably shallow analysis generally.
It's shallow when you use it to avoid making pragmatic distinctions between politicians, or to say they're all the same, which is BS. But I don't think it's shallow when you use it to moderate or put in perspective personal and over-emotional reactions to political figures.
As for the comparison between the progressive accomplishments of Stras and Hillary -- admittedly somewhat silly, I grow impatient with the willingness of some people to be fantastically self-righteous about the failings of politicians while utterly ignoring the constraints inherent to politics. People who've gotten in there and done something deserve some respect for that alone, even when their time has past. Someone hasn't done what you would have done in their position? Well, trust me, you'd be a very different person if you'd paid the price it took to be in their position.
you should try reading some of the anti-Clinton comments before flinging your poo at the commenters.
you're working on the primness, Ari, but you're not quite there yet...come on, you can say "shit"! I know you can! Close your eyes and imagine Hillary's face!
396: The fact that the Clinton campaign used race as an intentional wedge to an extent vastly greater than the Obama campaign used sexism also seems, to me, a pretty strong case. Now, is this because sexism is so ingrained that the Obama campaign didn't have to do that? Could be, could be.
Sifu gets right here what those who raise the sexism issue are after. (What I take it is Mary Catherine's view.)
462: You haven't made an interesting comment about Hillary/Obama in months, certainly not since that night that you used drunkeness to cover for your absurd parroting of Clinton camp talking points. Still, it seems that you got a taste for trolling that night, and you haven't let up since. I say this because you refuse to read people's comments, you insist that people here "hate" Clinton, when the overwhelming majority of anti-Clinton comments here are policy-based, and you still repeat Clinton-camp talking points verbatim. And I used "poo" rather than "shit" not because I'm prim but because I was thinking of monkeys flinging their poo. It's not something they want to do; they just can't help themselves.
Monkeys fling shit, too, not just poo. Monkeys fling me, and monkeys fling you!
222 to 464. I even trolled myself!
You don't need a five year old to watch Madagascar. Mokey's fling their poo. It's all right there in the ur text.
I'm in ur ur text, setting ur archetypes.
Believe it or not, I've tried at times (against my very nature) to be a force for comity in the Obama / Clinton wars. Patching the party together again is now Job One, and certainly that requires re-recruiting the Hillary militants into the party. Obama might even shore up his message by adopting some of Hillary's positions where she's stronger.
I agree that some of the anti-Hillary talk here and elsewhere has been unnecessarily sexist, personal, and venomous.
At the same time, the Clinton wing of the party has done the Democrats a lot of harm, at least since 2001. In particular they did everything they could to prevent the democrats from ever trying to make the Iraq War an issue, and they were successful until well into 2005. If they had been listened to, I doubt that Democrats would have won Congress in 2006. For me, to have Hillary nominated would have erased all the progress I thought the Democrats had made in the last five or six years.
Mark Penn has to be gone forever. (He actually was gone, and Hillary dragged him back.) Ickes, Carville, Lanny davis, and a few others have to be kept in very subordinate positions or else invited to go into the private sector.
Hillary for VP would solve one of the problems, but it would be too costly in terms of the other, and having Bill hovering around would just be impossible. Even if Hillary isn't VP, Bill might be a threat to Obama. He can't help himself, and he can't be trusted.
I'm sure that most voters aren't analyzing their positions with anything like John's thoroughness, but I also think that many Democrats share his views about the Democratic establishment and its evil cowardice.
461: if that was really a comment about politics by SB, my brain might be about to explode.
Even if Hillary isn't VP, Bill might be a threat to Obama. He can't help himself, and he can't be trusted.
Bill effectively disappeared in 2000 when Gore asked him to. I don't see why this situation would be different.
Then again, I have other crazy beliefs about Bill. For example, I think Bill has been entirely subordinate to Hillary during her campaign, and not a loose cannon at all. Another way of saying this is: I blame Hillary for Bill's missteps.
And I don't think Bill has misstepped, in the sense of doing things accidentally. His schtick seemed very calculated to me.
That said, I certainly agree that Mark Penn, Lanny Davis and Terry McCauliffe are perfectly legitimate candidates for the hog farm. Carville and some of the others, I think, can be re-educated.
Having Bill with a foot in the door with Hillary at VP would be a whole different story.
Obama has ver-ry carefully staked out an Iraq position for wabbits!
