Yes, the story is old, and yes, the MSM and Obamasphere have declared that he did not throw his grandmother under the bus, but Uppity's April 8, 2008 post reminded me that I've not forgotten what he said and that, contrary to his many apologists, it bothers me more every time I hear it.
If this had been an off-the-cuff remark during a conversation about racism with friends or colleagues, I could excuse it. We all draw from past experiences and, quite often, exaggerate or massage the facts to bolster the position we are taking.
But the speech in which Obama outed his white grandmother as an unconscious bigot has been widely touted as the most important and brilliant speech in modern political history. We are told that Obama wrote it all himself, spent hours writing it, even stayed up all night. So we must assume that he chose this anecdote (a bit revised from the story in his sort of, semi-accurate memoir) with care.
To make the point that he could not abandon his preacher, he chose to tarnish the image of the woman who raised him. Later, in justifying or explaining the anecdote, he described her as a "typical white woman".
He had to have known that the speech and his comments would be widely broadcast and discussed. He should have known, or guessed, that it might be used by Republicans in ads against him. But he, nevertheless, chose to use his grandmother to help him out from under the political mess he had gotten himself into.
It seems to me to be fair to ask if this is how a grandson expresses his affection, gratitutde, or love for his grandmother? What kind of person would tell this story, true or not, in the most public of forums about his grandmother? What kind of grandson would explain away his grandmother as a "typical white woman"? I'm not a psychologist but I can't help but feel that maybe Obama doesn't exactly love his grandmother, that maybe he knew it would hurt her to be used this way and that's exactly what he wanted to happen.
At the very least, it suggests an enormous distance between him and his grandmother, and a lack of compunction about using her faults to enhance his reputation.
I know I'm not expressing this very well. All I know is that each time something causes me to remember his statements about his grandmother, I sense deep inside me that something is very, very wrong.
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Who does the DNC represent?
I'm really confused about these primaries which started in January and are scheduled to end in June.
Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and Nancy Pelosi and the media and the Kossacks & family all insist that the campaign has to stop today for the good of the party.
Now, let's take the media first. They wanted it to be over after the Iowa caucuses. Why? What were they planning to talk about for the 8 months until the conventon? As I've posted before, the networks have practically stopped covering the conventions because they are just free advertising for the parties. This year, a convention might be worth paying attention to. But the media aren't interested. Weird.
But back to the DNC. So they made some rules about when primaries could be held, and the primary purpose of the rules, as far as I can tell, was to keep Iowa and New Hampshire at the head of the pack. Florida and Michigan, primarily because of Republicans, moved their primaries up in defiance of "The Rules".
Ignoring the question about the rules and credentials, etc., what Florida and Michigan were trying to do was to be relevant because, as current DNC commentary goes, the states at the back end of the primary schedule are not supposed to count.
Democrats across the country (and Republicans, too, if McCain had not emerged as the leader) are thus in a no-win situation. If they move their primary dates up front, their votes won't be counted because of "The Rules". If they leave them at the back of the schedule, their votes won't count either: because the nominee will have already been chosen (McCain) or because the Party wants the winner to be selected before the primary season is halfway finished.
This is a classic Catch-22 of course. So it makes me wonder just whom the DNC represents, because it doesn't seem to represent or much care about the preferences of ordinary voting Democrats. Why then even bother with an expensive primary season? The DNC should simply get together in January of the election year and choose the candidate, just like back in those old smoke-filled room days. It is cruel and unusual punishment to, with one hand, give Democrats across the country the right to vote for the candidate of their choice and, with the other hand, take it away because it is divisive.
One last thought: if it were Obama vs. Edwards, would there be all this yak about how Edwards should get out for the good of the Party?
Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and Nancy Pelosi and the media and the Kossacks & family all insist that the campaign has to stop today for the good of the party.
Now, let's take the media first. They wanted it to be over after the Iowa caucuses. Why? What were they planning to talk about for the 8 months until the conventon? As I've posted before, the networks have practically stopped covering the conventions because they are just free advertising for the parties. This year, a convention might be worth paying attention to. But the media aren't interested. Weird.
But back to the DNC. So they made some rules about when primaries could be held, and the primary purpose of the rules, as far as I can tell, was to keep Iowa and New Hampshire at the head of the pack. Florida and Michigan, primarily because of Republicans, moved their primaries up in defiance of "The Rules".
Ignoring the question about the rules and credentials, etc., what Florida and Michigan were trying to do was to be relevant because, as current DNC commentary goes, the states at the back end of the primary schedule are not supposed to count.
Democrats across the country (and Republicans, too, if McCain had not emerged as the leader) are thus in a no-win situation. If they move their primary dates up front, their votes won't be counted because of "The Rules". If they leave them at the back of the schedule, their votes won't count either: because the nominee will have already been chosen (McCain) or because the Party wants the winner to be selected before the primary season is halfway finished.
This is a classic Catch-22 of course. So it makes me wonder just whom the DNC represents, because it doesn't seem to represent or much care about the preferences of ordinary voting Democrats. Why then even bother with an expensive primary season? The DNC should simply get together in January of the election year and choose the candidate, just like back in those old smoke-filled room days. It is cruel and unusual punishment to, with one hand, give Democrats across the country the right to vote for the candidate of their choice and, with the other hand, take it away because it is divisive.
One last thought: if it were Obama vs. Edwards, would there be all this yak about how Edwards should get out for the good of the Party?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Why does Pelosi support Obama?
No, I don't know Pelosi and I've never heard her directly endorse Obama, but anybody who has been following this campaign understands what she means when she makes a comment about the primaries.
I have been trying to understand Obama's enduring appeal. I can see being infatuated with him: the rhetorical skill, those high-flown sentiments. But the more one looks into his past, the less one finds. This is a man who got his legislative seat by using rules, yes "rules", to disqualify his opponents. The bills he passed in his last year in the Illinois legislature? Handed to him on a silver platter by Emil Jones. His election to the U.S. Senate? The Republican opponent had to bow out due to a sex scandal & was replaced by an out-of-stater. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats could have run and won with anybody who was breathing.
He does not appear to have any deep-seated convictions. A review of his career in the Illinois legislature & the U.S. Senate suggests a man who doesn't want to make anybody angry or require him to defend himself. Remember, many of those "present" votes were not orchestrated by Democrats. They were his choice. And he seems to have ducked votes in the Senate that might negatively impact his run for President.
As far as I can tell, he fulfills an unknown (to me) need on the part of Democrats for their own Ronald Reagan: you know, a guy who holds a few global principles, can deliver a good speech, but doesn't want to be bothered by the details.
How does this explain Pelosi's support and, I suspect, Harry Reid's as well? Simple. As a Bay Area resident, I hate to say this but Pelosi has proven herself to be a singularly ineffective Speaker. And Reid might as well be Minority Leader for all that he has accomplished, although he, at least, has the excuse of a 1-vote majority (Lieberman- who no doubt uses his position as an Independent to exert pressure).
The guiding principles of Pelosi and Reid seem to be:
1. Don't make waves.
2. Don't embarrass anybody, Republican or Democrat or the President, by making them go on the record by voting "no" or issuing a veto. Reid counts noses and if he can't get 60 votes (to avoid a fillibuster) or 2/3 to override a veto, he doesn't even bother to put legislation to a vote. After all, why make Republicans angry by actually forcing them to go through the discomfort of a fillibuster? Pelosi seems to rely on a similar strategy.
Their governing philosophy has much in common with Obama's "unity" trope - and his "present" votes. "Let's just all get along." I think Pelosi and Reid see in Obama a President who won't get in their way, a President who will set forth some Reagan-like exhortations and let them go about their business.
But they know that a President Hillary will demand results. She cares about the big picture, but she knows the details matter. She will make demands upon Pelosi and Reid; she will expect them to do everything possible to pass her agenda.
I rather suspect, therefore, that Pelosi and Reid don't really care whether or not Obama becomes President as long as Democrats retain control of the Congress. After all, with McCain in the White House, they can continue to blame their incompetence on a Republican President.
I have been trying to understand Obama's enduring appeal. I can see being infatuated with him: the rhetorical skill, those high-flown sentiments. But the more one looks into his past, the less one finds. This is a man who got his legislative seat by using rules, yes "rules", to disqualify his opponents. The bills he passed in his last year in the Illinois legislature? Handed to him on a silver platter by Emil Jones. His election to the U.S. Senate? The Republican opponent had to bow out due to a sex scandal & was replaced by an out-of-stater. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats could have run and won with anybody who was breathing.
He does not appear to have any deep-seated convictions. A review of his career in the Illinois legislature & the U.S. Senate suggests a man who doesn't want to make anybody angry or require him to defend himself. Remember, many of those "present" votes were not orchestrated by Democrats. They were his choice. And he seems to have ducked votes in the Senate that might negatively impact his run for President.
As far as I can tell, he fulfills an unknown (to me) need on the part of Democrats for their own Ronald Reagan: you know, a guy who holds a few global principles, can deliver a good speech, but doesn't want to be bothered by the details.
How does this explain Pelosi's support and, I suspect, Harry Reid's as well? Simple. As a Bay Area resident, I hate to say this but Pelosi has proven herself to be a singularly ineffective Speaker. And Reid might as well be Minority Leader for all that he has accomplished, although he, at least, has the excuse of a 1-vote majority (Lieberman- who no doubt uses his position as an Independent to exert pressure).
The guiding principles of Pelosi and Reid seem to be:
1. Don't make waves.
2. Don't embarrass anybody, Republican or Democrat or the President, by making them go on the record by voting "no" or issuing a veto. Reid counts noses and if he can't get 60 votes (to avoid a fillibuster) or 2/3 to override a veto, he doesn't even bother to put legislation to a vote. After all, why make Republicans angry by actually forcing them to go through the discomfort of a fillibuster? Pelosi seems to rely on a similar strategy.
Their governing philosophy has much in common with Obama's "unity" trope - and his "present" votes. "Let's just all get along." I think Pelosi and Reid see in Obama a President who won't get in their way, a President who will set forth some Reagan-like exhortations and let them go about their business.
But they know that a President Hillary will demand results. She cares about the big picture, but she knows the details matter. She will make demands upon Pelosi and Reid; she will expect them to do everything possible to pass her agenda.
I rather suspect, therefore, that Pelosi and Reid don't really care whether or not Obama becomes President as long as Democrats retain control of the Congress. After all, with McCain in the White House, they can continue to blame their incompetence on a Republican President.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Why Do They Want Her to Quit? No, It's not "The Math"
Why do all off Obama's supporters want her to quit? They say she can't win, that Obama has it in the bag. So, why do they care? The primaries will go on whether or not Hillary is in the race, so the states to come won't save money. Do they want to save Hillary's supporters from wasting their money in campaign contributions? Unlikely. Are they trying to save Hillary the ignominy of defeat? (Is it less painful to resign than to lose?)
Or could it be that they are afraid Hillary will win most of the remaining primaries and head into the convention on a roll?
Or could it be that they are afraid Hillary will win most of the remaining primaries and head into the convention on a roll?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Amazing Clinton
My admiration of Hillary Clinton has grown enormously during this campaign. She has demonstrated courage, class, unbelievable energy, and an unsurpassed grasp of the issues.
JoAnne Tybinka Blasko at The Democratic Daily has noticed it, too.
One of the many differences I've noticed between Obama and Clinton is that he is great at giving speeches from a teleprompter* but is a lot less fluent when being questioned (even by Larry King) and in the debates. I've suspected this is because Hillary really knows her stuff. Obama, like Bush 43 and Reagan, doesn't really know his stuff. He's just a superb a performer.
bostonboomer at The Confluence says it better.
* this was first evident when he lost in New Hampshire. Besides showing himself to be a poor loser, he gave a perfunctory congratulation statement and then launched in to the victory speech he had prepared. He was, to be blunt, completely unable to recast his speech to reflect reality.
Anglachel does it again with her post about Clinton's response to the market meltdown. I do not know how the MSM, let alone the so-called liberal blogosphere can be blind to the understanding and competence and simple level-headedness that Hillary demonstrates time and again. It's as if they find competence not just irrelevant but ridiculous and useless.
JoAnne Tybinka Blasko at The Democratic Daily has noticed it, too.
One of the many differences I've noticed between Obama and Clinton is that he is great at giving speeches from a teleprompter* but is a lot less fluent when being questioned (even by Larry King) and in the debates. I've suspected this is because Hillary really knows her stuff. Obama, like Bush 43 and Reagan, doesn't really know his stuff. He's just a superb a performer.
bostonboomer at The Confluence says it better.
* this was first evident when he lost in New Hampshire. Besides showing himself to be a poor loser, he gave a perfunctory congratulation statement and then launched in to the victory speech he had prepared. He was, to be blunt, completely unable to recast his speech to reflect reality.
Anglachel does it again with her post about Clinton's response to the market meltdown. I do not know how the MSM, let alone the so-called liberal blogosphere can be blind to the understanding and competence and simple level-headedness that Hillary demonstrates time and again. It's as if they find competence not just irrelevant but ridiculous and useless.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Experience Argument - I'm Confused
One of the constant tropes of Obama's campaign against Hillary is that she has no experience other than being First Lady. Nothing she has done in her entire working life, including her 7 years as a Senator, counts as experience.
But, and this is what gets me, if Democrats are supposed to vote against Hillary because she is unprepared and inexperienced, how on earth do Obama's supporters argue that he has the experience? Work as a community organizer? An undistinguished career in the Illinois legislature (at least until there was a Democratic majority) with some 100 "present" votes (not all of which were part of an organized Democratic strategy), and 2 years in the Senate, after one year of which he started running for President?
The Obama supporters say he has judgment. He was against the war in Iraq. As has been pointed out many times by many people, he made an anti-war statement as an unimportant legislator in a liberal district but never did anything to oppose the war other than make that one statement (as far as I can tell). And he has recently indicated that his financial dealings with Rezko were "bone-headed". So, he doesn't have perfect judgment either.
What are we to make of this? Should we start touting up examples of judgment on both sides to see how often Hillary and Obama have been right, or wrong?
But getting back to the experience issue. I just don't get how Obama and his supporters can argue with a straight face that Obama is the better candidate because Hillary hasn't got the experience.
Isn't the logical conclusion that if experience doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter if Hillary has experience or not?
So why does this particular argument against Hillary and for Obama continue to have legs, to be repeated - in one way or another - day after day after day?
But, and this is what gets me, if Democrats are supposed to vote against Hillary because she is unprepared and inexperienced, how on earth do Obama's supporters argue that he has the experience? Work as a community organizer? An undistinguished career in the Illinois legislature (at least until there was a Democratic majority) with some 100 "present" votes (not all of which were part of an organized Democratic strategy), and 2 years in the Senate, after one year of which he started running for President?
The Obama supporters say he has judgment. He was against the war in Iraq. As has been pointed out many times by many people, he made an anti-war statement as an unimportant legislator in a liberal district but never did anything to oppose the war other than make that one statement (as far as I can tell). And he has recently indicated that his financial dealings with Rezko were "bone-headed". So, he doesn't have perfect judgment either.
What are we to make of this? Should we start touting up examples of judgment on both sides to see how often Hillary and Obama have been right, or wrong?
But getting back to the experience issue. I just don't get how Obama and his supporters can argue with a straight face that Obama is the better candidate because Hillary hasn't got the experience.
Isn't the logical conclusion that if experience doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter if Hillary has experience or not?
So why does this particular argument against Hillary and for Obama continue to have legs, to be repeated - in one way or another - day after day after day?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
OBAMA AND HIS PASTOR - A DEFENSE
Caveats:
1. I am a Hillary supporter.
2. I think it is pretty obvious now that Obama lied when he said he had not heard any inflammatory sermons.
3. The sermons will give the Republican Party plenty of ammo in the GE.
4. Since I don't have broadband, I've not seen any videos. I assume, however, that the partial transcripts I've read contain the most objectionable parts of those sermons.
That said, I am dismayed to see so many hard-core liberals, even those who adore Obama, professing such great indignation at the pastor's words. They are not new or unusual. Indeed, they can be traced back at least to the 60s: the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement - yes, those old battles that Hillary's generation fought and Obama has dismissed as outmoded. Liberals who condemn the pastor for the words and Obama for continuing to frequent the church, cannot then object when Conservatives condemn the liberals of the 60s who used those same words - or who may use them in the future.
I also believe, to some extent, Obama's explanations for not leaving the church, and I admire him for not denying the friendship - not that he had any choice.
However, I suspect there is another reason for his not leaving his church. Granted, I don't know either man and have absolutely no proof, but that doesn't stop Hillary critics from in-depth analyses of her motives, so I don't see why it should stop me. I think the reason the pastor's words haven't bothered Obama is because Obama, a superb performer himself, knows that the pastor's sermons are pure performance art. The man may or may not believe what he is saying - I rather suspect he is something of an Elmer Gantry - but he is obviously playing to the audience he wants to acquire and maintain. In short, the pastor is a bit of a fraud and Obama knows it.
THE SPEECH
Obama's speech on race was wonderfully crafted. He managed to subtly accuse Hillary's side for the injection of race into the primaries, reduce the issue of the sermons to a minor scene in a greater picture, and also, a little less subtly, suggest that electing him President would be the first step in a healing of the nation's racial divides. Nevertheless, he deserves most of the credit he is getting for the way he chose to address the issue.
1. I am a Hillary supporter.
2. I think it is pretty obvious now that Obama lied when he said he had not heard any inflammatory sermons.
3. The sermons will give the Republican Party plenty of ammo in the GE.
4. Since I don't have broadband, I've not seen any videos. I assume, however, that the partial transcripts I've read contain the most objectionable parts of those sermons.
That said, I am dismayed to see so many hard-core liberals, even those who adore Obama, professing such great indignation at the pastor's words. They are not new or unusual. Indeed, they can be traced back at least to the 60s: the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement - yes, those old battles that Hillary's generation fought and Obama has dismissed as outmoded. Liberals who condemn the pastor for the words and Obama for continuing to frequent the church, cannot then object when Conservatives condemn the liberals of the 60s who used those same words - or who may use them in the future.
I also believe, to some extent, Obama's explanations for not leaving the church, and I admire him for not denying the friendship - not that he had any choice.
However, I suspect there is another reason for his not leaving his church. Granted, I don't know either man and have absolutely no proof, but that doesn't stop Hillary critics from in-depth analyses of her motives, so I don't see why it should stop me. I think the reason the pastor's words haven't bothered Obama is because Obama, a superb performer himself, knows that the pastor's sermons are pure performance art. The man may or may not believe what he is saying - I rather suspect he is something of an Elmer Gantry - but he is obviously playing to the audience he wants to acquire and maintain. In short, the pastor is a bit of a fraud and Obama knows it.
THE SPEECH
Obama's speech on race was wonderfully crafted. He managed to subtly accuse Hillary's side for the injection of race into the primaries, reduce the issue of the sermons to a minor scene in a greater picture, and also, a little less subtly, suggest that electing him President would be the first step in a healing of the nation's racial divides. Nevertheless, he deserves most of the credit he is getting for the way he chose to address the issue.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Amazing Hillary and Her Amazing Campaign
Today's conventional wisdom is that Hillary's lousy* campaign machine destroyed what was her claim to inevitability. There are, as usual with Hillary coverage, two problems with this claim. First and foremost, she never claimed that she was inevitable. It was the punditry which labeled her as the front-runner, long before even the first vote was cast. As for her campaign, well, I suppose there have been mistakes, but no other candidate has faced the obstacles Hillary has faced.
Once it became clear that Hillary had a real shot at the nomination, probably after the first debate, all the positive statements about her Senate performance, even from such Conservative slugs as Tucker Carlson, stopped. Since then, when the media, MSM and blogosphere, fell in love with Obama, press coverage has been brutally negative.
Not a single "liberal" magazine (The Nation, The New Republic, The Progressive, etc.), to my knowledge, has endorsed her. In the liberal blogosphere, all the first tier blogs (Kos, TPM, Huff, etc.) have been for Obama. This might not be all that exceptional except for the tone of the coverage. It has been brutal and almost completely personal. The language on the blogs, from owners, formal participants and commenters has been vicious. Supporters of Hillary have been slimed because they haven't accepted the divinity of Obama. The coverage by TNR, which hasn't been a liberal magazine since Nixon (but retains the sobriquet because once the media label anything or anybody, the label sticks regardless of reality), especially but not limited to its blogs, has become a cesspool of vitriol indistinguishable from all but the most disgusting comments about Hillary which have flooded the blogosphere.
We are not talking here about a reasoned evaluation of the careers of Obama and Clinton. Nobody in print or online is talking in detail about the careers of the two candidates, the votes they have cast, what they have done for their constituents, how their peers perceive their performance, to what extent they have voted in line with their major contributors, etc. No, that would require research, dull, unexciting research. And, these so-called journalists will say, it's not necessary because the facts are on their web sites. What they provide is "context", informed criticism. Bull. The coverage is little more than gossip about the two personalities in which the roles have been set in concrete: Obama is a saint and Hillary is Kali, the Destroyer.
TV coverage hasn't been any better. MSNBC has been the "Vote for Obama" network for months, led by the oleaginous Chris Matthews but including all the major pundits (Olbermann, Carlson, Scarborough, etc.) and their guest talking heads. NBC's "real" reporters, like Tim Russert, are down in the dirt with their MSNBC colleagues. CNN, ABC and CBS are not far behind.
Time and Newsweek just did cover stories on Hillary. In contrast to the glowing cover stories on Obama and his wife, most of the articles on Hillary in these issues are negative.
Yet, and this is what turned me from being neutral about Clinton (a year ago, I could easily have voted for any of the Democratic candidates except Gravel) into a supporter, Clinton has not only won the major primaries, she has done it in the face of this endless stream of abuse from all the media, and she has done it with grace, style, and humor. The contrast between her and Obama became clear after the Iowa loss and New Hampshire win. Clinton was gracious both in defeat and victory. Obama gloated and then sulked.
She is not only one smart cookie, she is one classy lady.
*according to The Clinton Rules, it is "lousy" only when she doesn't win. When she does, it is a diabolical machine that will stop at nothing in order to destroy Obama, The Chosen One.
Once it became clear that Hillary had a real shot at the nomination, probably after the first debate, all the positive statements about her Senate performance, even from such Conservative slugs as Tucker Carlson, stopped. Since then, when the media, MSM and blogosphere, fell in love with Obama, press coverage has been brutally negative.
Not a single "liberal" magazine (The Nation, The New Republic, The Progressive, etc.), to my knowledge, has endorsed her. In the liberal blogosphere, all the first tier blogs (Kos, TPM, Huff, etc.) have been for Obama. This might not be all that exceptional except for the tone of the coverage. It has been brutal and almost completely personal. The language on the blogs, from owners, formal participants and commenters has been vicious. Supporters of Hillary have been slimed because they haven't accepted the divinity of Obama. The coverage by TNR, which hasn't been a liberal magazine since Nixon (but retains the sobriquet because once the media label anything or anybody, the label sticks regardless of reality), especially but not limited to its blogs, has become a cesspool of vitriol indistinguishable from all but the most disgusting comments about Hillary which have flooded the blogosphere.
We are not talking here about a reasoned evaluation of the careers of Obama and Clinton. Nobody in print or online is talking in detail about the careers of the two candidates, the votes they have cast, what they have done for their constituents, how their peers perceive their performance, to what extent they have voted in line with their major contributors, etc. No, that would require research, dull, unexciting research. And, these so-called journalists will say, it's not necessary because the facts are on their web sites. What they provide is "context", informed criticism. Bull. The coverage is little more than gossip about the two personalities in which the roles have been set in concrete: Obama is a saint and Hillary is Kali, the Destroyer.
TV coverage hasn't been any better. MSNBC has been the "Vote for Obama" network for months, led by the oleaginous Chris Matthews but including all the major pundits (Olbermann, Carlson, Scarborough, etc.) and their guest talking heads. NBC's "real" reporters, like Tim Russert, are down in the dirt with their MSNBC colleagues. CNN, ABC and CBS are not far behind.
Time and Newsweek just did cover stories on Hillary. In contrast to the glowing cover stories on Obama and his wife, most of the articles on Hillary in these issues are negative.
Yet, and this is what turned me from being neutral about Clinton (a year ago, I could easily have voted for any of the Democratic candidates except Gravel) into a supporter, Clinton has not only won the major primaries, she has done it in the face of this endless stream of abuse from all the media, and she has done it with grace, style, and humor. The contrast between her and Obama became clear after the Iowa loss and New Hampshire win. Clinton was gracious both in defeat and victory. Obama gloated and then sulked.
She is not only one smart cookie, she is one classy lady.
*according to The Clinton Rules, it is "lousy" only when she doesn't win. When she does, it is a diabolical machine that will stop at nothing in order to destroy Obama, The Chosen One.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
OBAMA v. MCCAIN or CLINTON v. MCCAIN
Well, it's pretty obvious that McCain will be the Republican nominee, so the obvious question is which Democrat has the best chance of beating him. I honestly don't know, but my current analysis follows:
1. Media Coverage
The Media (MSM and most of the blogosphere) love both Obama and McCain. This means that, for possibly the first time in 20 or 30 years, we could expect fair coverage of both candidates (i.e. negatives will be minimized).
If Hillary is the candidate, we can, of course, expect her to be thoroughly trashed no matter what she says or does and no matter what McCain says or does.
2. Debate Performance
O v. M
Visually, we will see a tall, young, vigorous man vs. an older, shorter, weaker man.
In a debate between these two, both men have to be careful how they attack. If McCain focuses too much on Obama's youth, he risks raising the specter of his own age.
McCain must also be careful not to say anything that could be interpreted as racist. (This is less likely for McCain than it would be for Hillary because there is no presumption that McCain would play the race card.)
But Obama must also be careful about calling McCain too old, or implying that his experience and judgment are irrelevant or flawed. Whatever else McCain's opponents may think of him, they know he is a war hero. Just as McCain must worry about being perceived as "dissing" Obama, Obama must avoid the use of his "Hillary-dissing" strategies: looking down his nose, smirks, etc.
H v. M
Visually we will see a short, middle-aged woman vs. a short, older man. They will appear, more or less, evenly matched.
McCain must worry about talking down to Hillary or treating her as a lesser rival because of her sex. He will lose a lot of woman if he dismisses her experience.
Hillary, I suspect, will not commit any "perception" errors. She has known McCain for many years, she knows about his temper, she already knows how he treats her. That gives her an edge over Obama.
3. General Election
If there is a terrorist attack prior to the election, it will favor McCain. But which Democrat will it hurt less? I think Hillary, in part because she did support the vote to invade Iraq and because of her experience on the Armed Services Committee. Obama would be at a disadvantage because McCain could paint him as a peacenik who obviously doesn't know how dangerous the world is. (The fact that a second attack occurred under the same Republican President as the first attack will not hurt McCain. Why, I don't know. But it won't.)
Otherwise, I think either Obama or Clinton has a good shot to beat McCain simply because they are Democrats. Hillary would have negative media coverage while Obama's would be good. (See #1 above.) Obama is, of course, the more uplifting speaker, but there's the chance that during the campaign, his speeches could wear thin. And, as in the debates, he has to avoid the flip side of the race card.
Still, I don't think one can reasonably predict which Democrat would do better against McCain.
1. Media Coverage
The Media (MSM and most of the blogosphere) love both Obama and McCain. This means that, for possibly the first time in 20 or 30 years, we could expect fair coverage of both candidates (i.e. negatives will be minimized).
If Hillary is the candidate, we can, of course, expect her to be thoroughly trashed no matter what she says or does and no matter what McCain says or does.
2. Debate Performance
O v. M
Visually, we will see a tall, young, vigorous man vs. an older, shorter, weaker man.
In a debate between these two, both men have to be careful how they attack. If McCain focuses too much on Obama's youth, he risks raising the specter of his own age.
McCain must also be careful not to say anything that could be interpreted as racist. (This is less likely for McCain than it would be for Hillary because there is no presumption that McCain would play the race card.)
But Obama must also be careful about calling McCain too old, or implying that his experience and judgment are irrelevant or flawed. Whatever else McCain's opponents may think of him, they know he is a war hero. Just as McCain must worry about being perceived as "dissing" Obama, Obama must avoid the use of his "Hillary-dissing" strategies: looking down his nose, smirks, etc.
H v. M
Visually we will see a short, middle-aged woman vs. a short, older man. They will appear, more or less, evenly matched.
McCain must worry about talking down to Hillary or treating her as a lesser rival because of her sex. He will lose a lot of woman if he dismisses her experience.
Hillary, I suspect, will not commit any "perception" errors. She has known McCain for many years, she knows about his temper, she already knows how he treats her. That gives her an edge over Obama.
3. General Election
If there is a terrorist attack prior to the election, it will favor McCain. But which Democrat will it hurt less? I think Hillary, in part because she did support the vote to invade Iraq and because of her experience on the Armed Services Committee. Obama would be at a disadvantage because McCain could paint him as a peacenik who obviously doesn't know how dangerous the world is. (The fact that a second attack occurred under the same Republican President as the first attack will not hurt McCain. Why, I don't know. But it won't.)
Otherwise, I think either Obama or Clinton has a good shot to beat McCain simply because they are Democrats. Hillary would have negative media coverage while Obama's would be good. (See #1 above.) Obama is, of course, the more uplifting speaker, but there's the chance that during the campaign, his speeches could wear thin. And, as in the debates, he has to avoid the flip side of the race card.
Still, I don't think one can reasonably predict which Democrat would do better against McCain.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Has Obama's Campaign Turned Into a Cult?
Has Obama's political campaign turned into a political cult? I ask this in all seriousness.
It's not simply that almost the entire MSM, and a large majority of the so-called netroots, is actively campaigning for Obama.
It is that the language used by the MSM, netroots, and thousands of commenters on blogs such as those at the Huffington Post, is eerily similar. Hillary is Satan, a woman without principles, a woman who has lied since the day she was born, a woman who acted as a pimp for her husband, and so on, up to and beyond all the Right-Wing swiftboat attacks in the 1990s that included an accusation of murder. Nothing she says or does is considered to be sincere. If she smiles, she's just pretending. If she tears up, she is acting. If she criticizes Obama, she is being nasty at best and racist at worse. If there is any way, no matter how bizarre, to detect evil in something she says or something one of her supporters says, it is pounced on and amplified until, like the Swiftboat attacks, it sticks.
OTOH, no criticism of Obama is valid. Point out that he is not the first African-American to win a Presidential primary in South Carolina and you are racist - even though the MSM frequently opined that he was likely to receive the majority of Black votes in the South Carolina (why? because he's Irish?). The MSM was not accused of injecting race.
Everything that Obama says and does is good because he is Obama. Point out that he attacked Hillary and the answer is that she attacked him first. So, of course, he didn't really want to do it but he had no choice. Did he smirk at her, snub her? No, of course not. Just another of Hillary's lies and an attempt to get sympathy. See an Aussie's take on this:"Stop Bagging Hillary" by Michael Costello, 2/1/08
Nobody has asked just how Obama plans to "bring us all together" or even if that is a good idea. We are just supposed to take on faith that Obama, because of "who he is" rather than "what he has accomplished" will bridge the divisions between Republicans and Democrats, supporters and opponents of the war in Iraq, right-to-lifers and freedom-of-choicers. The subtext is that the divisions and bitterness can be equally apportioned between Republicans and Democrats. Anybody who has lived in the U.S. for the past 20 years and thinks that the Republicans are willing to compromise and share power has, indeed, been living in a dream world. Worse, he implies that the divisions are not based on strongly held principles which are worth fighting for.
Name me any President, other than Washington, who was not reviled by some part of the population. Adams? Lincoln? FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (well, maybe nobody actually hated Ike), JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan (yes, some people hated Reagan), Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43? Name me an era when Washington politics was all sweetness and light.
Think I'm being irrational? Check out these two blogs and read the comments made after the 1/31/08 debate in Hollywood (start with the oldest ones since they represent the first reactions, uninfluenced by the media spin. It is necessary to read only 20 or 30 comments.)
HuffPost "LA Debate: Hugs, ..."
The candidate of hope and light who promises to bring us all together (white and black, Republicans and Democrats, the rich and the poor, Bill Kristol and Ralph Nader) is supported by people who hate, loathe and despise Hillary with a venom greater than that usually heaped upon child abusers. And many of these supporters of the unity candidate promise to vote for a Republican rather than vote for Hillary. In short, their allegiance is to a person, not to a political philosophy, and they are willing to give the party that has achieved a bloodless coup against the Constitution another shot at completing the destruction rather than vote for Hillary.
TalkLeft's "Democrats and America Won Tonight"
The unelectable, divisive, high negative candidate is supported by people who saw a woman and an AA standing on the stage and vying for the Democratic Party's nominee for President as a truly historic event. They were thrilled at the sight and proud to be Democrats. They want Hillary to win but will support Obama if he is the candidate. (I have yet to see a Hillary supporter threaten to vote for the Republican if Obama is the nominee.)
These are not aberrational differences. They have been playing out for months. Obama's supporters spew poison minute by minute, directed almost solely, with the exception of Hillary's vote on Iraq, at her as a person who is worse than Satan rather than at specific decisions & acts. Hillary's supporters, OTOH, tend to point out specific factual reasons for not choosing Obama.
Read the comments posted in response to any blogger or columnist who is neutral or pro-Hillary (there are a couple) and. Obama's supporters accuse these people of working for Hillary, of being paid shills for Hillary, etc., etc. They then launch into the usual anti-Hillary diatribes. In their minds, nobody can possibly support Hillary out of a conviction equal to their own.
After 7 years of a supine press blindly supporting the inarticulate & uncharismatic Bush 43, I think we should worry about the love affair of the media, new and old, with Obama, especially their belief that he is Perfection personified and to criticize him is to commit a sin.
It's not simply that almost the entire MSM, and a large majority of the so-called netroots, is actively campaigning for Obama.
It is that the language used by the MSM, netroots, and thousands of commenters on blogs such as those at the Huffington Post, is eerily similar. Hillary is Satan, a woman without principles, a woman who has lied since the day she was born, a woman who acted as a pimp for her husband, and so on, up to and beyond all the Right-Wing swiftboat attacks in the 1990s that included an accusation of murder. Nothing she says or does is considered to be sincere. If she smiles, she's just pretending. If she tears up, she is acting. If she criticizes Obama, she is being nasty at best and racist at worse. If there is any way, no matter how bizarre, to detect evil in something she says or something one of her supporters says, it is pounced on and amplified until, like the Swiftboat attacks, it sticks.
OTOH, no criticism of Obama is valid. Point out that he is not the first African-American to win a Presidential primary in South Carolina and you are racist - even though the MSM frequently opined that he was likely to receive the majority of Black votes in the South Carolina (why? because he's Irish?). The MSM was not accused of injecting race.
Everything that Obama says and does is good because he is Obama. Point out that he attacked Hillary and the answer is that she attacked him first. So, of course, he didn't really want to do it but he had no choice. Did he smirk at her, snub her? No, of course not. Just another of Hillary's lies and an attempt to get sympathy. See an Aussie's take on this:"Stop Bagging Hillary" by Michael Costello, 2/1/08
Nobody has asked just how Obama plans to "bring us all together" or even if that is a good idea. We are just supposed to take on faith that Obama, because of "who he is" rather than "what he has accomplished" will bridge the divisions between Republicans and Democrats, supporters and opponents of the war in Iraq, right-to-lifers and freedom-of-choicers. The subtext is that the divisions and bitterness can be equally apportioned between Republicans and Democrats. Anybody who has lived in the U.S. for the past 20 years and thinks that the Republicans are willing to compromise and share power has, indeed, been living in a dream world. Worse, he implies that the divisions are not based on strongly held principles which are worth fighting for.
Name me any President, other than Washington, who was not reviled by some part of the population. Adams? Lincoln? FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (well, maybe nobody actually hated Ike), JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan (yes, some people hated Reagan), Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43? Name me an era when Washington politics was all sweetness and light.
Think I'm being irrational? Check out these two blogs and read the comments made after the 1/31/08 debate in Hollywood (start with the oldest ones since they represent the first reactions, uninfluenced by the media spin. It is necessary to read only 20 or 30 comments.)
HuffPost "LA Debate: Hugs, ..."
The candidate of hope and light who promises to bring us all together (white and black, Republicans and Democrats, the rich and the poor, Bill Kristol and Ralph Nader) is supported by people who hate, loathe and despise Hillary with a venom greater than that usually heaped upon child abusers. And many of these supporters of the unity candidate promise to vote for a Republican rather than vote for Hillary. In short, their allegiance is to a person, not to a political philosophy, and they are willing to give the party that has achieved a bloodless coup against the Constitution another shot at completing the destruction rather than vote for Hillary.
TalkLeft's "Democrats and America Won Tonight"
The unelectable, divisive, high negative candidate is supported by people who saw a woman and an AA standing on the stage and vying for the Democratic Party's nominee for President as a truly historic event. They were thrilled at the sight and proud to be Democrats. They want Hillary to win but will support Obama if he is the candidate. (I have yet to see a Hillary supporter threaten to vote for the Republican if Obama is the nominee.)
These are not aberrational differences. They have been playing out for months. Obama's supporters spew poison minute by minute, directed almost solely, with the exception of Hillary's vote on Iraq, at her as a person who is worse than Satan rather than at specific decisions & acts. Hillary's supporters, OTOH, tend to point out specific factual reasons for not choosing Obama.
Read the comments posted in response to any blogger or columnist who is neutral or pro-Hillary (there are a couple) and. Obama's supporters accuse these people of working for Hillary, of being paid shills for Hillary, etc., etc. They then launch into the usual anti-Hillary diatribes. In their minds, nobody can possibly support Hillary out of a conviction equal to their own.
After 7 years of a supine press blindly supporting the inarticulate & uncharismatic Bush 43, I think we should worry about the love affair of the media, new and old, with Obama, especially their belief that he is Perfection personified and to criticize him is to commit a sin.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Democratic Race: Who's the Real Establishment Candidate?
Hillary is, among other things, widely characterized as the old-style, liberal Democratic candidate because she is supported by labor (horrors), older women (horrors of horrors), high-school graduates (what could be worse?) - none of whom, of course, have any right to a candidate whom they think will represent them. And, we should not forget, she is Bill's wife, was First Lady and is now a Senator.
Obama, OTOH, is the fresh new face. Young people like him. African-Americans like him. The highly educated like him. And, oh yes, he has endorsements from Sen. Ted Kennedy (who must feel pleased to know that he is not part of the Establishment) and John Kerry (ditto). He also has the support of most of the netroots who have expended enough energy repeating right-wing, neo-con, Republican slurs against Hillary to, surely, power an entire city.
Oh, and let us not forget: the MSM love Obama. They don't even bother to try to restrain their enthusiasm. Indeed, they have already crowned him our next President. Even Andrew Sullivan, self-styled saviour of the Conservative movement in America, loves him.
Anybody supported by such a motley mix is surely worthy of more than a little skepticism. He's such a blank slate that everybody from the far left to the far right, excepting those in the middle, sees in him what they want to see.
So, it looks to me as if the "change" guy is really the old-style pol who is careful not to offend anybody and who wins by slandering his opponent...and rolling in the dollars from the Democratic establishment.
Obama, OTOH, is the fresh new face. Young people like him. African-Americans like him. The highly educated like him. And, oh yes, he has endorsements from Sen. Ted Kennedy (who must feel pleased to know that he is not part of the Establishment) and John Kerry (ditto). He also has the support of most of the netroots who have expended enough energy repeating right-wing, neo-con, Republican slurs against Hillary to, surely, power an entire city.
Oh, and let us not forget: the MSM love Obama. They don't even bother to try to restrain their enthusiasm. Indeed, they have already crowned him our next President. Even Andrew Sullivan, self-styled saviour of the Conservative movement in America, loves him.
Anybody supported by such a motley mix is surely worthy of more than a little skepticism. He's such a blank slate that everybody from the far left to the far right, excepting those in the middle, sees in him what they want to see.
So, it looks to me as if the "change" guy is really the old-style pol who is careful not to offend anybody and who wins by slandering his opponent...and rolling in the dollars from the Democratic establishment.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Obama's 911: Judgment
Rudy's been selling himself as the 911 mayor for so long, even Joe Biden realized he was a one-note candidate: "a noun, a verb and 911"
But Obama's been running on two pitches and nobody has noticed how old they have gotten.
First there is his "new generation, bring us all together" about which I've written before. Tonight we got another indication of just how he is planning to bridge our differences: he snubbed Hillary when she took the initiative to shake Ted Kennedy's hand even though he had just endorsed Obama. (Obama had been standing beside him when Hillary approached.) It's one thing to be a sore loser; Obama is a sore winner.
But his key 911 song is "judgment". And what is this qualification pegged on? Well, he once publicly declared that he thought the war in Iraq was dumb. Gee whiz, I was also against the war before it started. Like Obama, I wasn't in a position to actually vote against it - but, what the heck, if that's all one needs to be a candidate, maybe I should run for office.
But Obama's been running on two pitches and nobody has noticed how old they have gotten.
First there is his "new generation, bring us all together" about which I've written before. Tonight we got another indication of just how he is planning to bridge our differences: he snubbed Hillary when she took the initiative to shake Ted Kennedy's hand even though he had just endorsed Obama. (Obama had been standing beside him when Hillary approached.) It's one thing to be a sore loser; Obama is a sore winner.
But his key 911 song is "judgment". And what is this qualification pegged on? Well, he once publicly declared that he thought the war in Iraq was dumb. Gee whiz, I was also against the war before it started. Like Obama, I wasn't in a position to actually vote against it - but, what the heck, if that's all one needs to be a candidate, maybe I should run for office.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Questions for Obama
It is well past time for somebody (Hillary? Edwards?) to ask Obama a couple of important questions:
1. Are you a Democrat or an Independent?
2. If you are a Democrat, what does that mean to you? What political beliefs do you have that distinguish you from being a Republican?
3. If you are an Independent, why should Democratic voters vote for you?
4. You say that it is time to end the divisiveness of the past 20 years. What, precisely, do you mean by this? What are the divisions you plan to overcome? And how do you plan to overcome them? For example, how do you plan to bridge the divide between Republicans who insist on Supreme Court justices who will override Roe v. Wade and Democrats who want the reverse? Or those who believe that tax cuts are the solution to every domestic problem vs. those who believe that the people, especially the rich, should be willing to pay for the government services they want? Between those who believe the war in Iraq is wrong and those who believe it is right? Are you just going to wave a wand and make all happiness and light? [oops, forget that one. "Fairy tale" allusions are racist.]
5. A rather large proportion of your vocal supporters on the Web have stated that they will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is, rather than vote for Hillary or John. That suggests that, at best, they are voting for you as a person rather than as somebody who supports their political beliefs. What do you say to them? And to Democrats who want a Democratic President who will represent their Democratic beliefs?
1. Are you a Democrat or an Independent?
2. If you are a Democrat, what does that mean to you? What political beliefs do you have that distinguish you from being a Republican?
3. If you are an Independent, why should Democratic voters vote for you?
4. You say that it is time to end the divisiveness of the past 20 years. What, precisely, do you mean by this? What are the divisions you plan to overcome? And how do you plan to overcome them? For example, how do you plan to bridge the divide between Republicans who insist on Supreme Court justices who will override Roe v. Wade and Democrats who want the reverse? Or those who believe that tax cuts are the solution to every domestic problem vs. those who believe that the people, especially the rich, should be willing to pay for the government services they want? Between those who believe the war in Iraq is wrong and those who believe it is right? Are you just going to wave a wand and make all happiness and light? [oops, forget that one. "Fairy tale" allusions are racist.]
5. A rather large proportion of your vocal supporters on the Web have stated that they will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is, rather than vote for Hillary or John. That suggests that, at best, they are voting for you as a person rather than as somebody who supports their political beliefs. What do you say to them? And to Democrats who want a Democratic President who will represent their Democratic beliefs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
