Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons

On “Bitter”

Andrew Sullivan on “Bittergate” and “Wrightgate”:

Interestingly, the two incidents that Clinton pounced on damaged both Clinton and Obama equally – and their main effect has been to solidify Republicans behind McCain. And this makes sense: the kind of political-cultural warfare this represents is pure Rovism. It’s designed to help Republicans. Which may be all that the Clintons will accomplish with this.

Ezra Klein writes about this latest “bitter” controversy:

…this is why I don’t like writing about the campaign. It’s full of hollow scandals and ignored travesties. But you have to cover the hollow scandals, because they’re are blown up until they’re definitional in the campaign. And that leaves me writing about high-profile non-events in a way that helps cement their importance, even if I’m writing to deride their legitimacy.

Categories
Election 2008 Humor Obama Politics The Clintons Videos

Maybe that challenge doesn’t look so bad for Mr. Obama after all.

[reddit-me]On the Ellen Degeneres Show, the host gave Ms. Clinton a chance to show off her own bowling prowess after she challenged Mr. Obama to a bowl-off:
(h/t to Joy for the link)

Maybe that challenge doesn’t look so bad for Mr. Obama after all.

(For those following the daily “freak show” less than myself, the Clinton challenge is below the jump.)

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons Videos

The Logic of Hillary ’08

[reddit-me]From End Politics as Usual:

In a move that’s sure to be seen as controversial, Hillary has contacted the NCAA Board of Directors to argue that Memphis is actually better qualified to be National Champion.

Ms. Clinton stated that Memphis, while losing the game, had actually shown more ability to act like a National Champion on Day One.

The comparison helps put Sean Wilentz’s attempt at creating a coherent argument in his recent Salon article, which has been skewered all over the blogosphere for its circular firing squad of arguments, in perspective. Mr. Wilentz asks midway through the article:

[W]hy are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant [to the Obama campaign]?

It might be an interesting point to make – about how Obama’s campaign uses whichever rationale is best to make it’s case. Except Mr. Wilentz forgot to lead up to that turn by mentioning that the Obama campaign was promoting a view based on the idea that the rules were unimportant – or even point to a single instance in which the Obama camp was arguing that the rules for the contest were irrelevant. There’s a reason for this. Mr. Obama decided to run his campaign according to the rules set down by the Democratic National Committee. He had his staff analyze every contest, every primary, every caucus – and he began organizing and strategizing for the contest last year. He decided to play by the rules and win by the rules – and he’s done a good job of it. Ms. Clinton on the other hand was unaware of the rules of the Texas caucus-primary a week after her husband had said it was essential for her to win there and a week before the caucus-primary itself.

Mr. Wilentz – in trying to defend Ms. Clinton – fails to make a coherent argument – seeing in the Obama campaign’s consistency a reflection of his own attempts to defend a candidate with mangled rationales, conflicting and conflating. Mr. Wilentz is typical of many of Ms. Clinton’s supporters – who at this point are stuck attempting to flesh out the arguments behind an increasingly discordant set of talking points:

Meanwhile, below the jump under the fold if you click the “More” link if you read on you can find ((These edits are an attempt to conform this site to the “Reddit Style Guide” culled from numerous reddit comments.)) , a video parable of “The Logic of Hillary ’08″… (h/t The Grandest Panjadrum.) Enjoy.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons

Raban’s Reflections on Obama

Jonathan Raban writes an excellent reflection on Barack Obama for the London Review of Books. (Hat tip to Kate Stone.)

Despite the extensive quotations here, Mr. Raban’s piece is essential reading as a whole.

Mr. Raban writes of the unsettling experience of an Obama rally:

Politicians who receive mass adulation are a suspect breed, and it’s natural to feel pangs of disquiet at an Obama rally in full cry: the roaring thousands, the fainting women, the candidate pacing slowly back and forth, microphone in hand, speaking lines that have become as familiar as advertising jingles but are seized on by the audience with ecstatic shouts of ‘I love you, Obama!’, to which the candidate replies, with offhand cool – ‘I love you back.’ Lately, I’ve been listening to ancient audio recordings of Huey Long exciting crowds as big as these with his pitch of ‘Every Man a King,’ also to Father Coughlin, the anti-semitic ‘radio priest’ from Michigan, just to remind myself of the authentic sound of American demagoguery. But to see a true analogy for an Obama rally, one need only attend almost any large black church on a Sunday morning, and listen to the preacher, his sermon kept aloft by the continuous vocal participation of the congregants.

But the heart of his argument is this insight:

Those who hear only empty optimism in Obama aren’t listening. His routine stump speech is built on the premise that America has become estranged from its own essential character; a country unhinged from its constitution, feared and disliked across the globe, engaged in a dumb and unjust war, its tax system skewed to help the rich get richer and the poor grow poorer, its economy in ‘shambles’, its politics ‘broken’. ‘Lonely’ is a favourite word, as he conjures a people grown lonely in themselves and lonely as a nation in the larger society of the world. (Obama himself is clearly on intimate terms with loneliness: Dreams from My Father is the story of a born outsider negotiating a succession of social and cultural frontiers; it takes the form of a lifelong quest for family and community, and ends, like a Victorian novel, with a wedding.)

The light in Obama’s rhetoric – the chants of ‘Yes, we can’ or his woo-woo line, lifted from Maria Shriver’s endorsement speech, ‘We are the ones we have been waiting for’ – is in direct proportion to the darkness, and he paints a blacker picture of America than any Democratic presidential candidate in living memory has dared to do. He courts his listeners, not as legions of the blissful, but as legions of the alienated, adrift in a country no longer recognizable as their own, and challenges them to emulate slaves in their struggle for emancipation, impoverished European immigrants seeking a new life on a far continent, and soldiers of the ‘greatest generation’ who volunteered to fight Fascism and Nazism. The extravagance of these similes is jarring – especially when they’re spoken by a writer as subtle and careful as Obama is on the printed page – but they serve to make the double point that America is in a desperate predicament and that only a great wave of communitarian action can salvage it.

By contrast, Clinton wields the domestic metaphor of the broom: ‘It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and I think it might take a second one to clean up after the second Bush.’ It’s a deliberately pedestrian image, and it has defined her campaign. Stuff needs to be fixed around the house, but the damage is superficial, not structural. She has a phenomenal memory for detail, and, given half a chance, reels off long inventories of the chores that will have to be undertaken – the dripping faucet, the broken sash, the blocked toilet, the missing tiles on the roof, that awful carpet on the stairs. Clinton tends to bore journalists with these recitations, but her audiences seem to like them: after the visionary but catastrophic plans of the neoconservatives, the prospect of a return to common-sense practical housekeeping has undeniable charm. Swiping at Obama, she says: ‘I’m a doer, not a talker’ (a phrase with an interesting provenance – it goes back to the First Murderer in Richard III, by way of Bob Dole in his failed bid for the presidency in 1996). But it’s a line that unwittingly draws attention to the intellectual as well as the rhetorical limits of her candidacy.

‘We can get back on the path we were on,’ she promises, meaning the path from which we strayed in November 2000, as if the 1990s were a time of purpose, clarity and unswerving Democratic progress, as well as a period of largely coincidental economic prosperity. Memory’s a strange thing, and Hillary Clinton’s own most notable contributions to those years – the absurd mess of ‘Travelgate’ (widely held to be a factor in Vincent Foster’s suicide), her imperious management of her healthcare plan, whose ignominious defeat contributed to the Republican landslide in the mid-term elections of 1994, her invocation of a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ at the time of the Lewinsky allegations – say a lot about her intense personal involvement in projects, good and bad, but hardly speak well for her judgment or diplomatic talents. On the campaign trail now, she presents herself as ‘a fighter’, battle-hardened and combat-ready, prepared to take on the Republicans ‘from Day One’, thereby reminding everyone that, from January 1995 until January 2001, a state of war existed between the Clinton administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, and that, of the many memorable battles in which Hillary Clinton herself was directly engaged, it’s hard to name one she didn’t lose.

And finally, Mr. Raban speaks summarizes the unique-ness of Mr. Obama’s particular politics:

Obama is that exotic political animal, a left-of-centre empiricist. The great strength of his writing is his determination to incorporate into the narrative what he calls ‘unwelcome details’, and you can see the same principle at work in the small print of his policy proposals. Abroad, he accepts the world as it is and, on that basis, is ready to parlay with Presidents Ahmadinejad, Assad and Castro, while Clinton requires the world to conform to her preconditions before she’ll talk directly to such dangerous types. At home, Obama refuses to compel every American to sign up to his healthcare plan (as Clinton would), on the grounds that penalising those who lack the wherewithal to do so will only compound their problems.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons

And Obama wants to be President??????

[reddit-me]In the aftermath of Ms. Clinton’s “3 AM” ad, this photograph of Barack Obama began to circulate with this message:

When you are faking a pose for a camera photo opportunity, at least you can get the phone turned in the right direction! And Obama wants to be President??????

Hillary's Obama Lie

I got it in an email a few weeks ago, checked out Snopes and other places to see what the real deal was and found nothing.

Today, my dad emailed me with this reference to Snopes. As suspected the photo has been altered. The original:

The Truth: Obama and the Not Upside Down Phone

Snopes points to a very interesting difference between the photos. The altered photograph has the time on the clock changed to 3 AM.

So to be clear: a viral email conveying a very Clintonian message began to circulate in concert with Ms. Clinton’s ad campaign underlining the message of the campaign itself.

This email comes after a series of emails earlier this year and last year. At the time of the previous emails, I asked:

The real question this email should bring up is this: Who is making this stuff up, and who are they trying to fool?

The claims behind the email are demonstrably false, and have been widely reported as such. These smears have appeared in a number of emails, although they all follow the same story line. Someone is obviously deliberately perpetrating a falsehood – and the lies have come up during the Iowa caucuses, as well as from a campaign staff of one of Obama’s rivals.

Someone is betting on the laziness and gullibility of the American people. The question is: Who?

It’s still the question.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons Videos

Edwards: Santa Claus & Easter Bunny More Plausible Than Hillary as the Agent of Change

[digg-reddit-me]The Charlotte Observer headlined ((Or is subheadlined more appropriate?)) an article yesterday:

Bill Clinton: N.C. now crucial
He says wife’s bid to get nomination will hinge on Tar Heel state
Like it did in Texas and Ohio, the Clinton campaign for president has drawn a line in the sand, down the middle of the Tar Heel state.

Donklephant interprets this to mean Mr. Clinton is saying that if his wife doesn’t win North Carolina, she’s out. As Mr. Obama is ahead by high double digits in most polls, this line in the sand is surprising. Donklephant asks:

One can’t help but wonder if Hill and company have a big endorsement announcement up their sleeves if Bill is drawing a line in the sand like this.

A prominent North Carolina Democrat who has not yet endorsed anyone and whose opinion might have significant weight – perhaps enough to throw the state to Ms. Clinton. That narrows it down to this list:

  1. Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC).

With the recent revelations by John Heilmann that caused a stir a few weeks ago that Mr. Obama offended Ms. Edwards by objecting to both Ms. Clinton’s and Mr. Edwards’ health care mandates too strongly while Ms. Clinton charmed both of the Edwardses after Mr. Edwards dropped out. I’ve also heard the rumor that Mr. Edwards demanded the position of attorney general to endorse Mr. Obama; but that Mr. Obama refused to give it to him. Regardless, there is some sort of bad juju between Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama since Mr. Edwards suspended his campaign. It’s enough to overcome the natural alliance that should exist between the two men with similar diagnoses of the nation’s problems, and the alliance that did exist while both tried to catch up to Ms. Clinton.

But for Mr. Edwards to endorse Ms. Clinton would be to go against his rationale for running in the first place, and would elevate his personal feelings over what he knows to be best for the country and for the Democratic party. In his own words:

In the end, I don’t think John Edwards will endorse anyone until after the last primary. He can’t choose Ms. Clinton because of his politics; and he doesn’t want to choose Mr. Obama for mainly personal reasons.

Categories
Domestic issues Politics The Clintons

Rich dumb kids

Last week at a Council of Foreign Relations event on the “history maker” Lawrence Summers, former Treasury Secretary and former President of Harvard University, the main event, Mr. Summers himself said that:

It is really a tragedy that if you look in the United States today… rich dumb kids are much more likely to go to good universities than poor smart kids.

Mr. Summers appears to have been referring to the work of Peter Schmidt, deputy editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education who wrote the book Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War Over College Affirmative Action.

Mr. Summers identified this as the largest problem in higher education today. Part of the reason must be that he sees this as one of the root causes of the problem The Economist identified prominently in 2004 [subscription required] – that America is less socially mobile than it was a generation ago, and has fallen behind Europe in allowing social classes to become more stratified. The children of the rich are more likely to be rich, and the children of the poor and middle class are less likely to move beyond their class than those in Europe. The Economist posited that part of this effect might be due to the rise of meritocracy in America: as those with more talent were given greater opportunity (especially as a result of the institutionalization of standardized testing), their children have genetic as well as financial advantages, and so are more likely to maintain their social position in a society that rewards talent. Despite this possibility, The Economist still sees the trend as disturbing.

Mr. Summers seems to agree. He believes the top educational priority of the next president should be to even out the admissions process at the elite colleges.

Just as a matter of historical what-if: imagine a world where the rich and “legacy” admissions did not guarantee George W. Bush entrance into Yale, with his mediocre school records.

The elite colleges represent real advantages for those individuals who seek to attain the highest political and business positions. Our past three presidents have all been graduates of Ivy league institutions. (As a matter of fact, all three were products of the Yale university system.) Beyond the Ivy League, the United States has only elected one new president who was not a graduate of a top university or military academy since the 1920s – Ronald Reagan.

The stratification of American society is a big deal – and one that no candidate is talking about. Even John Edwards, the champion of the little guy, focused more on eliminating poverty – a worthy goal certainly – than on the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us.

N.B. I know from my experience – as a middle class kid at a top college – that a significant number of my peers seemed to have gotten into Holy Cross based on financial factors alone. Many of these people saw attendance at an elite college as something owed to them.  Tom Wolfe, an author of limited scope and insight, made the same point rather well in his I am Charlotte Simmons, which, though winning “Most Awkward Sex Scene(s) of 2005” was still George W. Bush’s favorite book of that year.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons

The growing chorus

An unusually intelligent argument (set to music) by Obama Girl on why Ms. Clinton should withdraw her candidacy:

Update: A female friend writes to me about this video: “What is wrong with her? Watching that video made me embarrassed to be female.”

I didn’t think it was that bad – despite the awkward attempts to insert barely clothed pictures of Obama girl into the video…She’s still making good points.

Categories
Election 2008 Politics The Clintons The Web and Technology

Wikipedian recognition

2parse was on Wikipedia on March 13.  Someone cited my article calling on Ms. Clinton to withdraw from the race.

It was written:

From February 20th and then on, more and more insistent calls came from Democrats for Hillary, at one point assumed to be the defacto nominee, to withdraw.

My site was the first citation for this post.  Awesome.

Then someone deleted the citation – saying: “three random blog entries don’t pass WP:V or make a trend”.  I’m pretty sure I disagree with Fovean Author on this point – any argument that ends with deleting a link to my blog is just plain wrong.

Categories
Election 2008 Liberalism Obama Politics The Clintons

Fuck Hillary’s Big Money Pals


Photo by Joe Crimmings.

[digg-reddit-me]“We are the Democratic party.”

I really hate to use profanity like this on the blog – but I think it is called for under the circumstances. The New York Times is reporting that:

…influential fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have stepped up their behind-the-scenes pressure on national party leaders to resolve the matter, with some even threatening to withhold their donations to the Democratic National Committee unless it seats the delegates from the two states or holds new primaries there.

According to the Times article, Ms. Clinton’s donors have donated just under $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee – and they are threatening to stop supporting the Democratic party if the DNC doesn’t cave in to their demands. I have some hope that Howard Dean will not give in to Ms. Clinton’s bullying. But he undeniably is being pressured, bullied, strong-armed. And big donors today have an outsize influence in the DNC.

So far, the DNC has been lagging behind the Republican National Committee in fundraising. This is exceptional considering the money advantage both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have had over any of the Republican presidential candidates. I support the DNC – and no matter who the Democratic presidential candidate is, and no matter who wins in November, I want a strong Democratic party.

But today, I am donating to show that Ms. Clinton’s backers do not own the Democratic party. I may not be able to donate $63,500 like Paul Cejas – and I won’t try to hold the Democratic party hostage to my personal views. But I am donating $50.00 right now to make a point. I hope you can show your support as well.

Mr. Dean has not taken sides in the current primary battle – but is trying to enforce the rules that Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama explicitly and publicly agreed to last year. Ms. Clinton’s backers are now trying to bully the DNC to break the rules and hand Ms. Clinton the nomination against the will of those people who have voted so far.

This is outrageous. We are the Democratic party. Let’s show Hillary’s big money pals whose party this is.

(If you just want to donate to the DNC without showing support for Mr. Obama’s candidacy, try here. Otherwise, to show support, donate here to “We are the Democratic party.”)

(I am not a big fan of Ms. Clinton – but I don’t hate her. This post is not about Ms. Clinton herself – but about my outrage at the tactics of her supporters. Shame on them.

And Ms. Clinton – if you don’t condemn these anti-democratic and anti-Democratic tactics, shame on you.)

Updated: Let me be clear – I support Barack Obama in the primary – and have since before he won more states, more delegates, and more votes than Ms. Clinton. But if Ms. Clinton were in the position Mr. Obama was in – I would not want Mr. Obama to win by extortion.

2nd Update:

The Drudge Report is highlighting the news – which means that it will likely dominate the news cycle tomorrow. Obviously, most commentators will say that the tactics of the Clinton campaign are wrong. But nothing would prove them wrong more than a donation to the DNC – allowing the Democratic party to ignore the powerful individuals who are trying to hijack the party.

3rd update: NJ Mom over at dKos interprets the story in much the same way:

I’ve been concerned for a while that the Obama/Clinton contest is becoming a surrogate battle between the Dean and McAuliffe wings of the DNC. It is a battle between those that believe in the “important states” vs. “the other 40”, between DLCers and DFAers, between an addiction to corporate/special interest money and those that believe that small donors in vast numbers are democracy at its most powerful.

What I read in the NYT today, makes me concerned that McAuliffe and those that he represents are trying to ambush Dean using Clinton donors.

The NetRoots helped Dean get where he is today. With the DNC coffers very low right now, he is under attack. He needs us.

N.B. This post was written in the midst of an obviously contentious election campaign – one in which I had strongly considered supporting Senator Clinton but after careful evaluation, had come to the conclusion that Barack Obama was the only candidate suited to our current challenges. While I stand by the content of the post, in retrospect, the tone is a bit overheated.