via Andrew Sullivan.
Month: January 2008
It’s probably about time to mention the “Hillary hacked New Hampshire” story that has been gaining traction. The basic crux of the story is this:
- The Clintons absolutely needed to win New Hampshire to arrest Obama’s momentum.
- The Clintons are ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to win.
- Virtually all of the polls from New Hampshire in the last few days before the primaries showed Obama up by 7-11 points. These include the Clintons’ own polls – leading some of her top advisers to privately concede the election to Obama.
- The exit polls showed that Obama won by approximately 5 points. ((Fox News removed the headline the writer for the Guardian refers to by the time I viewed the link.))
- The exit polls and the polls conducted before the election accurately predicted the levels of support for McCain, and the entire Republican field, and for Obama and every Democrat except Senator Clinton. Which is why the first reaction from commentators was to suggest that the votes for Dodd and Biden and the undecided overwhelmingly broke for Senator Clinton. But the exit polls did not show this either – they showed Obama marginally winning those who decided within three days of the election.
- Obama won votes not counted by Diebold’s machines by a large margin.
- Hillary Clinton won the votes counted by the Diebold machines by an unusual margin even “after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables” The conclusion is not necessarily vote-rigging, but as Chris Chatham reasonably observes: “As you can see, something appears to be highly amiss. There may be an unmeasured third variable (it’s probably not urban vs rural) or there may be something more nefarious.”
- Dennis Kucinich attempted to get a recount of the New Hampshire ballots, and the Secretary of State conceded.
- Now, we get to wait and see what happens.
Jon Stokes over at ArsTechnica points out an important fact often ignored in post-election analysis:
In a truly democratic election, the burden of proof is on the state to provide evidence of the election’s integrity. This sentiment is behind the idea that ballots should be counted under the watchful eyes of the public’s representatives. So elections are held to a much different standard than criminal proceedings, where the burden of proof is on the one who brings a charge of wrongdoing.
The basis of her considered judgment: men are violent killers.
Don’t tell me about women who kill. I know there are some – but fewer. So let’s just remember our mothers–who bore us, protected us against our fathers and grandfathers and all the pink or brown men who wanted to rape us or kill us or starve us because we were girls.
I am not stupid. I know all generalizations are false. I know there are bad mothers, bad women, bad sisters, bad aunts, and bad females of every stripe. But I have seen enough men in high office to last a lifetime. Let’s give women a chance!
Not that this is really news. Mother Jones investigates the Hillary 2008 campaign’s specific characterizations of Obama’s position thus:
Clinton and her aides have been peddling false information about Obama to undercut one of his primary arguments: she voted for the war; I was against it. Engaging in such disingenuous attacks may help Clinton beat back Obama, but it is hardly the way for her to counter Obama’s claim that she represents poltics-as-usual. It only proves his point.
Andrew Sullivan explains the strategy behind this move. It seems clear though that the Clintons are banking on the laziness and gullibility of the American people.
Andrew Sullivan has some strong words in response to Hillary’s comparisons of herself and one of our most flawed presidents:
Johnson risked his entire coalition on the issue of civil rights – a heroic act that still reverberates today. The Clintons wouldn’t risk a smidgen of a percentage point in a Mark Penn poll for the duration of a news cycle. That’s the difference.
Categories
GOP Cheerleader #1!
TeddySanFran over at FireDogLake apparently has not read anything by George Will in the past decade or so, referring to Will as “GOP Cheerleader Number One” – which I am not sure he has every been. And certainly not during the Bush administration – as he has been very critical of the president.
He essentially admits as much, but if so, he should avoid making comments like that one so he doesn’t look foolish.
Or What is Wrong with the Clintons
[digg-reddit-me]In 1992, a man from Hope inspired Americans, and a plurality voted him into the White House. But something less hopeful lurked underneath the surface of this aspiring political dynasty. Joe Klein, writing as Anonymous in his fictionalization of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, Primary Colors, told the story from the perspective of an idealistic young aide corrupted both by the process and the charismatic candidate himself. The major subplot of the novel involved a close and lifelong friend of the Stantons (representing the Clintons) who when confronted with the venality, ruthlessness, and pure lust for power of the candidate and his wife killed herself in anger and sorrow.
George Stephanopoulos, writing in his memoir of the campaign and early Clinton presidency, attributed the suicide of the close Clinton confidante and advisor, Vince Foster to a similar emotional breakdown. ((Page 187 of All Too Human.)) Writing shortly after Foster’s death, Margaret Carlson of Time magazine, quoted Foster as saying: “Before we came here, we thought of ourselves as good people.”
Politics, as Stephanopoulos describes it delicately, is about “play[ing] the game for the sake of getting good things done.” Any realist – any student of history – any politician – will tell you that there is a large element of truth to this. What was Lend-Lease but part of a game FDR was playing to drag us into World War II? What was Lincoln’s careful campaign formulation of allowing slavery to stay where it was but preventing any new slave states from from joining the Union if not a political stratagem? But there is a sense among those who worked with the Clintons that they sold their soul to win this game – that their lust for power overrode all ethical impulses, and that they sullied everyone who believed in them.
There is a risk of this disappointment in every campaign – including Barack Obama’s. Power corrupts. Washington corrupts. Dreams and ideals and promises are broken upon hard reality.
But sometimes, our leaders, all too human as they may be, help us rise above the game. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream; John F. Kennedy called on a nation to go to the moon; Abraham Lincoln called on the “better angels of our nature”. All of these men were corrupted by power; none of them were perfect; they were all politicians. Yet each man met their moment; each individual transcended mere politics even as they participated in the political game. They had the judgment to know when to compromise and when to stand firm.
The Clintons had their chance. They demonstrated their character – and were found wanting. Bill Clinton recently said that to vote for Barack Obama is to “roll the dice”. He had a point. Obama may be corrupted as easily as the Clintons were. But at least with Obama, there is a chance the story might turn out differently. We need to, in Bill Clinton’s words, “roll the dice”.
Categories
People Who Play the Game
[digg-reddit-me]George Stephanopolos wrote in his memior, All Too Human, about a conversation he once had with journalist I. F. Stone:
“You covered Washington for so long,” I asked, “weren’t you ever tempted to go into politics yourself?”
“Once,” he answered. Sixty-five years earlier, when Izzy was in high school, the political “boss” of his class had offered him a place on the editorial board of the school paper ‘his dream job’ in return for campaign help. But whatever temptation Izzy felt was quickly overwhelmed by a wave of nausea and a vow never to approach active politics again.
I respected that sentiment, envied it, felt slightly shamed by it, but didn’t share it. My new work seemed too thrilling to renounce, and I was a natural at the game of politics: at knowing who knew what I needed to know, at absorbing the rhythms of legislative life by walking the halls, at preparing committee hearing questions for my boss that might get picked up by the press, at learning to anticipate his political needs and to use his position to advance my issues too, at succumbing to the lure of the closed room and the subtle power rush that comes from hearing words I wrote come out of someone else’s mouth.
A democracy needs people like Izzy on the outside to keep it honest, but it also needs people on the inside to make it work – people who will play the game for the sake of getting good things done. But you have to be careful. Your first deal is like your first scotch. It burns, might make you feel nauseous. If you’re like Izzy, once is enough. If you’re like me, you get to like it. Then to need it.
George Stephanopoulos
All Too Human
pages 17-18
Categories
What bothers me about Hillary
The only times I believe her – really feel the conviction and weight behind her words, actually believe she is speaking from her heart, instead of uttering poll-tested phrases designed to manipulate – are when she is talking about herself.
Her new ad airing in South Carolina is a great example.
[digg-me]
via Marc Ambinder
I’m wondering who this quote is supposed to refer to:
Over the last week I listened to you and in the process I found my own voice. You helped remind everyone that politics isn’t a game.
Which couple has been accused for the past twenty years, by liberals mainly, of believing politics is just a game? Barack and Michelle? John and Elizabeth?
Peggy Noonan had an interesting point (via Andrew Sullivan) backing this point up:
Was what is called sexism part of the story? I suppose, and in a number of ways. When George Bush senior cries in public, it’s considered moving. Ditto his moist-eyed son. But in fairness, they have tended to appear moved about things apart from themselves, apart from their own predicaments. Mrs. Clinton was weeping about Mrs. Clinton. If a man had uttered Mrs. Clinton’s aria – if Mr. Obama had said, “And you know, this is very personal for me . . . as tired as I am . . . against the odds,” and gotten choked – they would have laughed him out of town.
Even one of Hillary’s other breakthrough moments before the New Hampshire primaries was about her:
The other moment from last Saturday’s debate that got a lot of airtime also demonstrated my point – at least to myself.
For me, the drama in this is not the idea Hillary is presenting, or the message. What is interesting and compelling is that Hillary is talking about herself. Obama and Edwards talk about the changes they want to make – and they use their life stories to illustrate their commitment to change, and why they believe what they believe. When John Edwards talks about how his father worked in a mill – and he does often – it’s not that interesting. What is interesting is how this “son of a mill worker” has dedicated his presidential campaign to helping those like his father. When Barack Obama tells his stories – of his unlikely candidacy, of his traveling to South Carolina and getting fired up – he is using them as an example of the idea he is trying to get across. When Hillary Clinton finally “welled up” – the subject was herself; her “new” campaign is about her finding her voice; when she talks about change, aside from her nakedly strategic attempt to get Edwards to join her in attacking Obama, she is touting herself.
In order to be a politician, one is required to be at least a little narcissistic. As one of the candidates said: “I think if you don’t have enough self-awareness to see the element of megalomania involved in thinking you can be president then you probably shouldn’t be president.” Certainly Barack Obama, John Edwards, and the rest of the candidates for president feel this election is the culmination of their lives and careers. Each of them acts as if they were meant for this moment, as if they were made for it. There is no other reason they should be running.
The problem with Hillary is that ambition and narcissism and megalomania are not some of the factors pushing her to run. They are all she has.
Categories