Yeah, sure because the operational test for being right is agreeing with me -- Irony alert! Irony alert! -- but just read. Here:
Overall, the extended nomination campaign has been excellent for the Democratic Party. A big test of just how good things are, and also of Obama's ability to carry his wave downticket, will come on Saturday during the special election in IL-14 for Dennis Hastert's old seat. There are still nightemere scenarios, too. First, Obama could use his large delegate lead to eek out the nomination even if he loses the majority of the remaining primaries, and having a nominee who stumbles to victory will be terrible in terms of general election momentum. Second, Clinton could win the nomination through superdelegates, arm-twisting and the credentials committee despite losing the popular vote, which could cause a huge number of disaffected Democrats in the general election. However, if the nomination is decided pretty much any other way, even if it doesn't end until June the extended nomination campaign will have been a great overall boost to Democrats. Small donors are taking over, massive organizing is taking place in long-ignored states, candidates are forced to continually improve after stumbling, waves of new Democrats are being created, McCain is getting shut of the media and swamped in fundraising.
This could change, but so far the extended nomination campaign has been a huge boost to the Democratic cause, and longstanding worries about the negatives of hotly contested primaries are proving both false and very old-fashioned. When the entire country is transfixed on Democrats, when Democrats are forced to compete everywhere, and when large donors are out of money, amazing things can happen. It appears that creating nationwide excitement is a more effective way of building up the party rather than falling sheepishly in line after New Hampshire.
So, can we please get off the fainting couch and stop clutching our pearls about the nomination going all the way to the convention? (To be fair, DK purgee riverdaughter has a different take. As does DK purgee BTD.)
But even better is this:
Bowers actually uses Daou's triangles as an analytical tool (with a shout-out to Shystee). Bowers writes:
The Clinton campaign has effectively formed a triangle against Obama on "inexperience" relating to national security with her campaign / supporters as one corner, the established media narrative of Obama's inexperience as a second corner, and Republicans / the McCain campaign as the third corner.
But wait:
It should be noted, however, that Barack Obama had done much of the same thing on Hillary Clinton in order to help establish his advantage in the campaign. ... Remember Barack Obama going all "crisis" on us over Social Security, or getting all "Harry and Louise" on health care?
Exactly.
However, leaving aside the technical concerns about how both sides work the triangle, it seems to me that Clinton's "inexperience" talking point has some truth to it. In a way, it's just like FISA. If Obama had stood with Dodd on FISA, I might be enthusiastically voting for him today. He didn't. Similarly, if Obama had used his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold hearings on Iraq (yes, he had jurisdiction), that would have gone a long way toward answering the inexperience question. Again, he didn't, and that's another missed opportunity. I'm not saying Hillary is all that much better, but the "inexperience" shot is not an unfair one to take, especially by the standards of a modern political campaign.
Moreover, I was introduced to Obama exactly when, as Bowers points out, he was working the triangle for himself by dogwhistling on Social Security (to which my attention was drawn by that well-known Hillary operative, Lord Eschaton). Then came Obama's Harry & Louise ads on universal health care.
So, if I had to choose between two candidates, both of whom are working Dauo's triangle, then for me, Hillary's 3 A.M stuff is a pretty standard political ploy, and there's nothing earthshaking about it. However, Obama toying with Social Security, and then walking back on Universal Health Care, are matters of near life and death importance to me, and to people I know.
Moral: Taking the technical perspective and saying "they're both doing it" is only a first step. You need to look how the play is made, but you also need to look at your field position after the play is made. Obama's play, if he wins, is going to leave me (and the 47 million of us without health insurance) worse off.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
The Experience Argument
I have a problem with Clinton's recent language on McCain and Obama. I get what she was trying to say, but I don't think it was as clear as it should've been and I don't want to start a new game called What Hillary Really Meant. For starters, it the initials don't make a word.
But I also think there has been a huge overreaction to it. That the anger at Clinton for saying the same thing McCain is going to say ignores the fact that she probably isn't hurting Obama against McCain any more than he's going to be hurt already. Obama has to find a way to answer those complaints and if he can't do it against Clinton's relatively tame attacks, he's not going to be able to do it against McCain.
Having said that, I suspect that while the 3 AM may have helped some, what is moving Clinton's vote now is worry over the economy. "Fighter" might not be a great trait when the number one issue is Iraq, but it takes on a whole new meaning when the number one issue is the economy. I think, in a weird way, being an underdog is also helping her because it gives her a chance to prove she's tough and she's a fighter.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Also worth pointing out, I think
is that Obama played the GOP-poaching game first: Social Security, Reagan, Harry & Louise. If he doesn't go there, I don't think Hillary goes where she went. Her move was reactive. Obama's wasn't.
Not saying I like it, but there's much not to like in this whole process.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
My best friend hates me...
...because I refuse to agree that Hillary is the one who has been really, really bad. I mean, sure, he admits that Obama has said some wrong things, but really it's Hillary who is unpardonable.
When Hillary accused Obama of using right-wing talking points, his response wasn't to ask in what way, and it wasn't to stop doing it, it was just a general, "How dare you?" But she said it because we were saying it (even Josh Marshall) and we were all pissed off about it. Now that's all gone down the memory hole.
Man, I so fucking hate these fucking candidates. I dont' want to have to defend their continual tin-eared babbling in the general election. I'm running out of air.
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
Same thing happened to me, more or less
At the caucuses, I was treated to a blast of rage and contempt from somebody I thought I knew. It wasn't even that I had a different view; it was contempt for the very idea that I could have a view; that my views were even worth listening to and refuting. (And, of course, I have empirical evidence that they are, in the form of readership numbers, not to mention my own sense of self as a writer.) "How dare you?" sums it up very well.
Needless to say, it was disconcerting. And there was nothing I could have done to avoid it, because I had no idea, in advance, that the topic would be a source of such animosity. I mean, you can't know in advance what you're not supposed to speak about.
Also needless to say, my Unity
Pony
remains on back order.
UPDATE And the problem with the conciliation case as presented is that it's about potentially losing friendships, whereas, I would hazard, most of the friendships that would be damaged have already been, given the events that have already occurred.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Not for me.
I'm not going to pretend to like these candidates for anyone, but the more divisive this thing is, the worse our chances are in November, and we just can't afford that.
I'm afraid these two assholes are going to fuck it up even worse than they already have, but whoever wins the nomination by god had better win the general election and have long coattails or we are all solidly, permanently cooked.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. We've had eight years to learn that being too good to vote tactically is suicidal, so I want these people to just stop being such little shits.
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
What do you mean, vote tactically?
You mean not vote for Nader, or, heaven forfend, McCain, even though [not your candidate, though nominated] eats babies?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Vote tactically means
Vote to win. You vote for the Democrat or you lose. Period.
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
Absolutely
As my sig says...
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
I've had similar experiences Re: Clinton Support
I'm not even that big a Clinton supporter. I've done what I've can because I've thought she could be the nominee. At this point, that doesn't seem likely, but it can still happen.
The thing is, it's become a sort of in-group vs. out-group thing now.
I got the stink-eye from someone the other day because I said I supported Clinton.
What bothers me is that a lot of people don't seem to see that intelligent and caring people can disagree about these candidates. The Obama camp seem to have decided that Clinton is just a monster.
If you've decided that your political opponent is a monster, than something has gone wrong. I don't think that says much about your opponent. It says more about you. The choice of the word "monster" is a very specific linguistic decision that is dehumanizing. I've seen this kind of behavior for weeks now and it's disturbing.
Sure, I've said some terrible things about Bush, but I can't say as I've called him a monster. Maybe sociopath or somesuch. That doesn't make him a monster. I don't want to dehumanize my opponent in a political argument. That's what the Rove's of the world do.
I've attempted to point my criticisms at the Republican leadership, not rank-and-file members of the Republican party. I sense a rising level of rage in the Obama camp that may turn towards Clinton supporters.
I'm nervous about the Supreme Court.
Really nervous.
Why the hell didn't the party go for Edwards? Oh wait, Independents and Republicans tilted the playing field. I guess it doesn't matter what Democrats think in their own primaries. phat