Given that I’m pretty well convinced that Hillary doesn’t — as the MSM has self-fulfilled — “have a path to the nomination,” I thought maybe I could chill out and quietly watch this thing play out to its seemingly inevitable conclusion.
Look, I said it. Obama is going to win. But this continuing, nay escalating, triumphalist shit about how he’s transformed politics is just pissing me the fuck off. And ditto for his “we’ve got more runs in the 9th inning” bullshit. It’s no goddamned ninth inning. [Note: I see that Lambert has already expanded on the linked material in a most-interesting post here.]
But congrats, nonetheless. You’ve hacked the system, and you’re going to get your nomination. It comes at an extraordinary cost. What cost? Sorry, I’m going Laura Petrie on you here, myself: “If you don’t care enough to know, I’m not going to tell you.”
Actually I did try to tell you. And the sound of crickets tells me that the extremely classy olive-branch crowd simply doesn’t care to know.
Anyway, I haven’t seen any olive branches. Just more calls to “get the fuck out of the way, Grandpa!”
Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives: There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism [sic], to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades. Given the demographics of the blogosphere, in all likelihood, this is a socioeconomic and cultural demographic into which you fit. Culturally, the Democratic Party will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to appeal primarily to the creative class….
Why don’t you just fucking call it capitulation or Soylent Green and have done with it? I know why, because that wouldn’t be transformative and self-aggrandizing. It would just be stupid old honesty.
Obama’s gotten “hand” by:
- Abusing the race card
- Abusing the religion card
- Gaming the caucus system
- Duping a lot of people with vacuous rhetoric about hope, change, and ponies, creating a delusional class of fratboy cultists who freaked the shit out of a whole lot of fellow Democrats, strongarming the likes of Tavis Smiley and civil rights hero John Lewis, polluting major Democratic forums with misogyny and Ken Starr / Drudge sludge, and dropping C-bombs on Obama-leaning bloggers like Digby for daring to suggest that the infallible candidate had an imperfection or two
- Somehow not freaking out a fair number of perfectly reasonable people (IMHO, this is his most transcendent achievement to date). I’m truly sorry we don’t see eye-to-eye on this. Perhaps Obama explained it best when he said “I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.” The way I see it, I’ve just gotten disappointed a little earlier than you. Or maybe he and you will prove me wrong. In any case, I sure hope we can still, or again, be friends.
It’s come to my attention that Corrente’s references to the “creative class” have really struck a nerve, from creative types and the less falutin’, with both groups feeling we’ve created an elitist straw man.
Here’s a brief history of my introduction to the term:
A couple of months back, I heard Richard Florida on XM Radio (while I was in the McDonald’s drive-thru line, as it happens, to set the classism stage), and it was unmistakable the glee he had about how Obama had galvanized the kewl kidz, the “creative class.”
I can’t imagine how one could have listened to that and not gotten the impression that our social betters, our opinion leaders, were supporting this guy, and if we didn’t get it, we’d bought ourselves a ticket on the short bus.
Oh, and yes, I have a car and sometimes go to McDonalds. Flame away, whomever it may concern.
Hate
us for noticing if you must, but “Creative Class,” and its implicit elitism, is not our construction.
Sez MTV:
Barack Obama’s hot streak in recent primaries has caught many people by surprise, and has led many to wonder just how he’s managed to mobilize such a large percentage of the population so quickly and so thoroughly. Two strong factors include his popularity on the Internet, and his ability to motivate not only young people, but also a voting bloc that other candidates thus far have not: the so-called “creative class.”
Matt Yglesias, a 26-year-old political blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, has dubbed the Illinois senator “The Cool Candidate.”
“The people who support him want to talk about supporting him [and] want to link up with people who are also into Obama — that’s why you’re seeing such large rallies,” Yglesias told MTV News. “And some of his user-generated viral content … Hillary Clinton supporters are older and less inclined to make a Web site about something they’re into, whereas Obama has a critical mass of creative-class-type people.”
Richard Florida, a professor of business economics at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Business and author of the book, “The Rise of the Creative Class,” agreed. “I think this is the first creative-class election in American history,” he said. “The creative class is an online class; it’s YouTube, it’s MySpace, it’s music.” Based on his research, Florida estimates that 40 million Americans are members of this group. “They’re inventors, they’re entrepreneurs, they’re people who work in arts and culture fields. They design, [they’re] musicians, artists.
You see, he’s younger and he’s got better fonts.
To these ears, the moral of this story is unmistakable: get on the Obamawagon, or get on an ice floe… or at least take a seat at the dork table, cause the BMOCs and their Wacom tablets are comin’ through.
Finally, if you’re mad at C-list bloggers for ribbing this other-worldly candidate and his überclass supporters, doesn’t it bother you a little when he uses terms like “perverse liberalism” and “Chablis-drinking limousine liberals”?
It’s OK if you don’t. Because I have it on excellent authority that he’s better than us.
Front page
Hacking the system
This whole messed-up primary season reminds me of this line from Born Yesterday (1950)
In other news, I read at Atrios’ site that John Edwards may make an endorsement.
Again...
… you have to listen.
And now I must go with RL. You too, VL, I thought?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
“I just voted for him on Tuesday”
that’s not what I heard — and its not what Joe Scarborough heard….he asked “was that a her or a him”?
it also makes no sense for Edwards to withhold an Obama endorsement at this point — and perfect sense for him to wait until after West Virginia, and Clinton’s expected victory there, given his populist philosophy.
Remember that edwards wanted to make sure that his issues were being addressed — and that Edwards was all about “standing up for the little guy”. I have a hard time believing after Obama’s demonstrated derisive (and divisive) attitude toward ’white working class voters’ that edwards would consider voting for Obama. Those were HIS voters that Obama criticized Clinton for ’pandering’ to, as if he doesn’t pander to anyone. ($1000 middle class tax cut?)
Ground game
Obama won through a terrific ground game. Even in states where he lost, he closed what could have been 20 point losses to 10 points or less. I know someone who volunteers for Obama, and what she tells me is that he understands the ground game like no one has before. I have been telling Democrats for decades that they could win on the ground game alone, maybe now they will believe me.
consolidating power
It truly creeps me out that Obama is actively discouraging big donors from donating to progressive groups. He wants to cut off anything he does not control. That is what Unity
means.
What now
I am going to continue with single payer blogging, I hope other Clinton supporters will pick their favorite issue and blog about that. Just ignore the Presidential race, it is the most positive thing you can do. HR 676 has 90 cosponsors (note - Julia Carson has died and was succeeded by her son), that is 20% of the House of Representatives. We just need to find 128 additional supporters in the House of Represetatives, and we can pass this thing.
Please click on the link and find out if any of the cosponsors represent your district. If not, find out who is running in your area and if they support HR 676. It is critical to give challengers good publicity and link love.
"Ground game" without policy is meaningless
and possibly dangerous. It’s like a race car without a steering wheel.
————————————————————————-
” … we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender …”- Winston Churchill
Thought I heard "them"
You’ve got to excuse me—I’ve been in meetings most of the morning and trying to catch up. I played it a couple of times and really thought I heard “him” but yes, it could be ” ’em”; Jeralyn at TL said you have to listen to hear what you think he’s saying.
A lip reader would really come in handy about now :-D
Obama won through a terrific ground game.
please provide some evidence that it was Obama’s “ground game” in primary states — and not his success at identity politics — that has made the difference.
Because when Clinton and Obama went head-to-head, Clinton actual “ground game” was better, once you discount for Obama’s exploitation of racial resentment.
Most of Obama’s victories over Clinton were in places that the Clinton campaign did not waste time and effort or organizing, or didn’t begin organizing until a week or so before the election was held, while her campaign was in disarray.
You can’t tell me that New Jersey went to Clinton by 10 points on Super Tuesday, and that Maryland went for Obama by 25 points a week later, and expect me to believe that.
Nor can you tell me that Virginia went to Obama by 29 points, but Obama won NC by only 14 points, and claim that Obama’s ground game is superior — not when his win in NC was dependent up the support of over 90% of black voters in that state. That’s not a ground game, that’s identity politics as work.
weird
A lip reader would really come in handy about now :-D
the first time I listened to it, I thought I heard Edwards say “hrim” “hmer”… possibly because I was expecting to hear “him”. I remember that it wasn’t distinct, and that scarborough asked what he’d said, and that’s why i was skeptical.
But I went back to see if it was ’hrim’ or ’hmer’… and I listened to it four times, and I’m not hearing an “m” are all. It sounds to me like ’er’. no “h” or “m” sound.
ground game
were in places that the Clinton campaign did not waste time and effort or organizing, or didn’t begin organizing until a week or so before the election was held, while her campaign was in disarray.
not waste time in competing is known as not having a ground game. Moreover, Clinton’s older female supporters should have given her an advantage in caucus states, if you know anything about local Dem committees, you know gray haired ladies dominate. So Clinton should have had the advantage, Obama’s ground game won the day.
My information comes from friends who volunteered. For example, back in November of 2007 Obama was sending canvassars into Nevada with the idea that it would be a crucial state. That is having a ground game.
That's What I'm Going To Do, DCBlogger
I’m going to keep up with the primaries until they’re over only* because I believe it’s important to make a record, especially regarding the misogyny (which is also underneath a lot of the current triumphalism). Just saw a post at Talk Left of bloggers hilariously comparing Hillary Clinton to their “psycho ex-girlfriend.” Some of these guys couldn’t be more transparent if they tried.
If voting Democratic in the presidential means voting for a movement dominated by these misogynistic asshats, I won’t do it. I will not be the African American conservative in the Republican party. Someone who sticks with it because they like the policies, but is willing to overlook that a large chunk of the party is filled with people who either hate them or who are willing to leverage the hate of others to win. Not to mention, it’s hard to see how any movement fueled on hatred of me and people like me is going to do anything for me.
As Melissa McEwan wrote:
And:
* Okay, not only for that reason. I’m starting to believe that with supporters like Bowers and Stoller, there’s a decent chance Obama will be shark chum and won’t make it until August. Reportedly conservative talk radio has already begun playing Brazile’s comments. Can’t imagine why.
DCB, I take it you
haven’t seen reports of how obnoxious Obama supporters terrorized those little gray haired ladies at the caucuses, huh?
I remember when that behavior wasn’t called “ground game” but the “frat boy riot” when it was attempted in Florida 2000.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Nevada
I had heard something of that, but that has nothing to do with sending canvassars into Nevada back in Nov of 2007. In those days Clinton was the one with the money.
That's right Aeryl
the brooks brothers riot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brot…
Unfortunately, they didnt just TRY it, they succeeded in shutting down the count.
Obama doesnt have ground game. It’s cheating. It’s taking the one strong card you have (being willing and able to inflame racial resentment) and trying to make a winning hand by intimidation, ratfucking, and degrading the opposition.
It's not cheating
to send canvassars into a state months before the contest.
give the man some credit, learn from it. be ready in 2010 to elect some women.
cheer up
Read swing state project and get something to smile about.
oh please
I never would call “sending canvassers into a state months before the contest” cheating. It was an interesting and arguable strategy that ultimately did NOT win him the state.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari…
So of course it wasnt cheating, but it’s not evidence of superior ground game either.
Ok, I’ll give him credit for losing Nevada, even though he had the insight to use a brilliant strategy of sending canvassers in months before voters were even thinking or caring about the election.
“learn from it”? No thanks, I’ve learned about all I need to know about Obama and his methods.
I’ll say it again, he is ONLY winning because of strings being pulled for him, benefiting from the unfair caucus scheme, and racial identity/resentment.
Hillary is winning because democrats from all parts of the coalition have voted for her in big swing-state primaries, by the millions and millions.
That’s a winning ground game and I AM ready to elect some women right fucking now.
It's entirely possible
…and I listened to it four times, and I’m not hearing an “m” are all.
I’m listening to it through my laptop speakers, which aren’t the best quality. If I’d heard him say it on my HD teevee, I might have arrived at a different conclusion.
He's Gonna Endorse
Edwards will endorse Obama…
at the convention.
him, em?
He voted Obama. Bet the farm.
Edwards has clarified
He did not endorse Obama, he used the Southern General Nuetral Term, ’em.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Edwards playing with my emotions.
Why the cat and mouse?
Fucking endorse.
End it.
Do something, anything.
I’ll stick by my guess that he voted for Obama.
If he voted for Clinton, now would be the time to speak up? No?
Doesn't take a genuis
John Edwards on who he’ll endorse: “I just voted for him on Tuesday”
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?…
i hope he didn't--medical stuff alone makes it
unlikely, i think.
He’s voting against Elizabeth, and against what he himself fights for?????
against what he himself fights for
We’ve seen a little bit of everything this cycle…
(I must say I was personally never on the Edwards bandwagon and thought he was full of as much shit as Obama, for different reasons)
Gravel!!!!!!!!
Not a Gore fan either. (back when Draft Gore was all the rage over at Eschaton)
Edwards
Sorry, mark, you’re wrong(again!)
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/200…
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
These people can't pick a beer...
My neighborhood is oveerrun with “creatives”, and going by how slowly they pick a mix-six of beer at the Foodery, and the gargantuan mental hurdles they apparently face paying for goods at a cash register, they all look like “special class” kids to me.
But maybe I’m just bitterly clinging to my antiquated ideas of, you know, getting the hell out of the store and getting on with my life…
well, willy,
he’s now running an anti-poverty thing at UNC, and was at least talking about economic and populist stuff—the only one who was.
(i still want him back—he was the only one who could definitely win this time, out of all of them)
Tony,
creative (short bus) class? ; >
the only one who was.
Gravel…
IIRC uttered the words
’Military-Industrial Complex’ prior to any of the top dem candidates during one of the first debates.
Biden?
A Biden McCain matchup would have been interesting, all things being equal.
"Creative Class"
It’s clear I’m smack dab in the middle of this newly identified demographic group known as the “creative class.” Whatever. Aside from being completely and totally turned off by the self-congratulatory nomenclature (we’re the creative ones, different from the rest of you dullards who have to work with your hands to make a living), every time I see the term used by some smug asshole who believes that their characterization of my life is reason enough for me to vote for Obama, I wanna say “f*ck you!” I am not going to be put in a box (especially not if you’re going to be my neighbor) and told how to vote. The demographic aspect that has most influenced my voting decisions has been my inclusion in the active-thought-process crowd, representatives of which seem to be sorely missing from the online self-identified creatives.
And I’m sorry, who made Matthew Yglesias the arbiter of cool? Seriously, he is the definition of uncool, mainly because of his desperation to please, please just once be considered cool. Matt, if you have to try at it, you are not cool. And you know what else? Bullies aren’t cool, Matt (and Josh, and Markos and Aravosis), and they usually aren’t very creative.
And VL, I have to disagree with you, it is not a foregone conclusion that Obama will win. It may seem likely, but there is still time for him to trip over his own arrogance — his hubris if you will, which in the modern vernacular we have come to view as synonymous with pride — but is not its original definition. To the Ancient Greeks, hubris meant insolence — specifically the insult of another as a means to try to elevate oneself. And that hubris was rewarded with punishment from the gods.* It is the thing that causes heroes to fall — not the pride, but the insolence, the insult that is borne from the pride. And Obama has been the definition of hubris — I welcome his declaration later this month that he is the Democratic nominee. Please, Obama declare yourself the winner in a contest that is not yet completed. Please continue to insult in high-profile ways not only Hillary but all of the people who have voted for her, and especially all of the people who plan to vote for her in the primaries after 5/20. And please, please turn your attention to John McCain, and give him the opportunity to strike back at you in ways that Hillary can’t. Please give the SDs a taste of what a GE battle against you will look like at a point when they still have the option of supporting Clinton. Please, Obama, please tempt the gods — you are setting yourself up for a Greek tragedy type fall.
This thing isn’t over, not yet.
*The hybris/nemesis balance — the human transgression is brought into balance through the vengeance (or nemesis) of the gods.
willy,
Biden is all talk, and bad actions—he’s wholly owned by Credit Card Co.s and Banks (Delaware, you know).
Gravel was treated as the “crazy uncle”, a la Wright, and he never got to be known—i like him tho but still don’t know enough about him—maybe as a cabinet member or something? (altho since he’s now in an Obama girl video, forget it)
not really, willy
The wankfest/haka is always most active when Hillary is about to do really good. Hillary is going to win pretty big in WV (hence the loud chest beating). A front runner getting 35% of the vote in a state after he supposedly “wrapped up the nomination” is going to raise some eyebrows. The wankfest/circle jerk/haka will only increase after WV because more momentum will be carried into KY and possibly OR. Edwards could be saving his endorsement of Obama at that point. If he choses to endorse Hillary, it could be at that point as well, to get people to chill out.
Or he could realize that his working class/anti-poverty cred goes out the window with an endorsement of Obama any time before the convention. That’s my guess. IF he is a closet Obama supporter.
Amber,
I looked into the “work” of Edwards anti-poverty center a long time ago and it was pretty tepid. After the announcement of the formation and a few events for publicity, not much happened. He made a big deal about a student anti-poverty initiative that sounded really cool. Since I had been working with student groups for 4 years at the local and national level, I offered to help behind the scenes like. Nothing much materialized from that effort. In fact, I contacted the main organizer a month or two after the formation of the group (we were in correspondence early on) and he was no longer there.
I never bought into Edwards populist rhetoric. Poverty is my number one issue and he hasn’t backed up his rhetoric with real action.
i dunno, gg--
i just got an email that they had awarded their first seed funding grants —
this is the press release about it — Announcing Recipients of Poverty Center Seed Funding Grants — http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/poverty/d…
(i dunno—i liked the fact that he even talked about it, as opposed to vague nothings, even if there wasn’t much meat behind it as of now—i trust there would have been a real focus on it all if he had been nominated and became president)
Final Thoughts
You know this, I know this…
but electoral wise? Take away the top 3 (ignore Richardson) and Biden is what you’ve got.
I have no idea of what you speak. I’ll have to check youtube.
I don’t think I follow.
At this point, Edwards would be heaped with praise if he endorsed Obama and kicked to the curb faster than Rev. Wright if he endorsed Hillary.
Themz The Rulez.
And the Usual Suspects would be leading the charge to do it.
I am of the opinion that the ’fix’ is in, and Obama is going to get the nomination. Anything outside of that would be a major glitch in the martix.
I’m just laying back and anticipating my enjoyment of it all.
Edwards Vote
I thought I heard them say on Morning Joe that John and Elizabeth had voted for different people. Elizabeth has already said she likes Hillary’s healthcare plan better than Obama’s (who doesn’t?). After hearing John’s interview this morning, I concluded that he probably voted for Obama and she voted for Hillary.
Heh.
50/50 ….
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
I Think the Edwardses Did Split Their Vote
or at least Elizabeth voted for Hillary. She rolled her eyes at some of her husband’s praise of Obama. From people magazine:
My guess is he went with Obama, liking his new politics, and she went with Hillary liking healthcare.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,…
that's disappointing--
i hope he didn’t vote for him (i’m “bitter and clinging” to him as still better than the remaining ones and that would kill it i think)
Edwards declined on Elizabeth's vote
I thought I heard them say on Morning Joe that John and Elizabeth had voted for different people. Elizabeth has already said she likes Hillary’s healthcare plan better than Obama’s (who doesn’t?). After hearing John’s interview this morning, I concluded that he probably voted for Obama and she voted for Hillary.
Neither Edwards has said who they voted for, and John specifically refused to answer the question of whether he and Elizabeth had voted for the same person, because everyone assumes that she voted for Hillary.
I’m personally convinced that Edwards is going with Clinton, simply because he showed up on those shows this AM.
1) Edwards isn’t going to knife Clinton in the back, and endorse Obama to destroy any impact that West Virginia might have. Elizabeth would insist that he knife Hillary from the front.
2) The only reason to endorse someone is to achieve maximum impact — and showing up on TV today is part of that effort. (indeed, I’d not be surprised that he had originally planned on endorsing Clinton yesterday, and then hype her on this mornings shows — but after the disappointing come from behind victory in Indiana, that would have been bad timing.) Edwards showing up on TV is not a plus for the Obama campaign — and why would Edwards want to interfere with the Obama daily message if he is endorsing Obama?
3) Obama had completely screwed up the “working class” vote in the last two weeks, and an Edwards endorsement doesn’t fit.
4) Edwards doesn’t need to endorse Obama in the name of party unity as long as Gore continues to hold out as well.
Edward wins by not endorsing anyone.
It keeps his name in the news, because once he endorses he’s a spent shell. By not endorsing he’s in the news until the convention. And by waiting he makes it more likely his endorsement would have an effect. Plus if he endorses and it doesn’t change any minds it makes him look weak.
Best of all, it keeps his wife’s health care agenda alive.
————————————————————————
” … we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender …”- Winston Churchill
I agree Paul
I think he goes for Clinton, and as for the idea that he loses if he endorses anyone — I think he would be a very good surrogate for Hillary, especially if he campaigned for her — but it could also be good for him, it keeps his name and his issues out there, and even if it doesn’t help Hillary tremendously, it would prove that the issues are what matters to him, not jumping on the Obama bandwagon.
gotta ask it again...
Did he release his delegates?
for the sake of good order, I mean.
Nothing could be meant by it, if he hadn’t yet… through all these months….