If either Barack or Hillary run into Avedon in a dark alley, they'd better watch out. Ditto the fans:

I know you think your candidate has been nearly pure while the other has been monstrous, but you're wrong. They aren't practicing any "new" politics, they're both using language that accepts totally wrong RNC memes, and they're both doing and saying things that are designed to hurt Democratic chances (including those all-important down-ticket races) in November. Quit yelling at me and start yelling at your candidate to cut it out and start campaigning against the goddamn conservatives.

Which is a terrific unpacking of Lord Eschaton's snarky little "Oh, and your candidate sucks" riff (and by that I mean the highest possible praise: Snarky little riffs can propagate with herpetic virulence; see, e.g., "Friedman Unit"). But I'm not sure that Avdeon provides me tools to write with, or with anything to do. So, let's try to add some dynamics and engagement:

First, we've always wanted Democrats to distinguish themselves from each other by attacking Republicans; IIRC, we all wanted that back in 2004 when Gephardt beat Dean senseless, opening the way for Kerry and cutting out Edwards. But I'm hard pressed to come up with an example where D_A beat D_B by attacking R_C more effectively. What's the metric for being effective? Who keeps score? And will our famously free press even understand or report such an tactic? Won't R_C game their response to advance the cause of the D they feel is most likely to lose? Plus, there's the Prisoner's Dilemma-like situation that when D_A attacks R_C, they expose a flank to D_B, who then tend to attack them directly.

Second, the purpose of the primaries is, after all, to pick a candidate. It's rather hard to do that without candidate A showing the greater number of voters that candidate B, well, sucks. Let's remember that the attacks in this campaign, while they cause your average Villager to head for the fainting couch after cashing the check for their last "Democrats in Disarray" column, is well within the norm, historically.

Third, I think that the candidate's use of right wing memes is going to continue; given the full spectrum dominance of the Conservative Movement over the last generation, maybe right wing memes are the only shared vocabulary that the country has. And, for that reason, as the consultants point out, they "work"* (for whatever the consultant's metric of "work" might be, which will not include purifying the discourse, building the party, or shoving the Overton Window left. No money in that).

So, what to do? And how to call bullshit without damaging our chances in the general? And how to distinguish petty, meaningless bullshit from important bullshit?

I think one answer might be to return to the Triangles and make them a primary analytical tool, because they can relate memes to power structures to constituencies. That technique allows us to assess the motivation of the candidate in using right wing memes, and also allows us to assess the damage done. I realize that this is like playing Rovian three-rail trick shots ("your candidiate is sucking on ____ because _____, and ______ likes to watch") instead of simple bank shots ("your candidate sucks") but Fuck, if nobody else is going to improve the discourse, the vituperative foul-mouthed bloggers will have to do it. Again.

Bowers looked at Hillary's C-i-C assault and came up with this:

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.

Taking Bowers as a model, we might analyze Obama's rightward slide on Social Security this way:

The Obama campaign has effectively formed a triangle against Hillary by putting Social Security "in play," with the youth vote and sought-after Republican voters in one corner, the established media narrative on Social Security in "crisis" as a second corner, and the financial industry as the third corner (see the Moody's incident***)

We could then look at the timing of the two triangles, look at the power centers involved in each, the narratives, and so on.

For example: Obama's rightward slide on Social Security took place before Hillary went in for the C-i-C thing. Does that matter? Are both important bullshit, or are both trivial, or is one trivial and the other not? Obama has the financial industry at the third apex; Hillary (according to Bowers) the McCain campaign. Which is more damaging? Short term? Long term? Which narrative is more virulent and more dangerous for a Democrat to propagate? "Inexperience," or "Social Security as a problem"?

Just a thought. Note that the point isn't to assume some presumed objective stance above the fray--your candidate does suck--but to provide analytical tools to engage and move the argument forward (and also call bullshit in a way that doesn't destroy our chances in the general).

Triangles! It's a game anyone can play, so jump right in!

NOTE * Though it is interesting to note that Bowers says, essentially, that Obama started it, with Social Security in Iowa and Harry and Louise. Which would make sense, because Obama's the candidate with the strategy of drawing Republican votes in open primaries and caucuses, and so he has to speak their language).

NOTE ** FWIW, I think the C-i-C stuff is petty bullshit. If you've got a younger candidate, it's natural to cast them as untried. However, putting Social Security in play is important bullshit, because it's a foundational liberal program However, if I'm wrong, the triangles provide a common methodology to show how I'm wrong.

NOTE *** More from the FT (registration required):

The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody's, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.

The warning over the future of the triple-A rating - granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 - reflects growing concerns over the country's ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy.

It could also put further pressure on candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties to sharpen their focus on healthcare and pensions in the run-up to November's presidential election.

I don't think that this article recieved nearly enough attention when it was published, back in January. Naturally, those of the financial "innovators" who brought us the subprime debacle and didn't sell short or get out in time are still anxious to live the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, and the commissions from a privatized Social Security would allow them to do that (less the cut to whichever politician manages to betray us and bring home the bacon for them, of course).

Most presidential candidates have vowed to reform the healthcare system but many of them, especially on the Democratic side, have focused on extending coverage to the 40m-plus uninsured Americans rather than on cutting costs

Except, er, for Obama, who wants to focus on cutting costs first, and only then on universal coverage. Hmmm.

NOTE My position, since I made a choice, has never been that Hillary is more "pure" than Obama, though there are aspects of Obama's campaign tactics that I find deeply disturbing (or, in the vulgate, totally piss me off). Rather, Obama drove me away with his rightward slide after Iowa--in particular, the rightward slide on Social Security and Universal Health Care, because those issues are of great consequence to me and people I know. And last I checked, Social Security was a great liberal program, and Universal Healthcare should be one as well. So, if you want a purity test, being stronger on those two programs sounds like a good one to me.