Oh, yeah. In the general, it's lesser of two evils all the way, and she'd have to eat a kitten on national TV to beat out McCain there.
We could all agree on it. But the charitable explanation would be that she's saying that voters may already have that ordering (as reflected in the current Florida polling), and she's making the (dreaded) electability argument. To which I mostly respond with a shrug, since both candidates have parallel arguments to make on that.
Absolutely, this should be a zero tolerance issue in a primary setting.
Even if the Democratic candidate fricasseed a kitten on a televised cooking show, I'd be lobbying my friends and family to vote against John McCain for him or her.
3: It is OK to make the electability argument by pointing out that given McCain's background it will come up in the campaign; it is not OK to extend it to "and in fact he is better/more qualified/whatever." Really, this is where I can see a potentially positive use of superdelegates* and backchannels, they should be signalling her in no uncertain terms that this will lose (or have already lost) their vote.
*If a lot of them weren't Jay Rockefeller-type I ♥ telco immunity** hacks.
**Insert your favorite Dem cave-in point.
5: "Even if"? Hell, I hear fried kitten can be mighty tasty. I want a president with good taste.
As has been discussed here previously, McCain is more feminine in his old age (crone-like) than young whippersnapper Obama. So Hillary is just saying you should vote in order of femininity- HRC, then McCain, then Obama. Saying otherwise is still a sexist argument.
Comity, of course. You don't ever tell people that the Republican is more qualified than your Democratic foe. Period.
No.
1) I would not let campaign tactics be dispositive, save that they reflect or predict the candidates policy positions and governance.
2) I'm watching oil. The day America commits to withdrawal, oil hits $150+. Oil at $150 will mean millions of African, Bangladeshi, etc deaths.
The War is horrible and immoral. The end of war is likely to also be horrible and immoral;it will take a war (metaphor) at home to end the wars overseas. It is implicit that a HRC Presidency would be a war at home. It may be Leninist, but I not only prefer that to a temporary truce with the Right, but believe it to be inevitable and ultimately positive. The worst possible approach right now is comity.
To the extent Obama is the transcendental pony candidate, he may be as dangerous as HRC says he is. McCain is an insane warmonger, but may nevertheless generate less net death than Obama.
The resource wars have barely begun, and y'all are citizens of the Empire.
You could check the general election map thread at Yggles, and read Petey's comments (and today's Krugman column). Obama is gonna lose. Obama picked the wrong demographic, is wrong on the economy, and wrong on how foreign policy interacts with the economy.
Really, this is where I can see a potentially positive use of superdelegates* and backchannels, they should be signalling her in no uncertain terms that this will lose (or have already lost) their vote.
This is an issue, though -- the Clintons have been furiously resistant to any attempts to weaken their hold on the party (think about Clinton ally James Carville saying that Clinton ally Harold Ford should replace Dean as the head of the DNC after Dean delivered the best election year for the Democrats since 1992). Who's going to gently force her out? Dean? Reid? The only one who could do it -- other than her funders -- would be Bill, and he's with her all the way.
I think that the "monstrous" discussion was intrinsically interesting, but in the electoral context a red herring best deferred until after the election. Keep your eye on the ball, etc.
At this point it seems that Clinton can only stay competitive with a ruthless scorched earth campaign with disastrous long term effects. The elders and superdelegates should step in and explain things to her, and Obama should offer her something (either Majority Leader or Supreme Court, I'd say, though he can't promise either).
Bob, you're crazy in a bad way now.
I'm watching oil. The day America commits to withdrawal, oil hits $150+.
That's an interesting position. Why? The worst that could happen from an oil POV is continuing chaos and Iraq's production minimal. That's more or less what the situation was after the war (iraq's now at about 1.8mbpd; total world supply is 85 mbpd) and oil didn't go to $150 then. Or are you suggesting some sort of wider regional war? I don't see it.
Frankly I think you're talking nonsense.
I would pay a lot of money to see Clinton use bob's argument next- "Victories by either myself or John McCain would lead to less net death than an Obama win."
11: The superdelegates not controlled by the Clintons should declare for Obama, and some of the Clinton superdelegates should switch.
The Clintons fought, but they lost control of the Party. Dean should be on the phones 24 hours a day by now. Anyone who knows Hillary or Bill should be sending ultimatums. Bill is a mixed but generally positive figure so far, but he could tar himself forever this year.
And Carville should be rinsing his filthy mouth, like Lady Macbeth. What a worthless creep.
The elders and superdelegates should step in and explain things to her
Yeah, this is where her being a Clinton becomes a real problem, I think. I think she's immune from/oblivious to that kind of pressure.
Look, if Obama were to commit to a post-petroleum economy, the massive tax increase and gov't spending required to reach it, and the utter destruction of the Republican Party and attack on Capital that even a small attempt will find necessary, I would be more comfortable with him.
But he will not so commit, so I must assume Obama is lying or delusional, and his record indicates the direction he would prefer. He cjose Lieberman as his Senate mentor. His choice.
14:Regional instability and uncertainty.
"Explain things to her" in the sense of "threaten to declare for Obama", with "actually declare for Obama" as backup.
Bob, you don't know any of that stuff. Come on.
To the 'no negative comparisons with McCain' rule I'd add this: policy criticisms of one candidate where the other is essentially the same are also doing the other team's work.
But he will not so commit, so I must assume Obama is lying or delusional running for national office.
As in -- Look, if Obama were to commit to a post-petroleum economy, the massive tax increase and gov't spending required to reach it, and the utter destruction of the Republican Party and attack on Capital that even a small attempt will find necessary, I would be more comfortable with him -- because Sen. Clinton has committed to these things!
Shorter 18: If Obama actually were the pony candidate, I'd support him.
If Obama won't commit to bloody civil war, the overthrow of capital, and, oh, something rather like the apocalypse, he's a liar and a bad candidate! Plus he's going to lose. Hilary, of course, appears to embrace all of these, so you go girl--and we know that embracing the bloody overthrow of capital and massive taxation is a sure-fire electoral winner in America, to boot.
I'd ask if you want a pony with that, Bob, only I'm afraid you'd eat it. Raw.
14:Also, the relations of the oil markets to the other commodity markets, including food and currencies.
13:Emerson, my doomsday analysis should not surprise you. I have called for the war at home since 9/11, and before. It is my preference. But gotta be war somewhere, and Obammers apparently don't understand that. We. Are. Fucked.
Oh well, the credit crunch is accelerating, and the story will become apparent sooner than I expected. Start thinking in trillons instead of billions. Derivatives are gonna collapse.
Then we can talk. Bye.
5: Oh, sure fricasseeing is OK for a coastal elite foodie like you. If the kitten were chopped up for a Jello salad, it'd be a whole different story.
Fuck people Carlyle defaulted on their loans, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac couldn't sell bonds. DeLong and Feldstein want to nationalize the mortgage markets.
We are in the land of Black Swans.
I have called for the war at home since 9/11, and before. It is my preference.
There you go, motherfuckers. All you need to know about mcmanus in two easy sentences.
As to HRC and the McCain thing: a little bit whatever. "Using Republican frames" seems like the new standard mode of criticism, so I guess it counts against her. It certainly is poisoning the well for Obama in the future, but it doesn't really seem that terrible to me. But I'm back to being agnostic about whether an African-American win yet, again, which means I'm back to being agnostic about whether it would be better for HRC to win, and that probably means I'm less likely to find the rough and tumble stuff (with certain exceptions) she does a crime against humanity.
Bob, I just don't understand why you've put so much intensity into the Obama-Clinton race.
My new fundamental political principles are "Most people disagree with me" and "Beggars can't be choosers". Within that context I sort of prefer Obama to Clinton, and definitely prefer either to McCain. I don't understand why Stras gets so heated about Obama-Clinton either.
But Clinton has taken a nosedive with me recently, since she seems committed to scorched-earth campaigning right up to the convention.
Quick, everybody, pick one! Jello Kitten Salad or Pony Tartare?
As a coastal elite, I know that when you try to put kitten cubes in a Jello mold the enzymes prevent the Jello from setting properly.
29: Or "kitten on a stick", staple of the Fayette County Fair.
Bob, I just don't understand why you've put so much intensity into the Obama-Clinton race.
Because he's a psycho, and, absent UHC, likely to remain one? Maybe? Possibly?
37: Sure, Mr. Slippery Slope Mad Dog Realist , but there are lots of psychos here.
darn it! I'm changing my vote to Stormcrow's fried kitty on a stick.
I would not let campaign tactics be dispositive
I actually agree with bob in 10.1. But only in 10.1.
What Hillary said is appalling, stupid, and destructive. But -- especially if she dropped it -- one such incident wouldn't be dispositive for me.
Think about it: If Obama (or John Edwards) did the same thing tomorrow, we'd be pissed off, but I doubt (m)any of us would drop him. It's a "sufficient" argument for voting against her only because we've already decided to vote against her.
Her ongoing tactics, which show bad judgment and an inexplicable trust in Mark Penn no matter how bad his advice, make a stronger argument, though, again, probably not dispositive for me if I otherwise supported her.
39: The rest of us hide it better. "Fake it till you make it," as the kids say.
If you people were real gourmets you'd make your own jello by boiling the kittens themselves. It would take a lot of kittens, though.
Haloscan spell checks "jello". It also spell checks "Haloscan" and "spellcheck". Weird.
31, 32: What does it mean when Tim, Emerson, and I are all on the same page?
32:Because I think we are in 1930s-1940s territory.
Housing prices , IIRC, have declined for the first time since the GD, so I may not be that crazy. If we do have another Great Depression, or something different butnearly as bad, it may come to a choice between the New Deal/Great Society and brutal confrontation with Republicans.
I see which SCMT, Burke, and Obama would choose.
I think that favoring McCain over Obama should be dispositive. It's more than a campaign tactic, anyway. She's a hawk like McCain.
I just don't see any way in which Hillary is better than Obama. She's more combative, but she's also a triangulating hawk.
48: She has better hair. On the other hand, Obama has better teeth. So it's a wash.
Gold hit $980/ounce a couple days ago (I thought Bob might like to add that to his mix). Also: suck on your "gold always has a stable price" theory, Ron Paul! The run on gold is rankest speculation---stupid, too.
50
Sweet! I need to find my wedding band and sell it.
'
any takers?
I just don't see any way in which Hillary is better than Obama.
She's white, which means she might win when (or more properly, where) he might not. Viability is not nothing, or a lot of us would be writing Feingold or someone else in.
yes, it was completely out of line. and it's just another in a lengthening list of other things that are also out of line. she really is a monster.
53: Too much narrative coherence. You need an "Eyes! I see eyes!" frame in there somewhere.
On the other hand, not all monsters are bad.
57: Check the mouseover text on it.
I'm apprehensive about nominating either a black man or a woman, but I'm not sure which would be hurt more by prejudice, especially if the woman is Hillary. Hillary is the Al Sharpton of the woman-haters (the most hated woman), whereas Obama is sharply contrastive to Sharpton and (at this point) seems to get a surprising amount of white-guy support.
27:and we know that embracing the bloody overthrow of capital and massive taxation is a sure-fire electoral winner in America, to boot.
We may find out in six months, or maybe even by Pennsylvania. Obama's gonna lose. The workers can't trust him. Read Krugman.
Without the taxes, the entitlements lose. It will be that simple. It was the plan.
60: Ah. I had javascript off.
whereas Obama is sharply contrastive to Sharpton and (at this point) seems to get a surprising amount of white-guy support.
If it's surprising now--and it turns out it probably is--it's unlikely against McCain. But who knows? Maybe McCain's just too old.
bob, I do this for a living. You are panicking unnecessarily, because you're forgetting the difference between notional and real exposures.
Also, I love your simple faith that having the US army tearing up the ground in Iraq is actually contributing to regional stability. The 1990s were remarkable for two things: 1) US not occupying Iraq and 2) Middle East not dissolving into bloody spiral of anarchy. But now, if the US pulls out of Iraq, suddenly the entire region is going unstable? Er, no.
Read Krugman.
I just read Krugman's op-ed, and he isn't making any sense. His argument seems to be: Obama's domestic program is very slightly to the right of Clinton's so therefore voters who care about the economy will pick the guy whose domestic program is way the fuck to the right of both of them and has said on multiple occasions that he doesn't really understand economics.
64: Can you, in the pay of the Capitalist terror masters, be trusted? The question answers itself.
And Power apologizes to Clinton. Comity!
67: But not to women everywhere, so not quite comity yet.
"whose politics I have long admired"? A little overboard there, it seems.
10 may be it's nonsense, just i thought may be BMcM right, may be Obama could win easier if he was a republican, he is pro-consensus etc if i'm not mistaken
because plus to his hypothetical republican votes he could add many progressive's
if to look at him that he'll be the first black president
not that he is a democrat essentially
though one wants to see of course only his policies not race
If you can't stand up to Hillary, how could you stand up to Osama? Power is too weak to advise on foreign policy questions. Obama needs a tough, male foreign-policy adviser.
71: Didn't know you were a fan of Sartre.
But who is stronger than Power? Who, indeed? (Paging Zombie Foucault).
72: But if you support and aid Obama, will you not do the same for Osama?
64:Maybe I spend too much time around panicky traders. Or see a Fed Chairman panicking
And the US in the ME is partly about stability, and partly about the perception of stability. It is the marginal barrel that determines price, the one you might need but won't be able to buy. We are in peak oil.
67: And Power apologizes to Clinton. Comity!
Damn and I was halfway through a rewrite of Beowulf with Obama in the title role, Hillary as Grendel and McCain as Grendel's mother.
(And for completeness, I guess the dragon would be Amerika.)
Clinton is too hawkish for me. But what scares me even more than a centrist hawk is a humanitarian hawk.
If I were an Obama supporter, I would want Power to stop giving interviews where she likens her candidate to someone who "almost got a little seduced" by "evil" (her words). Or maybe to just stop giving interviews.
79 MCAlien is anti-Irish and misogynist.
As a firm believer in our Lord and Savior Barack Obama, I don't really have a problem with what Hillary is doing. Whether or not you think it's OK really depends on whether or not you want Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. If you want her to win, then she has to do what it takes.
Of course crap like this is exactly why I don't want her to win.
79: I agree, reading that interview, I feel like yelling at her that this is real now, not just a thought experiment among honest brokers who relish verbal nuance and a clever turn of phrase; all manner of ill-meaning troglodytes will be reading her and making hay with her words.
what scares me even more than a centrist hawk is a humanitarian hawk
Word. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
81: I really think there's a bright line between making arguments that might be co-opted by Republicans, and making a direct argument that the Republican is superior to your Democratic opponent.
Being "nasty" isn't the point. Hillary's "nastiness" doesn't much trouble me. Offering direct support to Republicans is the point. Obama does this (less directly) on mandates, and it ain't right. For Hillary to say: On this important issue, McCain is better than Obama - that's appalling.
||
So, a couple of weeks ago, the body of a former model of African descent, Katoucha Niane, was pulled out of the Seine. Katoucha was a victim of, and campaigner against, female genital mutilation. Today, a former model of African descent, and also a victim of and campaigner against female genital mutilation, Waris Dirie, was reported missing in Brussels, where she was scheduled to attend an EU conference on women's rights.
That's pretty creepy.
|>
Oudemia, that's incredibly creepy. Links?
As for the other question, I didn't think the comment, in the context of the Clinton campaign, was that outlandish. But then I just watched the video. Now I've changed my mind.
It was a disgusting and pointed comment. She clearly has made common cause with her Republican ally. Yes, ally. I would never have said that before now. I've never accused her of being a Republican -- because of her family's history. But that conclusion, after watching the video at TPM (top of the page now), is unavoidable. I urge everyone to watch her body language, and listen to her tone, as she talks about McCain and then Obama. It's clear where her loyalties are.
Again, all this is in the context of a campaign, I know. Still, McCain is a dangerous man, a man who wants more wars, a man whose policies will almost surely lead to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Anything that makes it easier for such a man to get elected is immoral.
It is creepy, but from the stories, it really does sound like a bizarre coincidence. I could, of course, be wrong.
My first read of that was someone mutilated her then tossed her body in the river.
Oh, it could totally be a (very fucking weird) coincidence.
Here's the AP story on Waris Dirie.
In a conference call just now, the Clinton campaign called on Barack Obama to fire Samantha Power for calling Hillary a "monster."
OK, that is fucking ridiculous after the CIC comment. Note: It appears as though this came after the apology. (Via TPM.)
90: I saw that, too. And it truly is fucking ridiculous.
As someone who was saying it was a sexist comment, let me third the 'fucking ridiculous'.
Again, all this is in the context of a campaign, I know. Still, McCain is a dangerous man, a man who wants more wars, a man whose policies will almost surely lead to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Anything that makes it easier for such a man to get elected is immoral.
Do not drink deeply from the cup of mcmanus. It is heady stuff.
90-92: If I were a Republican, my mood would be brightening considerably right now.
I don't think any of this is that crazy big a deal -- it's still all mostly inside baseball. While I could be overly optimistic (I usually am), I think if everyone on the left keeps their head and remembers 'lesser of two evils, Democrats take the general without much difficulty.
93: I'm confused by this, Tim. You don't think that Hillary annointing McCain the superior CIC choice will help him in the general? Or you don't think that helping him in the general is immoral? Or you don't think that she's done one or the other? And thus I'm overreacting?
As I've said, I hope that someone's putting pressure on Clinton behind the scenes. The convention's in August, and we can't stand five months of this.
I'm moving away from the idea that this is just normal politicking. Hillary's game plan failed, and now she's desperately trying to figure something out. She's a very long shot to win, but she's strong enough to stay in the game.
If her McCain uberhawk approach does sway superdelegates in her direction, I'll have to give up. My feeling is that it should drive them away from her.
I had such high hopes going into this election -- the Republicans in total disarray, a Democratic candidate pushing the discussion to the left in a pretty solid field, etc., etc. And now?
I'll have to give up and join McManus on the barricades.
You forgot part of your sentence there, Emerson.
If Obama wins the nomination, Hillary's C-I-C comments, the pair of them, will be the commercial McCain runs in prime time, from Labor Day until November.
98: The one thing I'll say is that LB is right: relatively few people are really paying attention to any of this right now. And once the primary is over, there will still be favorable terrain for a Democrat. For Obama, he'll be able to win on the war, I'm guessing. And for Hillary, the Clinton brand is pure gold during an economic downturn (which, as much as anything else, is why she did so well in Ohio). Plus, Obama, as a Democrat, will be perceived as far better on the economy than McCain, who really doesn't seem to know anything about basic math.
Anyway, I agree: things feel pretty grim right now. But I'm not sure that it will matter longterm.
Ari, as I keep explaining, Tim is a Mad Dog Realist. I believe that he took a blood oath at the crossroads at midnight in the dark of the moon never to make or endorse certain kinds of judgments about political speech.
98: September 6, 2003: "[Y]ou can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As a rule, they only stop forming circular firing squads long enough to eat their young."
Turned out to be correct then, too.
Completely out of line, yes. I don't know if they constitute a "sufficient" argument for voting against her--I mean, if an otherwise perfect candidate said something stupid like that I don't think it would cause me to change my vote--but they certainly constitute a sufficient argument for feeling pissed off at her, questioning her political judgment, and wondering whether she sees the difference between "the Dems must win in the fall" and "I must win in the fall."
the charitable explanation would be that she's saying that voters may already have that ordering (as reflected in the current Florida polling), and she's making the (dreaded) electability argument.
I don't think even I could stretch that far. The voters may already have that ordering, and y'know, if she wants to say she's more electable, that's one thing; but what she did actually say was that McCain is competent and Obama is not. That's not only untrue, it's fucking idiotic from a political pov--and if you're gonna be making the electability argument, part of doing so has to mean not saying idiotic things that serve the opposition.
McManus is too optimistic about the barricades.
Ari, nobody's listening now, but the tape loop will be available this fall.
And in news from Texas, caucus reporting has shot up from 40% Wednesday to... 41%!
107: Is there a good explanation of what's going on there someplace?
...wondering whether she sees the difference between "the Dems must win in the fall" and "I must win in the fall."
I've stopped wondering: she clearly doesn't.
I think Obama should fire Power for her exceptionally poor judgment in speaking to the press:
'I'd do anything he asked me to do. It's not about working for the next President of the United States, it's Obama. If he ran General Motors I'd be working for him and I don't care about cars'.
This is his top foreign policy advisor. She's not exactly helping on the "too inexperienced to handle foreign policy" front.
Well, if Hillary wins the nomination, her boosting McCain over Obama doesn't matter.
And if Obama wins, then when McCain brings up Hillary's remark, his retort is "who cares what that loser said? Loser, loser, loser! Nyah, nyah!"
Either way, I don't see the harm. Like, people who *were* skeptical about McCain's foreign-policy prowess are going to decide for him because *Hillary* touts him?
Who the fuck is *that* voter? Because there's only one of him, and if you kill him before the election, no harm done.
I think Obama should fire Power for her exceptionally poor judgment in speaking to the press:
That would actually be a really good idea -- it would clearly distinguish his campaign from Hillary's, and make H. look bad.
Sure, Obama needs to run tough, but "monster"? Not that tough. That's Mark Penn territory.
I also wonder about the wisdom of promising Hillary a Supreme Court seat -- at least publicly. Turnout among the religious right is likely to be depressed this time because they don't like McCain, but nothing would undo that like the prospect of Hitlery Clinton on the Supreme Court for life, feasting on the blood of infants.
#90. That's positively .... fiendish. If the Clintons have learned anything from their trials, it's how to practice bitch-slap politics. Obviously, they've decided that they can get the most mileage out of needling Obama and crying foul when the campaign hits back
I agree with 94. Looking at the trends and the schedule from here to November, I'm putting the chances of a McCain victory in the fall at over 50%.
I'd always assumed that the Democrats have a knack of choosing the least electable candidate as their nominee. I'm not a good judge of electability, so I was curious to see who would turn out to be least electable. This is a new one on me, though: when you have two electable candidates, just don't choose.
I also agree that it's fucking ridiculous to call on Obama to fire Power. Come on, Hillary. Let's don't be pathetic.
"Hillary is the Al Sharpton of the woman haters" is hilarious, and pretty apt.
107: Is there a good explanation of what's going on there someplace?
Not that I've found. It seems to have dropped off the radar since Wednesday, and even the Texas Democratic Party's own site doesn't have up-to-date info. A Google News search for "texas caucus" was the best I could do.
108: My understanding is that the caucus vote count doesn't matter. Each precinct elected delegates in their caucus; these delegates are being sent to another round of voting in a week and a half, which will elect the delegates to the national convention.
110 is correct.
As for 115, I just keep getting more and more disenchanted with doing incredibly boring and pointless lab work for a potentially infinite period of time, and one of the reasons is that I want to be able to leave the country for good soon after McCain becomes president. I can't ignore that factor when I contemplate whether or not I should just switch to a master's program.
I also agree that it's fucking ridiculous to call on Obama to fire Power
Gotta disagree. Obama's been all about the positive message, working together, etc., etc.
For one of his people to call Hillary a "monster" isn't just objectively bad, it can be spun to call his campaign's sincerity into question.
Besides which, Power is quite evidently a stupid person -- WTF was she doing saying that to a journalist? I thought all the bad judgment was supposed to be in Hillary's campaign.
(All this, n.b., said by a Mississippian who's going to vote for Obama next week.)
114 is hilarious. And true. (And yeah, "bitch slap" is sexist as hell, but it is nonetheless both true and hilarious.)
The one thing I'll say is that LB is right: relatively few people are really paying attention to any of this right now.
It is, however, the only thing in the news. Aside from "Who will be McCain's VP".
I haven't read the comments, but I disagree with the post, unless she's said something explicitly about John McCain being preferable to Obama.
All of the quotes I've seen have been of the form, "McCain and I both have more [executive branch type] experience than Obama." Which sounds bad at first reading, but I don't think it is.
I think the largest falsehood in that statement is not, inflating McCain's experience, or diminishing Obama's but inflating her own.
I expect that, in the media and culture in general, everyone will grant that McCain has foreign policy "heft" (whatever that means). I don't think Clinton saying that boosts McCain too much, because I think everyone though that already. I think the clever part of the statement (from an electoral perspective) is grouping herself with McCain.
If she's said anything more about McCain than, "he has experience that is a necessary qualification for CiC" then I retract this, but I haven't seen that yet.
Hillary really said that? Link? If she did, what a bitch. That's really out of bounds. It also seems to imply she doesn't have a real strong ideological disagreement with McCain on foreign policy.
Power is an odd character -- bleeding heart, worn on her sleeve, very passionate idealist, but also very involved with this idea of using U.S. military force to Fight Evil and Right Wrongs. In Obama she sees the man who can make her dreams come true.
The explanation from TPM is that the caucus results must be mailed to the county chairs within 72 hours, but the chairs don't have to revel the results until the next convention level at the end of the month. Any district-level reporting at this point is voluntary for the organizers. The official final count won't be known until that convention at the end of March.
It is, however, the only thing in the news.
Well, there's also the biggest one-month job loss in five years.
127: That might be in the financial news, but the commentators don't care.
"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington. "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with."
imply she doesn't have a real strong ideological disagreement with McCain on foreign policy
I haven't seen much indication that she does. That said, given McCain's age and old injuries, HRC probably is better suited to wrestle a buffalo.
You can watch the video at TPM, if you prefer.
128: The 63,000 newly unemployed probably care.
Watch the video of Hillary remarks (8:59 am at TPM). Also, Power just resigned. Which was the right thing to do.
TPM reports that Power has resigned.
123: Explanation of the God Bless Texas caucus mess.
Fixed.
Which infant is this with a bedroom-sized conference room? What kind of infant needs a conference room, anyway? And why is Hillary borrowing a conference room from an infant?
and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy
Ha! Hadn't read the quote ... more subtle than I'd realized. Not quite up there with Patrick Henry's "... and George III may profit by their example," but pretty good.
TPM reports that Power has resigned.
Holy shit. I don't think they should have done that.
Seriously, I'm thrilled she's gone. People who say insanely stupid things to reporters need to get out of politics and back into the academy. Where it's safe to be intemperate. (And if that's sexist, substitute another word. Or don't.) Goolsbee should quit, too. Better yet, Obama should impose message discipline on his troops. Yes, that would be much better.
LB's parents have shown that even the aged can successfully wrestle buffaloes. It does help to have healthy shoulders, though.
The economy is moving toward free fall, although a few positive signs still crop up here and there. This is on top of a comparatively weak recovery the last couple of years. The party's over, and it wasn't much of a party.
129: that's bad, that's bullshit. To me, that's throwing your party and your cause under a bus to win the nomination.
It brings back my central feeling about Hillary on foreign policy -- that she *just does not get* how potentially destructive our ME foreign policy course is. No one with a sense of how dangerous things could get if we e.g. engage in military action against Iran could be pumping up McCain.
TPM reports that Power has resigned.
To be replaced by the team of Mary Catherine and Anderson, evidently.
I promise to consult with Unfogged commentariat on important decisions occurring earlier than 3 a.m.
139: Eh, I don't see how it really matters.
"resigned"? That will do no good at all. Who cares if she was paid or not, she was an advisor. She was someone whose opinion was sought out and considered and trusted. It doesn't make intuitive sense that that association with Obama will go away just because she isn't paid by the campaign. There's no way to disassociate from someone whose only role is as a supporter and advisor.
Might as well fire Louis Farrakhan.
Well, it's all up to the media at this point. Their lust for Obama has probably peaked, because they have not yet gotten disillusioned with him, whereas that happened with McCain several years ago and now they're enchanted again.
Eh, I don't see how it really matters.
I don't know if anyone cares, but now I think maybe he is a big weenie.
Eh, I don't see how it really matters.
Powers's will be the very last stupid off-the-record comment by an Obama adviser in this campaign. That matters.
Either way, I don't see the harm. Like, people who *were* skeptical about McCain's foreign-policy prowess are going to decide for him because *Hillary* touts him?
No, it's not that they see Hillary as a reference, it's that people think "if even other Democrats say Obama isn't fit to lead, that must be the party's dirty secret." Excellent fodder for the "independent" set.
Better yet, Obama should impose message discipline on his troops.
Obama's campaign has been much better than Clinton's on this score, and that fact is part of what convinces me that he will be a stronger general election candidate.
People who say insanely stupid things to reporters need to get out of politics and back into the academy. Where it's safe to be intemperate.
I wish someone had told me that. The message I always got was that academia requires networking skills, and that if you call a PhD a motherfucker just once he or she remembers it for life.
146: Why? "Monster" was a really, really stupid thing to say. Especially when she said it. Campaigns have to have discipline. Often, it's all they've got.
You don't think that Hillary annointing McCain the superior CIC choice will help him in the general? Or you don't think that helping him in the general is immoral?
Neither. It's just political fighting, now. Anything goes.
Holy shit. I don't think they should have done that.
I think I agree with that, but I didn't think Power's comments were all that terrible. Whatever. The HRC campaign got a head. Blood in the water.
I guess I'm just angry because I don't understand why Clinton is staying in the Democratic Party, when there's an established political party that seems to be more suited to her campaign strategy and her policy positions. It would be win-win; she'd get the benefit of an established political machine that has proven it can beat the Democratic candidate in a similar situation, and an obvious choice for a uniquely experienced running mate, while the party would immediately gain credibility on a national-race level.
There might have to be a bit of rebranding done, but really, Hillary Clinton and the Connecticut for Lieberman Party are made for each other.
Power will be back in the administration if Obama wins the presidency. Which is actually OK, for all my criticism of her there are a lot worse out there. At least she turned against the Iraq war very quickly and voiced a few doubts beforehand.
For now, it's a good message to the rest of the campaign.
139: Ogged, seriously, it wasn't just the "monster" comment. She just gave a series of interviews to the British press where she came off as a loose cannon and reinforced the "inexperienced rookie" charge. And Ari is absolutely right about the need to impose some message discipline.
153 is hilaripus. Thanks, Hamlove.
When is the CFL convention, anyway? Doesn't Bloomberg have the inside track?
150: Tenure or a Pulitizer allow one to say nearly anything. Especially if one doesn't care about being liked.
139 -- Caesar's wife must be above even suspicion. Obama's number one asset right now is that he's running a clean campaign. I don't like that Power had to resign, but Power had to resign.
She just gave a series of interviews to the British press where she came off as a loose cannon and reinforced the "inexperienced rookie" charge.
Yeah, point taken.
hilaripus
Oozing wounds are teh funny!
I don't understand why Clinton is staying in the Democratic Party, when there's an established political party that seems to be more suited to her campaign strategy and her policy positions
This shows a distinct lack of comprehension of (1) the Republican Party and (2) the Democratic Party.
Last I checked, Hillary was not in favor of upper-class tax cuts, illegal abortion, the riddance of Social Security, and appointing more Scalitos to the Supreme Court.
I've become persuaded that Obama stands better odds against McCain, so I'm voting for O, but let's not get carried away here.
I don't know if anyone cares, but now I think maybe he is a big weenie.
Let's see if we can recast this for you in more macho terms: Obama needed to impose some discipline and was willing to kick ass and take names to do it.
That better?
But what I really want to know is: What is the sexist subtext to the Hillary camp's demand for the resignation?
Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,"
If one of the lines of attack on McCain in the general is to keep bringing up his "fifty years of experience" to remind people of his age, I don't see how this undercuts that. (sorry, I can't find the link the comment where someone mentioned that)
I'm probably reaching here. I want Obama to win, but I really don't think Hillary is tearing the party apart and I'm tired of that meme.
I will say however that when Hillary drops out of the race she needs to give a strong endorsement of Obama, otherwise I will reach the point that most of this site is at, of thinking that the Clinton's influence in Democratic politics should be fought whenever possible.
I will say however that when Hillary drops out of the race
Ha!
She's going to win. Still better than McCain.
The HRC campaign got a head. Blood in the water.
I dunno, looks to me like the Obama campaign just shut this "story" down quickly and effectively. And now, they'll have bullets in the gun the next time Howard w-lfs-n says something blisteringly stupid (which should be happening in three, two, one...).
The only way that I agree with Ogged (who has since backed down) is this: given the way this is already being spun (Hillary bitch-slapped Obama and he folded), even on TPM, he really should have fired Power immediately.
I think it was stupid for Clinton to call on Obama to fire Power; she's made demands about people saying she was pimping Chelsea and a couple of other things, and *in the context* of her own negative campaigning, it just looks incredibly disingenuous. She's not that fucking sensitive, and trying to take the moral high ground a day or so after saying McCain is better qualified than Obama is just fucking pathetic.
It may, however, have been smart for Power to resign, because it lets Obama point out that *he* won't tolerate negative campaigning, and hit Clinton really hard on the bullshit McCain statement and any other crap she wans to fling at him. It lets him appear incredibly "presidential" and much, much, bigger than she is.
What is the sexist subtext to the Hillary camp's demand for the resignation?
She's too sissy to challenge Power to a fistfight, womano a womano. </Russert>>
Speaking of comity, has anyone ever noticed that Karen Allen and Margot Kidder look a lot alike?
I don't understand why Stras gets so heated about Obama-Clinton either.
I think there are real and significant differences between Clinton and Obama on foreign policy and civil liberties. I think these differences would ultimately lead to significantly more people dying under a Clinton administration than under an Obama administration. I really can't put it any plainer than that.
And now, they'll have bullets in the gun the next time Howard w-lfs-n says something blisteringly stupid (which should be happening in three, two, one...).
Different standards. As you suggest, lots of HRC people have said lots of questionable/stupid things. I don't remember the Clinton campaign granting a head for anything like this--again, I didn't think it was a big deal--and they're still in it. That might be what they mean by battle-tested.
I think it's like the refs and the Knicks in the 90s: yeah, they throw more elbows than anyone is quite comfortable with, but at some point you just get worn down and stop calling it.
much, much, bigger than she is.
He is taller and has bigger hands, but she appears to have the bigger head.
That whole Lois Lane / Marion Ravenwood thing kinda freaks me out.
Just sayin.
162 is true. But can we agree that Clinton *should* be the Republican nominee, because the Republican things she doesn't support are manifestly stupid? No major party should be in favor of trickle-down bullshit, especially not in conjunction with an expensive war; of going back to back-alley abortions; of getting rid of social secuirity; or of appointing supreme court justices who don't believe in the separation of powers. If the Republicans believed in actual facts (and didn't believe in racism and sexism), Clinton would be perfect for them.
Here's why message discipline matters: instead of having a full day of stories, bleeding into the weekend, of Hillary on the CIC (a bad story for her), we're going to have a full day, bleeding into a weekend, of stories on Power and the word "monster." That's a story in which Hillary gets to play rope-a-dope: people are ganging up on her, but she fights back. That's the best possible story for her. The very best. Power is a fool and really should have been gone last night. Bad play by Obama.
The worst thing about this past week is that even moving to Canada doesn't seem attractive anymore.
What is the sexist subtext to the Hillary camp's demand for the resignation?
That she's a whiny crybaby. Which obviously she isn't, so the best-case explanation is that she's pretending to be a whiny crybaby.
Ari is clearly suffering from academic resentment.
170: Indeed I have. Yet Superman != Indiana Jones.
It freaks you out? That seems a little hysterical.*
*NCProsecutor is, I believe, a man, so this isn't sexist but rather a courageous stand for gender equity.
Is it okay to characterize the response to Power as "hysterical overreaction" if you specify that you're talking about the Clinton campaign and not Clinton herself? No, I suppose not.
It's not hysterical overreaction, it's pressing a perceived advantage. Nothing anyone connected to a campaign says is genuine.
179: I'm not a fan of hers, no. And yes, there is a personal element to it. But that's not what this is about. I'm now angry that she has made it easier for Hillary to win. By walking right into the most obvious trap I can imagine. Stupid.
177: Moving to Canada isn't attractive. It's cold and dull, mostly, and anything shitty that happens to the US is totally going to happen there too.
(It's attractive from the same pov that, say, this sort of thing is attractive. One gets to be all self-righteous. That's about it.)
169, 178: Ah, but surely there is also a sexist subtext to the demand that this woman affiliated with Obama be fired. No?
Nothing anyone connected to a campaign says is genuine.
Nihilist. It's as though you don't believe in hope.
Feeling self-righteous is underrated.
186, 187: Bitch is the pope is sexism.
Feeling self-righteous is lovely, but you have to keep in mind that no one else cares.
Just back from a short field-trip, and here's what I learned: Unfogged comments are better than Yglesias comments. That comment section is where hope goes to die. Yuck. I never should have left the boat.
It would be totally shitty if Power is forced to quit over this stupid little non-story. She's an excellent foreign policy adviser, certainly by mainstream DC standards, and is smarter than all of Clinton's foreign policy team put together. And fuck it, Clinton is a monster.
Nihilist. It's as though you don't believe in hope.
I'm still with Emerson's last paragraph. But I still want to see the black guy get elected; not every spark of human concern has been extinguished.
God fuck it. I wish there was a hell.
I'm now angry that she has made it easier for Hillary to win.
Oh, come on. This is a two-day story at best. By this time next month, not one person in fifty will be able to tell you who Samantha Power is or which campaign she worked for.
But seriously, she was an informal advisor, right? And it's not like they can't still consult with her, and I'll bet that PGD is right that she'll be back if he's elected.
It's the bitch slap that bothers me, not that she has to sit out the campaign.
Actually, not one person in fifty could tell you that now. Keep in mind that everybody here is an absurdly far-out outlier in the amount of attention being paid to this sort of stuff.
198, 199: It's cool, her boyfriend's still a major policy guy on the Obama campaign, she'll probably still do a lot of work with them, and no one will remember this non-event by the time the election happens so she could safely be given a top position in the State Department or National Security blah blah blah
I promise to consult with Unfogged commentariat on important decisions occurring earlier than 3 a.m.
That's going to make for some interesting Ask the Mineshaft posts.
But will Presidential anonymity still apply?
She's an excellent foreign policy adviser
So they can bring her back once he wins. He won't be formulating foreign policy until then anyhow. Seriously people, this is *nothing*.
One thing about the Yglesias commenters is that with one or two exceptions, they refuse ever to joke. I profile them overwhelmingly as ambitious mainstream Democratic Ivy Leaguers in the policy sciences.
162 This shows a distinct lack of comprehension of (1) the Republican Party and (2) the Democratic Party.
Reread 153.2; I didn't say anything about Republicans.
Seriously people, this is *nothing*.
Don't stand in the way of my spittle-flecked anger, man.
This is a two-day story at best.
This is the one thing about her resignation that doesn't bother me. Kill that story good and fast.
||
I watched the first episode of The Wire last night. I'm willing to be hooked.
|>
I profile them overwhelmingly as ambitious mainstream Democratic Ivy Leaguers in the policy sciences.
I'd doubt it. I've never met a group of Ivy Leaguers who are that consistantly stupid and bigoted.
It's the bitch slap that bothers me, not that she has to sit out the campaign.
Exactly. See the weakness, exploit the weakness. If Obama's SOP is to publicly shoot anyone who makes an intemperate remark, he's not going to have much a team with which to battle in seven weeks. And if that's what he has to do--be, always and forever, above it all and cleaner than clean--given the set of circumstances associated with his candidacy, that's something that will first be exploited first by HRC and then, if he survives, by McCain. It's a problem that probably needs a solution; it's not clear that he has one.
Ogged, sweetie, Obama's not Iranian. He can make prudent decisions without his stiff-necked refusal to be scolded by a woman getting in the way.
I agree with 206. I think Power's pretty good, policy wise, but if she can't handle the press, she's not an asset to the campaign. & combined with the Goulsbee thing, even though that sounds like less his fault, it might be good to send a "hey academics: some message discipline PLEASE." They can still be advisors & work in the administration.
That said: Clinton's campaigns combination of negative attacks & (insert non gendered adjective for "whining") is really irritating.
I've thought for a while that the press actually helps her in a lot of ways: they love to focus on stupid sniping & trivia & mindlessly repeat storylines about the candidates without examining them--so does her campaign. And the misogynistic MSNBC crap probably does more to generate sympathy among female voters than to harm her.
214/215: Forget the "sweetie" part of 217. Also, please imagine that I hadn't used the strikeout command.
I watched the last episode of The Wire yesterday.
214: As always, don't read the comments.
It's the bitch slap that bothers me
I'm with Oggy. Clinton makes it a point of official campaign rhetoric to bash her opponent by comparing him negatively to McCain and Obama is supposed to police every slip of the tongue his quasi-official advisers make? Come on.
213: I forgot about the trolls. Them too.
If Obama's SOP is to publicly shoot anyone who makes an intemperate remark, he's not going to have much a team with which to battle in seven weeks.
You don't think Obama's people are particularly bright or able to learn, then?
the
196 is right in my opinion
how unfair, one just says one word may be carelessly and regrettfully and one is already replaceable
if Obama will discard his advisors according to his opponents' will and this easily, he'd have a weaker image at least in my eyes, but that's just me
the feeling is how one can win trust and votes etc if one can't defend his friend?
221: You did? I thought that they weren't "on-demanding" it? (I haven't looked.)
I was listening to a talk show on a black radio station this morning, and they were pissed by Hilary's remark. Clinton may have found the magic formula to get the black vote to stay home in November.
I've never met a group of Ivy Leaguers who are that consistantly stupid and bigoted.
You should have visited more.
My Mongol sister understands toughness.
223: Yeah, but look at the effect here. The people who were more or less neutral toward HRC are turned off. Honestly, I don't think this plays well for Clinton, as it fits right into some (wait for it) sexist stereotypes. Can't defend herself, overly sensitive, yadda yadda yadda.
But mostly, nobody except already committed partisans give a rat's ass about this.
227: It's been leaked. The file has a copyright notice along the bottom the whole time and the aspect-ratio is a little off, but it worked overall.
Clinton may have found the magic formula to get the black vote to stay home in November.
Or to really, really show up for the remaining primaries. Why would they stay home in November when she isn't going to be the nominee?
The Democrats have been remiss at moving their own Overton Window wrt intemperate remarks. Among Republicans, anyone more temperate than Ann Coulter and Michael Savage seems sensible. But they have no Democratic counterparts.
I try. I suggested that Karl Rove be impaled and his body fed to hogs. But did that make me famous? No. Rich? No. Was I appreciated in the slightest? No. So the Overton wondow remains right where it was, and Power is fired for tacitly comparing Hitlery to Shaq.
You don't think Obama's people are particularly bright or able to learn, then?
I don't think anyone is capable of the sort of Caesar's wife purity needed unless they don't talk at all. Which means a limit on surrogates/advocates, which limits the campaign, yadda yadda. But, again, I didn't see the "monster" comment as all that big a deal, so depreciate by appropriate insensitivity.
226- Oh, this is just a scratch. Power will is now back from leave at Harvard and Obama's back to running his campaign. He wins nomination and she'll be back. The only argument is political ramifications of the firing and I think the resignation is a small plus without any real costs.
AAARGGHHH. You know, I want to like Clinton, and keep saying that if Obama loses the nomination I'll be happy to support HRC, but GOD FUCKING DAMNIT, the woman's horrendous.
217 is shrill.
Yes, of course it is, dear.
201: Apo, you have an awesome resistance to the importance of narrative. Which is how people structure their understanding of the world around them. This story supports Hillary's campaign narrative and undercuts Obama's. That's not good. But yes, as I noted above, it's not likely to be that big a deal over the long haul. Unless it helps Hillary in Wyoming. I can't see how it would, though, so whatever.
I recently read an article that romanizes the philosopher and poet's name "Empedokles", but the character type "acrates".
narrative. Which is how people structure their understanding of the world around them
Ok, banned.
But mostly, nobody except already committed partisans give a rat's ass about this.
As one of those, I'm pissed, because what I want to see is that Obama's affirmation of the high road won't prevent him from responding fast and hard when he's slapped in an ugly way. Clinton is showing seriously poor form but Republicans will be much worse, and I want see right now that he'll be able to handle GOP attacks better than Kerry did.
All the reports the day after the Texas and Ohio contests portrayed Camp Obama as frustrated and maybe even confused. Bad. But then he shot back about her tax returns and put that into the cycle. Good. Still, not enough, and not an answer to Clinton's most egregious attacks.
The people who were more or less neutral toward HRC are turned off. Honestly, I don't think this plays well for Clinton, as it fits right into some (wait for it) sexist stereotypes. Can't defend herself, overly sensitive, yadda yadda yadda.
Yes, exactly. It also feeds into a lot of stereotypes about Clinton specifically: she's ruthless, she lacks principles, she's a hypocrite, etc. It is Not Good.
201: That's not what Galen Strawson thinks!
I think that you guys who are pissed about Power resigning on "don't be a pussy, Obama" grounds really are identifying just a wee bit too closely with your candidate here. Apo's right; no one who is paying attention to this story is going to read it that way.
Honestly, I don't think this plays well for Clinton, as it fits right into some (wait for it) sexist stereotypes. Can't defend herself, overly sensitive, yadda yadda yadda.
I'm not sure it plays well for the guy who can't defend himself against said women with said sexism-implied characteristics. I'm not sure that many people are neutral on her. And I think if I have to pick between depending on African-Americans and white women, in an election, I pick the group with more people. One hundred percent of the black vote is a bit smaller than fifty percent of the white female vote on the Dem side (guesses from 2004 exit polls).
As one of those, I'm pissed/i>
Right, but are you going to change your vote?
Am I the only one who's a bit bothered not just that Power was a loose cannon, but by what she actually said in the UK interviews Mary Catherine linked in 79 and 110?
Power's resignation may call more attention to the interviews -- though as remarked, the attention span of the electorate is short -- or it will properly distance Obama from her remarks. But I'm not sure the only thing to be distanced from is the apparent negative campaigning involved in calling Clinton a monster; I wouldn't mind seeing clarification from Obama on the "humanitarian hawk" label, on the diss against the UN Sec. General, and a few other things.
242: I thought you'd like that. And now, I'm off to Siberia. Or wherever the banned go to serve their sentence.
if I have to pick between depending on African-Americans and white women
Luckily for you, you don't.
Or wherever the banned go to serve their sentence.
Kevin Drum's comment section.
252: Shit, man, that's cruel. Ari doesn't deserve that.
Especially because I was kidding* in the first instance. Sheesh. Anyway, 252 is harsh. Even for an anti-Semite.
* It's easy to forget that people here don't actually know me.
Clinton is ruthless, she does lack principles, she is a hypocrite. This contest is virtually over but she's managed to continue it by spending political capital that would otherwise be accrued by a unified party and spent in the general on down-ballot contests. No, I'm not going to change my vote, but that's not what I was saying. Obama is being a pussy and while it doesn't change my vote whatsoever it's data for both Clinton going forward on this fruitless quest and McCain going forward with the general. Which, by the by, he is prosecuting now.
The primary really is zero-sum but it isn't between Clinton and Obama. It's the difference between Obama + huge congressional gains and Obama + smaller congressional gains + Clinton's vainglorious war against the party.
252 is harsh
It hurts me more than it hurts you, Ari.
OT: Speaking of not knowing me, and the weirdness that is internet identity (it's all about the performing a narrative, you know), has anyone ever written something about some of the personalities that appear in the comments of many noteworthy blogs? Tim is all over the place. As is Emerson. But I'm really thinking about Petey, who has to be one of the weirdest figures I've ever "met." It might be interesting to do a profile of Petey and comments section "celebrities" more generally. A profile, that is, based on their comments. Not based on interviews with the people offline. Or it would be boring and stupid.
254: You were kidding about the importance of narrative?!?!?
it's data for both Clinton going forward on this fruitless quest and McCain going forward with the general.
Disagreed. The politics of winning the nomination are different from the politics of winning the general.
253: coulda been youtube comments.
256: Couldn't find a convenient labor camp to send me, huh? That's why chose Drum's place? I'm calling Foxman.
I suggested that Karl Rove be impaled and his body fed to hogs. But did that make me famous?
No, but *doing* it would make you famous. Try it and see if I'm not right!
(You do mean that the hogs eat his impaled but still-living body, right? It's important not to flub this; you only get one chance at this kind of thing.)
249: No, you're not the only one to be bothered by some of the things that Power said in those UK interviews. That 'humanitarian hawk' business reminds me of Michael Ignatieff. Which is to say, makes me very uneasy.
I used to comment lots of places, but now it's just here and at my site. My idiosyncratic sense of humor doesn't always travel well.
257: I once compiled a festschrift in honor of Chun the Unavoidable, who may have been before your time.
Chun ... what a great bastard *he* was.
258: The phrasing was a joke: a bit of funny (apparently not) based on my silly jousting with Apo over the meaning of certain moments in the campaign. Mostly I was poking fun at how he's always wrong. That said, I do think narrative is important. But I would never admit it here. Or least I would never put it the way I did in the original comment. Because Apo's an anti-Semite. And Ogged's just mean. And Iranian. Scary combo, that.
if I have to pick between depending on African-Americans and white women
Obama's getting the vast majority of black vote, so some baiting is basically cost free for HRC. Which either doesn't get a response from Obama or the media--an HRC win--or it does, which (a) makes people uncomfortable b/c race is uncomfortable, and (b) (perhaps reasonably) makes some set of white women feel that HRC is being held to higher standard than past candidates because of her gender--again, an HRC win. Maybe the primary schedule saves him. I can't tell if it's black friendly. But he's going to lose PA, and they're going to argue either big states or contested states, and a lot of people find those arguments very compelling.
the personalities that appear in the comments of many noteworthy blogs? Tim is all over the place.
Yeah, Tim really, really, really needs to stop dicking around.
263: Okay, the profile can be about you. Whore.
264: Yeah, I don't know who that is/was. If you've got a link, I'll be happy to learn. Because I find career advancement wildly overrated.
Ogged's just mean. And Iranian.
Also, sexist.
Woo, the pope thinks I'm the sexiest!
how he's always wrong
With style and pizazz is how.
I find career advancement wildly overrated.
You and Mark Bauerlein.
The levels of comment banishment:
Drum's place
YouTube
WWTDD
Uselessjunk
You got off easy, Canuck.
271: Pope is a sexist term, ogged. She's the mope.
Ogged's mockery of the celibate priesthood suggests that he's also anti-Catholic.
275: Special "feminized" terms is sexist, Apo. It's gotta be either Pope or chief Mama--and since the latter pits women against each other, Pope it is.
276: You're saying he's for McCain? Because I can believe that.
chief Mama
Is there an "anti-Semite" equivalent for Native Americans? 'Cause the Mope just revealed her true colors.
Y'know, I just looked at the Power story again. And I think she must have been drunk when she gave the interview. No kidding. Some of the comments are just that out there.
280: The Indians I know typically use the catch-call, "white." Which, given the history, works just fine.
I spell almost as well as Yglesias. Sigh.
284: Keep working it; you'll get there eventually.
282: No, I mean a term I could use for B's open hatred of Indians (the casino kind, not the tech support kind).
(the casino kind, not the tech support kind)
"feather, not dot" is snappier.
279: I'm the one on the right.
I think Ari's right: the term for hating Indians is "white." Maybe "American." I don't think that awareness of the humanity of Indians has yet gotten to the point where they merit a specific term.
My idiosyncratic sense of humor doesn't always travel well.
A lot of motherfuckers don't like my jokes either, but do I let that stop me?
OTish, but 273 reminded me that my students were all abuzz about Mark Bauerlein this morning, which I found kind of invigorating.
279, 290: The one on the right does resemble B, though not as hott of course.
287: Right, I got that. It's "white." "Non-Indian" tends to be the respectful term that's most often used.
290: No, not "American." The level of patriotism, at least among the Plains tribes, is incredibly high.
292: In what way? As in, "What a fraud that guy is." I hope so.
According to my source, Zunis differentiate between Cibolanos (Hispanics) and white.
Wow, Josh just creamed Obama at TPM. Just creamed him. Ouch.
not as hott of course.
But younger, and a better dancer.
295: I kind of wondered about that. Okay. White.
No, no. I think what B is saying is that if one of us people of non-color were to say something racist about Native Americans, we would say said person is acting "white."
Power "resigned" wow.
The Obama campaign is in meltdown. House of cards. Can't handle stress or adversity. A very good thing that it happened before the convention. I think it's over now.
I do feel sorry for all his supporters.
Or maybe I misunderstood everyone's understanding. Shutting up now in any case.
Yes, Bob, it's over. Because of this. And thanks for the sympathy. Oh, also, wanna bet? Straight up? On who gets the nomination? I'll bet you -- or anyone else, for that matter -- a very good bottle of wine that Obama wins this thing.
(Can private citizens send wine through the mail? Or FedEx?)
298: That's basically the ogged/smasher/read/scmt read, no?
You can presumably have it shipped by the wine shop, if not.
I'd take your best just so that if Obama doesn't win I'll at least have a nice bottle of wine to look forward to (also because I think you're right, and he will win). But the thought of you being both in despair *and* having to shell out for a bottle of wine? I don't want to be responsible for that.
Bob, my earlier theory was that Hillary was in meltdown. Isn't meltdown zero-sum?
American Conservative cover story: Obama the warmonger
Obama is the Messiah. Everyone will fall behind him and do his bidding without asking questions.
This is how World Wars start. I have been reading Dennis Mack Smith and the parallels are obvious.
Some people may try to stop him, but they will be portrayed as racist because he's black.
I'm really scared about how he fired Power just like that. So quick to cave in to Hillary. And of course the Obamabots are just going on about hope and sunshine and a pony.
Don't tell me I didn't warn you.
306: I appears to be, yes. It's just a brutal piece, mitigated, I think, only because Josh tends to see the "bitch-slap theory," given that it's his theory. Which doesn't make it wrong. You can bet that this is how Olbermann and others will now cover it. I've been amazed by how much juice Josh now has with the MSM.
I don't drink. What would I want? A good bottle of wine vs a copy of Caro or Perlstein? Do I get odds?
What I really want is a float switch for an old Kenmore dishwasher. Got one handy?
Goldman Sachs: $200 per barrel oil a possibility.
Actually there's one difference from the views expressed by most people here: Josh certainly doesn't seem to think that this is a non-story. He appears to be more of the mcmanus campaign-in-free-fall school. Though not that extreme, to be sure, as Josh isn't silly enough to suggest that Obama can't recover. Speaking of mcmanus, wanna bet?
309: Holy shit, what a bunch of crackers.
'Campaign is in free-fall' while being ahead by a significant number of delegates? Crud, I'd hate to see what it would look like if his campaign were running well.
314: Josh Marshall is a flake.
312: Sorry, the comments crossed. Nope, no switches handy. If I find one, I promise to send it along, regardless of the election's outcome. As for odds, nope again. The end is nigh for Obama; it is I who should get the odds. But, because I'm foolish and generous, my offer stands: a straight-up bet with anyone who wants the action. And I chose wine for exactly the reason B suggests above: to facilitate celebration.
Josh certainly doesn't seem to think that this is a non-story.
I don't think it's a non-story, either. It means Obama has a problem he might not be able to solve: there are hard limits on the extent to which he can fight back. I think that's roughly JMM's takeaway. Advantage Unfogged!
308 see 313
It can all meltdown. I remember 1968.
And I know I promised not to talk about Iran ever again, but here is a guess that Admiral Fallon is on his way out. The guy who said "No attack on Iran on my watch."
317: I've not observed this to be the case. But I'm willing to be convinced.
This time next week, Obama will have won two more contests and more than made up for whatever delegates Clinton picked up on Tuesday. How will that play out, media-wise? I'm no fortune teller, but I'm betting he'll look a lot better then than he does now, and Clinton will look considerably worse. Free-fall, my ass.
I agree with 323. But I sure wish that I had some polling numbers for Wyoming. And that Freudenthal wasn't being such an ass (though I understand the bind he's in).
Things are getting melty:
Carlyle Capital, the investment fund linked to the private equity firm Carlyle Group, said Friday that it was "considering all available options" after it received further margin calls, prompting some analysts to warn that more funds could struggle to meet increasingly tighter margin requirements.
...
Peloton Partners, a London-based hedge fund set up by some former Goldman Sachs partners, was forced last week to liquidate a $1.8 billion fund that invested in top-rated debt. The fixed-income fund of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company was in talks with lenders last month about delaying some debt repayments.
War with Iran is my own special thing to worry about. I've expected it ever since early 2006, and I never understood why we didn't start a war during the 2006 election cycle. Either Rove was overconfident, or else the Bush machine was playing a long game which I'm not capable of understanding.
Once the Iran war looks real again I'm back in the McManus camp.
Watching Obama fight Clinton, in bad weeks, is EXACTLY like watching the Democrats fight the Republicans: Power says something nasty & apology isn't enough; she resigns. w-lfs-n says something nasty doesn't apologize & says something nasty again & says something nasty again. This can be maddening to watch, but ultimately--it doesn't actually make me more supportive of the campaign that reminds me of the GOP. I do wish he would go on the offensive on foreign policy, substantively & I have specific ideas about how to do it that of course I am not position to suggest in a way that might do any good. So it makes me want to scream. But it's really just not that big a deal--blog coverage this primary is, in general, missing the big picture in favor of the media-storyline-of-the-moment. No one in Pennsylvania's going to vote based on this six weeks from now.
298: That's basically the ogged/smasher/read/scmt read, no?
What, that it's all a contest of ballsiness? This is absurd. It's based on a reading of the situation in terms of which Clinton is an aggressive opponent, and Obama is merely responding. As though Obama has nothing more to respond to than what comes from the Clinton camp. When in fact Power's interviews were problematic in and of themselves, regardless of what Clinton had to say about the matter.
For some reason, I always read "Carlyle Group" as "Illuminati." Not sure why that is.
327 is right also. But he has to right the ship. Quickly. Because again, if he finds a way to lose Wyoming, that's going to hurt him. That said, I don't see how any of this has an impact on that contest. But it's not going to help, that's for sure. Also: this news cycle really should have been dedicated to eviscerating Clinton for that egregious CIC comment. Or, at worst, that should have offered Obama exactly the opening he needed to move to offense. But now we've got Power and monsters. Sigh. This is why discipline and narrative matter.
Also: Marshall's no flake, but his site's deliberate decision to be neutral in the primary regardless of how the candidates behave leaves him just doing pure horse race coverage of the same stories the MSM's doing horserace coverage of. Surprisingly useless given how great he usually is.
Of course, it's understandable that they want to be neutral, but in that case I'm not sure how much this is even worth writing about. OTOH, it is addictive, & if I can't resist the temptation to obsess why should anyone else?
328: I say again, if you read them, she was drunk. Or so staggeringly stupid that it's almost unimaginable. Because she's smart. Regardless, there's no excuse for those interviews. They are, as you say, filled with stupid comments.
I've not observed this to be the case. But I'm willing to be convinced.
Most of what he does at TPM proper consists of endless posts on whatever his obsession of the day happens to be. His style has never really gone beyond linkblogging combined with some pithy, shallow analysis, and as analysts go, he's a dime a dozen - centrist conventional wisdom with a dash of partisan Democrat, and no more accurate or prescient than the average Hardball guest. As far as his reporting goes, while Spencer Ackerman was doing interesting stuff at Muckraker for a while, most of what Marshall himself has done has seemed like a prolonged exercise in straining at gnats in the midst of an elephant stampede (was the US Attorneys scandal really the most alarming thing we needed to know about the Bush administration in 2007?). His judgment and his sense of priorities have always seemed way out of whack to me.
if he finds a way to lose Wyoming, that's going to hurt him
Instead of getting 10/15 delegates, he only gets 7/15? He can survive that.
331: He loves a horse race and has said as much himself. Also, he's building a media empire and needs access in the future. He can't burn Hillary, or he won't get that access. Plus, he has a deep love for Bill. And finally, I think he's been pretty hard on Hillary in some instances, just as he's being hard on Obama now. In fact, today was shaping up as rip-Hillary-for-the-CIC-comment day. But then the Power story intervened.
Also: this news cycle really should have been dedicated to eviscerating Clinton for that egregious CIC comment.
"Obama's a wimp" validates "not ready to be C-in-C like McCain and I are." She's going to get a pass on it and have the message reinforced by free media.
334: Agreed. But now we're back to narrative. And I don't want to plumb the depths of banishment. Still, I'll say this: to date, the story, true or not, is that neither HRC or BHO has been able to win one of the other's states, whatever that means. If she wins Wyoming, the story will be that she has broken through. Will the story be crap? Probably. But it will be the story. (See, I'm using story instead of narrative, to innoculate myself against further abuse. This is what you people have drive me to.)
They matter less than you think, Ari. The NAFTA thing was a several day story about an issue that's of central concern to many Ohio voters. But most primary outcomes just HAVEN'T been determined by the press coverage this time around. Iowa was months of ground. New Hampshire, if it responded to the press, was an active backlash to the press's behavior. South Carolina was the best field organization ever. Super Tuesday varied too much from state to state & tracked candidate appearance & field organization & spending too much to be determined by the national storyline. He was expected to win every single state between super Tuesday & March 4 except maybe Maine--though to his credit he ran up better than expected margins. Ohio & Texas & RI were always favorable to her; a few weeks ago the CW was that he just needed to keep her lead small & prevent her from catching up in delegates--but now suddenly "expectations" have changed. The press's hyperventilation isn't having much effect on actual voters--the danger is that it WILL have an effect on superdelegates, because Democratic leadership pays way too much attention to the press storyline du jour.
336: Yeah, that's what I said above. And also Mary Catherine, I think. It's bad. Fortunately, it's Friday. Nobody except the junkies, as Apo has said, is really paying attention. And the story will die over the weekend. Still, I'd have liked Obama to run with the CIC stuff, using it as a springboard for a real discussion of foreign policy chops.
When in fact Power's interviews were problematic in and of themselves, regardless of what Clinton had to say about the matter.
In which case, he would have waited a few days or weeks, and then had her leave, to avoid the obvious inference. Or she would have been slowly frozen out. Everything would have been done to make sure that it didn't play out publically.
(if she wins Wyoming while losing Idaho & Colorado by huge margins, it'll probably be because she bothered to show up, not because of "momentum." Which won't prevent superdelegates & assorted other people who should know better buying into the stupid narrative).
More meltdown. Commodity price increase by percent since the first of 08, about to work their way thru the manufacturing chain into your very own home.
aluminum 29.2
barley 7.5
cocoa 25.9
coffee 23.5
copper 26.3
corn 21.2
cotton 32.0
gold 17.4
lead 32.7
oats 33.8
oil 6.8
silver 37.8
tin 15.5
wheat 32.7
zinc 20.
Maybe speculation or weak dollar, but doesn't matter to the hungry. And Ben is probably gonna drop another 100 basis points right quick.
338: Katherine, I've been saying, since Super Tuesday, that the race is all about superdelegates (not that there was anything original in that view). And that's why the narrative has mattered so much. Because the superdelegates are, eventually, going to have to decide this thing. And they, more than normal people, pay attention to the media, to the narrative, and to polling. In short, I totally agree with you. And all is right with my world. Seriously.
TPM won't load right now, so I denounce and reject JMM and all his works. But anyone who doesn't think Contests of Manly Balls aren't what we're discussing or aren't what we should be discussing doesn't appreciate that that's all that John McCain has to run on in the general. The fundamentals, of which he has no grasp, are totally against him. So if Obama can't effectively answer back when Clinton calls him a pussy it does not augur well for a contest in which that's all he will hear.
Clinton—who has lost the primary!—but on promise of cheating has extended its deadline! This is ridiculous. Obama needs to put this away!
Stras, when you called Josh M M a flake it was like.... like.... like B ... or like McManus... or like me.... calling someone....
Never mind. There are no words. That was really something, though, Stras, you calling someone flaky.
Marshall's no flake, but his site's deliberate decision to be neutral in the primary
Yeah, he says that, but I think he tilts Hillary. N.b. his slip about Hillary's regaining the delegate lead, when she's *never* been in the lead.
As for Powers' being a drunk, well, she was an Irishwoman giving an interview to a Scots paper. They were probably both well out to sea. Celts are all drunks, right?
Which might explain why the reporter thought "this is off the record" was just more words to write down?
Clinton--who has lost the primary!--but on promise of cheating has extended its deadline! This is ridiculous. Obama needs to put this away!
Yes. Every day in every way. Seriously, no Obama staffers, nor the man himself, should open their mouths, from this point forward, without saying two things: first, "McCain's half century of good service to this country"; and second, "That's an interesting question, Tim, especially in light of the fact that Senator Clinton can't make up the stagger in pledged delegates. Oh, wait, what was the question?"
In which case, he would have waited a few days or weeks, and then had her leave, to avoid the obvious inference. Or she would have been slowly frozen out. Everything would have been done to make sure that it didn't play out publically.
Or she could have just apologized and kept her job.
And ANOTHER thing: see the way Hillary's people blab on the record or off to the media about all their bitchy little infights (DeLong has been appalled by this). Contrast Obama's discipline.
Then Obama gets to say, who runs a tighter ship - me or Hillary?
Tick tock:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Thornburg Mortgage Inc on Friday said its survival is at stake because it is unable to meet $610 million of margin calls.
Ugh, dammit, quit trying to distract our attention to substantive matters instead of ivory-tower gossip. This is the internet, for Christ's sake!
Yeah, he says that, but I think he tilts Hillary.
Me, too. If you're in the Dem-friendly media or think tank world, of a certain age, and have strong DC ties, I think it's hard not to tilt towards HRC. It's mostly what you knew, and you built a life out of knowing it. It's a bit like the way people get leery of UHC when push comes to shove on actual details if they already have coverage.
346: Power gets no pass because the interview was off the record. She's a professional journalist, for goodness sakes. She knows how often people get burned, even when they say, before an interview begins, "This is all off the record, right?" And she doesn't seem to have insisted on that before the interview. Unless I'm reading this wrong.
I have no idea what the objection to referring to the importance of narrative is.
344: So if Obama can't effectively answer back when Clinton calls him a pussy it does not augur well for a contest in which that's all he will hear.
Having the manliest balls does not require always and forever refusing to acknowledge and correct a mistake. That's a poor road to take. It doesn't matter whether Obama's opponent happened to call him on this one; unless he was willing to publicly support and defend Power's remarks (and I take it he is not), it was appropriate that she withdraw, and not a pussy move on his part to agree with that.
And they, more than normal people, pay attention to the media, to the narrative, and to polling.
Y'know, I'm not certain this statement is true. The superdelegates are mostly elected officials, power centers of their own right within their local/state parties. I suspect they're less likely than the average voter to be swayed by media narratives.
Power gets no pass because the interview was off the record.
Dude, totally agreed. I just said she was wasted, that's all.
347: Exactly. Even if it rings of sexism, the Obama campaign should be building the "enough's enough" narrative. And responding to nothing else Clinton has to say, since she's proven with the CIC comments that she will say anything.
She lost my vote. I won't even hold my nose to vote for her. She's never shared domestic priorities I agree with, her foreign policy's unacceptably hawkish, she's willing to throw an immensely popular party talent like Barack Obama under the bus in order to cheat to win. All this, at the cost of down-ballot contests, after she has already lost the primary! If she steals the candidacy because Obama plays honorably, you'll find me with Delegate Watkins. I'ma sit this one out!
355: You can imagine my surprise that we disagree on this. If I weren't Jewish, would you consider agreeing with me? Because I'll convert for your approval. The whole blood llibel has always made me nervous, anyway.
Nervous enough to start sounding Welsh.
Ugh, dammit, quit trying to distract our attention to substantive matters instead of ivory-tower gossip. This is the internet, for Christ's sake!
My bad. I thought Lohan's breasts left something to be desired.
Better?
On the other hand, I totally embrace the blood libel. Dude had it coming with all that peace talk, right? Plus, he didn't understand the sanctity of free markets.
I thought Lohan's breasts left something to be desired.
Yes, and I'm sure she quickly directed you to just what that something was.
Even if it rings of sexism, the Obama campaign should be building the "enough's enough" narrative.
It will seem sexist, and he cannot afford that. Even if charges of sexism wouldn't cost him the nomination--and that's not clear: remember NH, and that wasn't even his campaign--it would cost him the general. White women have somewhere else they can go to vote.
Basically, he has to do what he kind of has been doing: smile and hope that it all passes him like an idle wind. It might work--I seem to remember other times when he was getting slapped around, and he (I thought stupidly) just smiled more widely. On the plus side: seven weeks until PA. On the minus side, what if he loses WY (tomorrow) and/or MS (3/11)?
And since you obviously haven't read the whole thread, Smashie, let me draw your attention to 135.
Talking Points Memo won't load. I denounce and reject JMM and all his works.
359 is funny. We did a Welsh seder growing up. Syncretically delicious!
Yes, and I'm sure she quickly directed you to just what that something was.
And quoting Chris Rock in CB4, I said "I ain't going down there."
That was really something, though, Stras, you calling someone flaky.
Emerson, one of these days you'll have to get over that time I turned you down at the prom.
If he loses Wyoming, he can recover. If he loses MS, this thing is over. Also, if he loses MS I'll eat my hat. And your hat, Tim. And any other hats that are nearby at the time.
Saying it's over if he loses MS was dumb. I shouldn't have said that. But it will portend real trouble, with a capital T.
If he loses MS, this thing is over. Also, if he loses MS I'll eat my hat
ARG: Obama 58, Clinton 34 in Miss.
354 Parsimon: The problem is that what Powers said was in response to a series of much more offensive statements by Clinton and her campaign. As in 1939, when the Germans claimed to be belatedly responding to a long series of intolerable Polish provocations. The victim became the aggressor.
Bartcop said it five years ago or more (before JMM): If the Democrats can't even defend themselves, how can they defend the American people? Under certain conditions an aggressive gut reaction is the best, or stubborn thoughtless loyalty to a supporter. Dukakis's measured and nuanced response to the question about what he would do if someone were raping his wife is another example. The detached, meta, NPR response was the wrong one. Whatever he did, he should have shown anger and determination. (My belief is that he should have vented his anger on the questioner: "What are you asking me a question like that for, you bastard?")
371: We'll see. I think she's going around MS suggesting that a vote for her is a vote for having your cake and eating it, too: both of them on the ticket. OTOH, #373 is comforting.
Whatever he did, he should have shown anger and determination.
Really, really can't be angry. Super-really.
I don't think black voters in Mississippi are going to abandon Obama because of Samantha Power's firing. In order to retain sanity, I recommend focusing on the local press. I haven't checked, but I'm guessing that in Wyoming it's dominated by pieces about both candidates' recent appearances in the state, with quotes from their speeches, from audience members, discussion of how big the crowd was & how early they started lining up, etc.
Have you noticed how accurate his campaign's result & delegate projection spreadsheet has been? Their national media operation is quite uneven. Their local media & field is excellent.
376 is the rightest thing ever. He can be stern. But that's as far as it can go. It's a tough spot for him, obviously, but it's a cage of his own construction. Just as he couldn't lower expectations before Super Tuesday (I or II) because his message is hope. That makes things hard. But it also accounts for a great deal of his success.
You know? I don't think it's Power who should apologize. The Scotsman is a piece of shit paper for publishing that slip-up. Part of establishing rapport between reporter and interviewee is that the record will work to mutual advantage. It's clearly a gotcha! moment that does nothing to enhance our understanding of Power, Obama, Clinton, this race, nothing.
All the time I talk with people who will say to me things about collectors, artists, administrators, and then immediately express after-the-fact that some candid expression wasn't for the record. It's not as if Power said to a fact-checker that she didn't say what she clearly did. Not for any story would I publish something stupid that someone said and in their very next breath retracted.
377: His campaign, until the past week or so, has been the best I've ever seen. And now we get to see if the bus has good shocks. Or good enough to get over what really should be a pretty minor bump.
? I don't think it's Power who should apologize.
This isn't right or wrong; it's potential voter response to the Power statement. If nothing else, she had to apologize.
I'm betting really good California wine the answer is, "yes."
Power gets no pass because the interview was off the record.
The reason Powers gets no pass on this is because she was explicitly not off the record, which is acknowledged in the quote itself.
Among sensible people, Tim Russert has been mocked mercilessly for his off-the-record arrangements designed for the convenience of his sources. Among right-thinking journalists, "off the record" is an agreement, not an assertion.
384: pf, that's what the rest of my comment said. Having been on both sides of the tape recorder, I completely agree with you.
Power came off silly and amateurish in both interviews, the Scotman and the Telegraph. Obama cannot afford one of his top foreign advisors appearing that way. She's a campaign liability, drop her.
374: for Obama to get dragged into some kind of hysterical name-calling exchange with Clinton appears a hell of a lot weaker than staying above the fray. The most important thing for him is appearing Presidential.
Do you seriously think it would be a good idea for a candidate to call a questioner a "bastard" during a televised Presidential debate? Obama would have been able to destroy a questioner like that anyway -- he's obviously far superior to Dukakis in that kind of setting.
376: What Dukakis should have done when someone raping his wife was being used as a kind of trolley-car problem. Not necessarily Obama in this case.
Republicans get to show anger and know how to do it, and it works for them, and Democrats need to learn how too.
Power came off silly and amateurish in both interviews
Not to mention loose cannonish. That's the real reason to can her.
and Democrats need to learn how too.
Probably not the black ones, though.
381: But, see, under pressure from a brazen opponent over a bogus media issue, she apologized and Obama dismissed her. It's too much.
374: The problem is that what Powers said was in response to a series of much more offensive statements by Clinton and her campaign. As in 1939, when the Germans claimed to be belatedly responding to a long series of intolerable Polish provocations.
No. The "monster" remark may have been such a thing; the UK interviews were not. Please see the UK interviews linked in 79 and 110.
Whether Power was drunk or not, if those interviews were somehow a response to aggression on the part of the Clinton campaign, I say you're on crack.
390: No, I agree, but I really didn't think "monster" was a big deal. I'm guessing you didn't either. But Obama probably doesn't need to worry about losing people like us to HRC. And those people--the ones he is most likely to lose--may have thought "monster" was a bigger deal than an apology could fix. There was a whole thread about this and everything.
By the way, did everybody see Marty Peretz more or less endorsing Obama in the WSJ editorial pages today? All you Obama-ites, you're on the same side as Marty Peretz and the Wall Street Journal!
I wonder if Peretz will switch toward McCain in the general, but he seems to have a large soft spot for Obama.
There was a whole thread about this and everything.
which also pointed out that "monster" is clearly a very sexist term.
I think that they should have had a Walk Off to see whether Powers stayed.
I wonder if Peretz will switch toward McCain in the general, but he seems to have a large soft spot for Obama.
No, he hate, hates, hates the Clintons. Maybe not Palestinian hate, but close--like mixed-blood Arab hate.
which also pointed out that "monster" is clearly a very sexist term.
That's my point.
PGD: I'm not seriously scripting a new response for Dukakis in 1988, but his rational meta academic NPR answer was the worst one he possibly could have made, and it cost him enormously in exactly the way I said.
The above-the-battle response sometimes is the best, but sometimes it isn't, and it seems to be the only one a lot of Democrats know, and for that reason Democrats can be, and frequently are, gamed with impunity by repeated provocations.
"Anger" to a Democrat seems to mean, and to be portrayed as losing control, or as a kind of whining, but I'm thinking of the kind of thing when John Wayne or Captain Kirk stops analyzing and starts acting, by whipping someone's ass.
I think that personal philosophyand personal life experience cripple Democrats in this regard. To the extent that they have any awareness at all of what I'm talking about, Democrats seem to want to forbid it and avoid it.
Clinton got away with a series of blatant provocations and then was able to make Obama the aggressor. The provocations were why powers she called Clinton a monster.
Too late to make any difference, but I think that the indignation over the "monster" word was overblown. The word has a lot of uses, even positive uses, and meant little more than "very bad person I hate". I think that cult stud meta led people on a wild goose chase.
Is Clinton a Nazi? Maybe, maybe not, but what we need most is for Obama to show that he's not Poland.
"The provocations were why Powers called Clinton a monster."
285: Upon further review, I see I misread you.
Here's a contrarian view that I half-believe: The extended primary season is giving Obama a little taste of presidential politics he hasn't gotten before, and he'll be better prepared the next time this sort of thing happens. Because it will happen again, in one form or another.
But what's the right response? Can he accuse Hillary of over-reacting? Can he say this: "If Hillary thinks this is bad, it's a good thing she won't be involved in the general election, because the Republicans would throw much worse at her."
I dunno.
The New Statesman interview seemed substantively worse. "Fuck" just doesn't seem like appropriate language for use in an interview. I thought that this Obama cult thing was overblown, but she does sound a bit like a cult member.
Listen to Emerson, everybody. Ogged was right way back when, too. When the Democrats start incorporating "Oh, fuck you already" into their language, they'll instantly add 5 percentage points to their total.
Can he accuse Hillary of over-reacting?
Are you kidding me? Even I can see that one coming.
This isn't the thread for this observation, specifically, but I thought of this at some point when I was away from the computer:
Remember LB looking on the bright side of this knock-down, drag-out situation? One concrete bright side: Obama has finally become a strong debater. In every single debate until, literally, the last 2 or 3, he has clearly been a weak debater: not just weaker than HRC, but ill-at-ease in a way that emphasized by contrast his strong speechifying. It wasn't good. And since more people watch general election debates than watch complete speeches, he really needed to get better at debating. He did, and that's a very good thing.
On a more speculative note, since we don't yet know how this current kerfluffle will play out: I'm really glad BHO is dealing with some adversity now, and not for the first time in October. This will force him and his campaign to learn how to deal with situations that don't merely blow over when he gives his big smile. Furthermore, the press loves to talk about what has been learned: we'll hear a million stories about how McCain was out of cash last summer, but came back and won it. I think that a stumble now, well-handled/recovered from, will help Obama's long-term narrative.
Also: I can't believe that "monster" was sexist, but I don't believe that it was an acceptable term. I can't think of a campaign in my lifetime that sanctioned a term like that from its surrogates (note that Cuomo and others were canned for their language). It was out of bounds. Saying that Clinton is a monster is not a defense - governments don't get to call spades spades. If you'll recall, one of the things we don't like about Republicans is that they say childish things like Evil Empire and Axis of Evil.
the kind of thing when John Wayne or Captain Kirk stops analyzing and starts acting, by whipping someone's ass.
I would pay a lot to see somebody come down from the podium and whip Tim Russerts ass. I think Obama could take him. But if he didn't do it after the Farrakhan question, he never will. Anyway, it might play into some fears about black males.
But there is a way to maintain authority and project a measured aggression. Obama is good at that, good at defending himself, in debates. He can be a little ponderous in his speaking style but he's getting over that.
Defending Samantha Power is not the right arena to project that. Not with how Power has been coming off in all these interviews. She's just not an organization person yet, she's too taken with herself and her opinions to be disciplined in how she expresses herself. I'm sure that will change.
I have this aversion to Power. Ideologically, she wants to walk both sides of the street in being a big human rights person and at the same time being powerful within the U.S. foreign policy opinion establishment. Which leads to some tendency to be mealy-mouthed on U.S. human rights violations. (Michael Ignatieff is like this too, except worse). But at least Power is thoughtful enough to realize that they exist.
I wonder if part of my negative reaction to Power really is sexist. She comes off like a ditz, full of giddy wonder at the possibilities of armed U.S. intervention to safeguard human rights. She calls herself a "humanitarian hawk". I guess that's accurate.
To the casual reader, Emerson's comparison of Hillary to the Nazis seems like a slam. In truth, though, he can barely conceal his admiration for her German-style efficiency.
403: this is not particularly directed at you but fuck the fucking cult references. Every candidate has emotional supporters. Every candidate has over enthusiastic supporters. Holding large rallies is the best way to give as many people as possible a chance to see a candidate speak--both those in attendance, & local press coverage. The national press sure won't let Obama talk in more than soundbites. The press's repetition of the cult meme is basically spitting on voters for actively participating in democracy instead of remaining safely apathetic & let the media telling them what to think. And the idea that *Barack Obama* is the most dangerous authoritarian around is absurd. No decent Democrat has any business repeating this crap. It grates as much as misogyny against Clinton. Please do not participate in this crap.
Are you kidding me? Even I can see that one coming.
Yes, after all, Obama has never denigrated HRC before by accusing her of emotionalism.
I swear to god, you people are so fucking offended by HRC trying to win that you forget Obama has ever said a word other than Hope.
She comes off like a ditz
The hell she does!
409: I disagree with this. The cult stuff is pointing to something quite real, that needs to be thought about. The issue is that when people are new to the national stage there can be a sort of narcissistic bubble that develops around a campaign, a kind of groupthink. We're the wonderful people on the inside, part of this historic movement with the candidate we adore, no one else understands, etc. It's toxic in politics, because it blinds you to mistakes you're making. It happened to the Clinton White House early on.
Now, I do NOT think Obama personally is all that vulnerable to this phenomenon -- he is a very canny person who I think has a valuable ironic distance on his own persona. But that kind of mentality was just all over Power's interviews. It can be a serious problem with staff.
409: It's particularly rich after the last seven years.
Yes, after all, Obama has never denigrated HRC before by accusing her of emotionalism.
If it's the "periodically" thing, it was quickly denounced as sexist. Which is what he has to avoid. Which means no "over-reaction," etc.
413, 415: Don't take it too hard, PGD. You have many good points.
413: As Katherine says, all campaigns have this quality. People need to remind themselves of what it was like to support WJC in 1992, or read some of the many, many testimonials to the extraordinary loyalty to and fervent support for HRC that she gets from her long-time staff.
But she [Power] hopes that whoever wins the Democrat race, Obama and Clinton can be reconciled. "It's conceivable he could offer her a job, no-one doubts her immense competence."
Monster of State? National Security Monster? Monster to the UN?
Surely not ... Vice-Monster?
PGD: I can't stand Ignatieff & basically like Power. She was not opposed enough to Iraq, but she & how many other liberals? And while they do sometimes sound a bit alike, I think at the end of the day she really is a human rights person, while he really is a "agonize over the Tragic Choices that the West is forced to make in a completely self-congatulatory way" person. But dude, we could use more human rights people in the Democratic foreign policy establishment. You want to turn public opinion against U.S. imperialism & human rights abuses? The human rights community did a decent job telling the story & changing public opinion very little institutional support in D.C.--imagine what they could do with security clearances, access to the Bush administration's files, declassification power, & subpoena power.
"no-one doubts her immense monstrous competence"
413:you know what else is toxic? The Democratic establishment's utter contempt for their activist base.
Monster Czar. It will take a monster to rid this great nation of its insidious monster problem.
"You're monstrous enough, Hillary."
419: This bit about a joint ticket that's fashionable lately is the biggest laugh I've seen yet. Surely even Clinton supporters recognize that she can't fill a subordinate role? Might as well plant kudzu in the garden.
Clinton and Power should just strap on gloves and take it to the Octagon, like real monsters.
At least she'll fill the rapidly growing monster-gap with China.
418: no, I think people age out of this with time spent in the Washington trenches. (Sometimes they age into a deeper form of groupthink, but that's another story). The Clinton people had it early on in 1993, paid a heavy price, but then righted the ship. As I said, though, I don't think Obama himself is all that vulnerable to it -- it's just amazing how self-aware "Dreams From My Father" is, and at such a young age.
420: you're right, if Samantha Power is your representative of The Establishment you've got a pretty good establishment going. She's much better than Michael Ignatieff -- she'd never be "thoughtfully" weighing the pros and cons of torture like he did. I really do think my initial reaction to her had a bit of sexism mixed with perhaps schadenfreude in it -- she's the golden girl who sailed up the establishment ladder at a young age, became a foreign policy media celebrity early on without a huge amount of overseas experience (although more than the Bush-ies), etc.
404: Emerson and Ogged and all the other people who also said it, and said it before.
If you feel sure that you have right on your side, "Go fuck yourself" is probably a reasonable response, and it has the big balls advantage on its side. It's all about the latter, is what y'all are telling me; the people at large mostly respond to that. Oh argh, well, okay then.
HRC: Well I think Sen. Obama did the right thing, but I think it's important to look at what she and his other advisors say behind closed doors, particularly when they're talking to foreign governments and foreign press. It raises disturbing questions about what the real planning and policy positions inside the Obama campaign happen to be.
Shorter HRC: "That's QUEEN Monster to you."
Ties in nicely with pandering to fears about Obama's being foreign-sounding (have you heard his middle name???).
Wickedly effective, coming on top of the NAFTA silliness.
Also at TPM: Obama 46%, Clinton 40% in MS (InsiderAdvantage).
Also at TPM: Obama 46%, Clinton 40% in MonSter
A lot of voters demand a bit of macho. And considering what the state actually is, a fair abmount of macho is required.
Golda, Indira, and Margaret had lots of it. Not a feminist thing. Maybe "decisiveness, willingness to make enemies, and ability to hurt them" is what I mean.
you know what else is toxic? The Democratic establishment's utter contempt for their activist base.
The Hillary/Obama split is a split within the Democratic activist base. It's just that Obama's activist base hangs out on blogs more.
"Go fuck yourself" is probably a reasonable response, and it has the big balls advantage on its side. It's all about the latter, is what y'all are telling me; the people at large mostly respond to that. Oh argh, well, okay then.
stick to your guns, Parsimon. Being a foul-mouthed asshole in public is not generally a winning political move. It's all about projecting aggression subtly. Cheney could say it because he was a made man who really didn't give a damn that his Administration was destroying the Republican brand.
418: especially all insurgent campaigns. An insurgent campaign does NOT attract fervent support & goes absolutely nowhere; or it does get fervent support & the press & party machine can portray it as a cult. Of course, insurgents have to meet people where they are & recognize that skepticism is legitimate, etc. etc. etc. but there are ways of pointing this out without playing into right wing talking points & grossly insulting ALL Obama supporters for such disturbingly cultish behavior as attending rallies in large numbers & cheering too much.
Being a foul-mouthed asshole
I meant metaphorically, PGD. Bush didn't actually say it, but he rode it all the way the way to 8 years of unimpeded power.
435: agreed that the Republican rally stuff is pure propaganda.
PGD: I'm guessing your problem with Power is more age than gender.
435: PGD, you're missing the point and may not be capable of understanding it. This kind of thing has been killing the Democrats for decades. The wimp factor. I'm trying to explain it to those who want to understand it.
Also at TPM: Obama 46%, Clinton 40% in MonSter
Self-identified monsters likely to vote in the Democratic primary are 3-1 in favor of Hillary, or as they like to call her, the "Hildebeest."
Of course, they form only a small percentage of American monsters, most of whom are squarely in favor of George W. Bush's sprouting fur and fangs and serving a third time, right after he literally devours the Constitution and disembowels Harry Reid under a full moon.
I am feeling strangely, calm, peaceful, content as the truth of Obama starts to emerge. I am no longer as afraid. The meme has been started, and now the facts will support the meme. Obama tossed one of his most competent and loyal advisors overboard. I expect a Greg Stillson event any day now.
Johnny touches Stillson, and receives one final vision -- that of a haggard Stillson, ruined as a result of the scandal, killing himself. "You're finished," he tells the politician....from Wiki
438: I don't know. I think this is straight-up sexist:
I mean, she took a sabbatical from her job as a Harvard professor to work in Obama's personal office! After she found out the Senator read her book! Now she's been working all kinds of long hours on the campaign! But if Hillary wins she'll get *no reward at all*! How dare Hillary do that! She's a monster!
And much more obviously so than calling someone a monster.
OMG! She's pouty and entitled!
But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me; I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that monster.
443- I've got the blue dress, buddy boy.
But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me; I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that monster.
We know you didn't, Bill.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! Well, fear and monsters.
Franklin Delano Monstrostropher? Is that like Alastair Cookie?
||
I am just about to stand up from my desk, and shake the dust of this hellhole from my shoes. Private practice is over.
|>
434: Being a foul-mouthed asshole in public is not generally a winning political move.
You misunderstand. See the post of Ogged's linked in 404, about what's wrong with liberals playing nicey-nice, when some aggression might have played better. Emerson diagnoses this as the entire Disease of the Democratic Party.
439: Jesus, Emerson, you think I don't understand it? I see that reflexive cringe every fucking day. But Obama is not a wimp. He doesn't need to stand behind "Hillary is a monster" to prove it.
442: for whatever reason, that scanned to me as contempt for someone too young & too non-Washington-insiderish.
The worst thing about the Scotsman interview is the sort of view of those poor, gullible, unenlightened Ohio voters. Understandable to feel that way at times if you're emotionally involved in a campaign, but it's just no good to indulge in it; "Clinton's supporters are poor & uneducated & stupid" is the obnoxious flip side to "Obama's supporters are cultish liberal elites out of touch with Real America". Obama comes off as genuinely, unusually respectful of the U.S. electorate for a politician at his level--Power, in that interview, really did not.
President Obama: My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw monsters forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
442: Sexist, yes, but surely not as sexist as saying someone is a "monster"!
448: awesome. The American economy loses a big-firm lawyer and gains a productive contributor! Plus, sanity.
Such good news (Power) for a Friday afternoon.
Saw a show on the Waco kids this week. They're just fine, considering. People are so resilient.
I think it is gonna be ok. I will enjoy my weekend.
Y'all do likewise.
Good for you, LB! You should buy a really nice bottle of wine on the way home.
The worst thing about the Scotsman interview is the sort of view of those poor, gullible, unenlightened Ohio voters.
We're certainly agreed there. Frankly, this is why most academics suck at politics. They think they are smarter than everyone. They think that they always know best. They think that there really isn't anything to "know" about politics, except to be smarter than everyone else. And then they take a chair to the head. This is Power, this is Goolsbee, and this is also, say, someone like an aforementioned prof in this thread who involved herself in a civil rights lawsuit with wonderful intentions, but nearly fucked the matter up by "knowing best and knowing better."
Ties in nicely with pandering to fears about Obama's being foreign-sounding (have you heard his middle name???).
References to the UK (the BBC interview) and Canada (the NAFTA memo) are pandering to fears about Obama's foreign-sounding name? I'm sorry, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
He doesn't need to stand behind "Hillary is a monster" to prove it.
Neither John nor I have argued that.
448!!! Felicitations. What a fine start to the weekend.
If it's the "periodically" thing, it was quickly denounced as sexist. Which is what he has to avoid. Which means no "over-reaction," etc.
"what he has to avoid" suggests that it's a tactical error, as opposed to a genuinely offensive thing; in terms of sexism/racism, worse than anything that has crossed HRC's lips. It's also the only time his campaign as a whole has been clearly (or even very) sexist towards her, so I don't think it's a huge deal.
But it's pretty goddamn rich hearing about how monstrous HRC is when Obama's the candidate who actually crossed that line. A little less self-righteous indignation, please.
460: No, now that she is in the public service, she should buy a bottle of Boone's Farm. I'm partial to Strawberry Hill.
"People have got to know whether or not their President is a monster. Well, I am not a monster. I've earned everything I've got."
References to the UK (the BBC interview) and Canada (the NAFTA memo) are pandering to fears about Obama's foreign-sounding name? I'm sorry, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
In retrospect, my bad -- I was inferring the spin that TPM picked up here, namely:
Hillary: Obama Camp Tells Americans One Thing, Foreigners Another
Is that more clear, if not more plausible?
450: In the same family of traits as "able to get appropriately angry" is "loyal to subordinates". Hanging in with Power might have been worth it for that reason. But the main thing is "Don't let the aggressor pretend to be the victim" is the main issue here. Something like "One of my supporters overreacted to a long serious of unjustificiable attacks from the desperate Clinton campaign, and I've spoken to her. But when Clinton linked herself to our opponent, the Hundred Years War man, Senator McCain, it was hard to know what to say."
448: Hooray! Do you start the new job on Monday or are you taking a bit of a break?
Yeah, I think that HRC line is "liberal elite global test unlike my hardworking dues paying middle American self" baiting, not Muslim baiting.
This is Power, this is Goolsbee
You forgot Sunstein, who is contemptuous toward & frightened of the blogosphere. Funny about such a collection of similar arrogant types gathered around the closest thing to an academic candidate we have seen since Wilson?
This stuff comes from the top.
"Comes off as" is right. Greg Stillson.
Well, I knew Godzilla. And Senator, you're no Godzilla.
References to the UK (the BBC interview) and Canada (the NAFTA memo) are pandering to fears about Obama's foreign-sounding name? I'm sorry, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
No, no. His other middle name, McHaggis. Makes me shiver just to think it.
Question for Brits: Should the Yorkshire pudding in Toad in the Hole be puffy, as it is when making roast beef? Or is a sort of thick crepe consistency OK? This is review-critical knowledge, please.
I think your trolling powers are waning, bob. I think you're going to have to go with "really is a muslim" to be effective.
You know, a willingness to throw subordinates under the bus is a pretty widespread political trait, on both the right and the left. It's in an entirely different category than not caving to attacks on personal integrity or being afraid to avow ones basic political principles. Or worse, losing track of political principles altogether.
It's important here that Obama didn't issue any kind of self-abasing condemnation of Power, he just let her resign and said he didn't think Hillary was a monster. She wasn't keeping message discipline, that's part of her job if she's going to be an official campaign figure.
References to the UK (the BBC interview) and Canada (the NAFTA memo) are pandering to fears about Obama's foreign-sounding name? I'm sorry, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
I don't think it's pandering to that, exactly. I think, though, that there's certainly a narrative to be taken advantage of there: Obama, the candidate of foreign interests. He would rather swan around to socialists and Muslim-lovers than tend to the needs of red-blooded Americans. Dhimmitude, etc.
Senator, I served with monsters, I knew monsters, some of my best friends are monsters. Senator, you're no monster.
461-The tolmema affair, presumably? For some reason I recently reread the old Lingua Franca piece on that; so cringe-inducing I could hardly get through it.
Dhimmitude
The number of Dem primary voters who have ever heard this term is awfully close to zero.
Oh, way pwned by "Hillary: Obama Camp Tells Americans One Thing, Foreigners Another."
I'm really incapable of understanding the indignation over the monster quote. She didn't call Hillary a motherfucker or an old bag or a bitch or or a virago anything. Is namecalling somehow "bad" per se, even when it's rather mild?
Ogged was right way back when, too. When the Democrats start incorporating "Oh, fuck you already" into their language, they'll instantly add 5 percentage points to their total.
Some have said the Democrats need to embrace a different Anglo-Saxon monosyllable.
The number of Dem primary voters who have ever heard this term is awfully close to zero.
I would certainly hope so. I was just riffing, sorry.
479: Yep. And I like her. But no, just ugh.
Should the Yorkshire pudding in Toad in the Hole be puffy, as it is when making roast beef? Or is a sort of thick crepe consistency OK?
My experience in the past has been puffy, almost crispy. I actually thought it was puff pastry at first.
481: Or so the monsters would have you believe.
I am not a Brit, but the Toad-in-the-Hole produced by my English relatives has always been puffy.
489: CA says puffy, with a crisp top.
Following on 481, I think that a lot of bloggy discussion on the primary kind of forgets that the Rs are completely not a part of this. We're so used to seeing things in R vs. D that we can't help but hear dog whistles, even though the candidates are only looking for cats.
Obviously, some Dem voters are pretty conservative, but the culturally conservative Republicans (the ones who listen to Rush) simply aren't involved in these votes. That's part of why I'm less convinced on the marginal cases of alleged race-baiting - the majority of Dems are African-American friendly (there's probably more A-A Dems than there are Dems who won't vote for a Nice Black Man like BHO), and HRC will lose more votes from things like "shuck and jive" than she could ever hope to gain. Not to say that none of these cases are legit, or winked-at from within the campaign, but it would be a pointless strategy, like a Republican candidate hinting that he doesn't trust Whitey.
Today, a former model of African descent, and also a victim of and campaigner against female genital mutilation, Waris Dirie, was reported missing in Brussels
She turned up safe, by the way.
487, 489, 490: OK, that's what I expected. What I got was basically 4 bangers sitting in a thick pancake, which was crisp around the edges. I made Yorkshire pudding with beef once, so I was pretty sure that was wrong. Half a star off.
the majority of Dems are African-American friendly
In the abstract, maybe, but there are plenty of exploitable fears there. Same goes for misogynistic dog-whistles; most dems are for equal rights in the abstract, but that doesn't mean they don't hate Hillary for sexist reasons.
I think it is gonna be ok. I will enjoy my weekend.
Y'all do likewise.
Bob, you big nut! You always say you're leaving but you end up staying, don'tcha!
Is namecalling somehow "bad" per se, even when it's rather mild?
From adults, yes.
Seriously. It's not that it's offensive as such (the way an epithet would be), but it's childish and unacceptable.
If I thought there was a jokey tone, it would bother me less - like LGM calling Jewel "one of history's worst monsters." But Powers pretty clearly meant it. "Monster" plainly has a worse denotation than "bitch;" I don't think it's OK that she would be fired in a split-second for the latter for its connotation, but not the former for its denotation.
492: Oh good.
494: I was reading somewhere yesterday, about Obama's numbers in places like SE OH and western MD, and in some places he was pulling like 9% of the vote. I find it hard to believe that that is unrelated to race.
It turns out I don't have the Photoshop skills to alter the banner on the carrier to say MONSTER ACCOMPLISHED and have it look worth a damn, but let's just pretend I do.
Jane Grigson, perhaps the most classic English cooking source around, says the Yorkshire pudding should be puffed up nicely around the sausages. I think you can feel pretty secure in your judgment.
the majority of Dems are African-American friendly
What are you basing this on? I would say that a majority were African-American neutral at best.
483: Is namecalling somehow "bad" per se, even when it's rather mild?
When you've been running a campaign that is on the surface very civil, when in fact your whole platform is based on the idea that you can disagree with your political opponents on particular issues while still respecting them and finding common ground with them, when you've said your opponent is "likeable enough" and that you respect her deeply, when many of your supporters are looking for a bipartisan détente and drawdown in vicious rhetoric, then yes, having one of your staffers call her a monster is "bad" per se.
Obama is playing a very different game, civility-wise, than the mainstream of recent American politics, and the fact that Clinton has been slow to recognize and adapt to this is, I think, part of the reason she's not done as well in the campaign as was expected of her early on. She's still fighting the last war.
Letting Power go may have been, in chess terms, a sacrifice for tempo. Clinton threatened a piece, and rather than wasting a move taking the piece out of threat, Obama let the piece be taken, when Clinton was hoping to chase the piece around the board, deploying other pieces to advantage along the way. Of course, it's unclear at this point what move Obama is taking instead, and whether it's a better move.
Same goes for misogynistic dog-whistles; most dems are for equal rights in the abstract, but that doesn't mean they don't hate Hillary for sexist reasons.
I was going to say this, but I thought it went without saying here, of all places. How many thousands of comments have been expended here, explaining to Nice Guy Liberals that they're pretty relentlessly misogynistic?
It's been made really obvious in this campaign that open misogyny is OK in a way that open - hell, veiled - racism is not. The entire staff of MSNBC would have been sacked by now if their misogyny were translated into racism. If HRC had talked about how "sometimes BHO just can't control his animal instincts," she'd be out of the Senate by now*. If nothing else, it's clear that a lot of white males get offended at racist dog whistles, yet can't even hear sexist ones.
Personally, I think that part of the reason the BHO campaign has almost entirely avoided sexist dog whistles is that they don't need to deploy them - the press has been doing it for them. Why risk getting yourself muddy when someone else is already slinging it on your behalf?
* hyperbole
Senator, I served with monsters, I knew monsters, some of my best friends are monsters. Senator, you're no monster.
I would give a lot of money to hear Obama work this line into a debate or press conference sometime in the next couple of days.
498: That's good, but "Franklin Delano Monstropher" and his stirring words of comfort was really as good as you're going to get on this thread. Excellent work.
497: Yes, in some places, a lot of Dems are racist. That doesn't make anything like a majority of white Dems. If OH as a whole was only 44% for BHO, that means that he underpolled by maybe 35 percentage points in an all-white, socially conservative area. Pretty weak tea.
Of course, it's impossible to compare. If you wrote up generic profiles of the candidates, the white male BHO would not be getting 44% in Appalachia - it's not how they vote.
501: Depends on your definitions for majority and neutral, I suppose. First of all, whites nationwide are what, 60% of the party? If we took the Appalachian instance as informative, you get no more than a third of those too racist to vote for a Nice Black Man - that would be 20% of all Dems. I would think that something more than 20% of all Dems (plus actual A-As) are proud that theirs is the party of civil rights, don't you? And would therefore be less likely to the candidate of racist dog whistles?
You would. Personally, I liked 502 a lot.
Oh, and not that it matters too much, but Power may not have even taken a sabbatical from Harvard. I just remembered that Goolsbee's actually teaching three sections this coming term. Seems kind of amazing to trade that off with campaign work, but I guess life's pleasant for someone with a named chair.
Q. Is namecalling somehow "bad" per se, even when it's rather mild?
A. From adults, yes. Seriously. It's not that it's offensive as such (the way an epithet would be), but it's childish and unacceptable.
That just seems incredibly stupid and silly to me. In what world is it true? It sounds so maiden aunt / eighth grade teacher -ish. I'm willing to grand that some kinds of namecalling are ineffective, and some are silly and boring, and some are overused, and so on, but at this point I don't think there's much wrong with calling someone a monster. It's hyperbolic but obviously is almost never meant literally. It's a reasonable way of expressing a very strong negative judgement of a certain kind without being too specific.
And by now I think that Power was not wrong to have used the word either. The word is widely enough used in various different contexts that none of the nuances is dominant.
People have said that there were other problems with her interview, and for all I know they're right. (We don't have to click on the stupid links to comment, do we?)
When you've been running a campaign that is on the surface very civil, when in fact your whole platform is based on the idea that you can disagree with your political opponents on particular issues while still respecting them and finding common ground with them, when you've said your opponent is "likeable enough" and that you respect her deeply, when many of your supporters are looking for a bipartisan détente and drawdown in vicious rhetoric, then yes, having one of your staffers call her a monster is "bad" per se.
On the other hand, Power's statement could have been used as a message that the Obama people were aware that the other side was playing a different game than they were, and Obama could have said something like "While her use of this word was regrettable, and while we have talked to her, the constant barrage of insults and misrepresentations from the other side.... [etc., enumerating them].
That would be a way of retaining the initiative and not seeming reactive and weak.
This isn't a response to John's comment above, but I did just hear an interview with the reporter who wrote the Power-abnegating story. And Power comes off sounding like a fool, a child playing a grown up's game. Even though the reporter is clearly very sympathetic to Power. You can see for yourselves at TPM. The whole thing makes me cringe: such a waste of time (everyone), talent (Power), and opportunity (to hit Clinton hard on CIC).
"Asked the difference between calling someone a "monster'' and comparing someone to Starr, Clinton at first said the media had made the Starr reference. Reminded that it was her spokesman who had done so, Clinton said, "One is an ad hominem attack, and one is a historical reference.''
link. This, the Farrakhan thing--does she ever pass up a cheap shot?
note that Cuomo and others were canned for their language
Was Cuomo in fact canned for the "shuck and jive" comment? I just wrote a piece saying he wasn't (I couldn't find any mention of his having been), and if I was wrong, I'd like to correct before it gets published....
Re. this entire Power thing. If I'm not mistaken, the *actual* issue in the news today is that Obama is calling on Clinton to disclose her tax returns, and in return she's comparing him to Ken Starr.
Which is risible of her, imho.
513: She's truly horrible and seriously testing my ability to keep saying that I'll hold my nose and vote for her in the general. But, unless she wins through obvious cheating, that's just what I'll do. Thousands of other people, on the other hand, maybe even hundreds of thousands, no longer will.
to hit Clinton hard on CIC
I meant to say this upthread, but while what Clinton did was unacceptable in a lot of ways, I don't see Obama's angle for complaining about it--what could he say that doesn't make people wonder if the charge is true or make him look like a whiner?
515: not as far as I know. Shaheen was. Don't know about Kerrey (I don't know whether he was a "co-chair" or had any titled position to be canned from."
On the same tour, Power also informed people that contrary to what he's said explicitly on the campaign trail, Obama wasn't really committed to withdrawing from Iraq right away. The quote is remarkable, how tone-deaf do you have to be to think this kind of thing helps your candidate?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html
511: Like I said, it may not have been the best move available. If Obama did something along the lines of what you suggest, it could be perceived as whiny: "but moooooooooooom Hillary started it!"
Honestly, I don't know crap about politics, but it wouldn't surprise me if Obama's team is quietly working the referees of the Dem Party right now. "Look, I'm willing to take Clinton's cheap shots, but right now she's out there endorsing John McCain. Do you think that's good for our chances in November? Do you think that's good for the party? Tell you what, if she's ahead in pledged delegates by the convention, I'll concede. But you've got to let her know she's crossing a line."
513: No. And I think you (it was you?) were right, earlier. Just looking at the exact quote:
Obama did the right thing, but I think it's important to look at what she and his other advisors say behind closed doors, particularly when they're talking to foreign governments and foreign press. It raises disturbing questions about what the real planning and policy positions inside the Obama campaign happen to be.
Like . . . sharia?
515: If CNN is to be believed, the "actual" news today is that the Dow dropped to its lowest level in more than a year. Which is very good news for the Clinton campaign. The worse the economy, the better her fortunes. And I'm not blaming her for that, just reiterating that the Clinton brand is gold in economic hard times.
520.2 to 517, retroactive; not what he says, but who he says it to.
"While her use of this word was regrettable, and while we have talked to her, the constant barrage of insults and misrepresentations from the other side.... [etc., enumerating them].
That would be a way of retaining the initiative and not seeming reactive and weak.
You seriously think that wouldn't seem reactive and weak, letting yourself get personally insulted and dragged off message by an opponent's name-calling? Remember, Barak's message is precisely that he is a different kind of politician, who *won't* get caught up in this kind of nonsense.
I'm really interested in which way the mucky-mucks and superdelegates fall on this. Do they stick with Hillary because they think Obama really isn't good enough, or do they go to Obama in order to prevent a long bloodletting, and because they think that Hillary is risking Democratic victory. I can't see them just letting things happen -- these are sinister backroom dealmaking types, or at least I hope so.
525: unfortunately, I think you overestimate them. I don't think anybody is in charge of the Democratic party.
Furthermore, why does it feel so good to hate the Clintons? It's like being a right-winger in the 90s and it's like an intense high. Seriously, I never thought I'd be in this position, but I want to spit every time I see Bill on the television.
Furthermore, why does it feel so good to hate the Clintons?
Dunno, but lots of empirical evidence for that.
Looking forward to some Vince Foster posts now.
517: A senior advisor could have called her, for attribution, a bad Democrat, saying: "Lamentably, Senator Clinton seems to be placing her personal goal of winning the nomination over the needs of the party and, far more important, the country. While the Obama campaign honors Senator McCain's half century of distinguished service to this nation, we also believe that recognizing the Iraq War as a foreign policy disaster from the get-go, long before such a view was popular, is the most important threshold test there is for CIC. We regret that both Senators McCain and Clinton failed this test. And we hasten to point out that only candidate in this race who passed it is Barack Obama, the next President of the United States of America."
why does it feel so good to hate the Clintons?
Sexism?
And I'm not blaming her for that, just reiterating that the Clinton brand is gold in economic hard times.
Is it? Yes, the Clinton brand is better than the GHWB or the Bob Dole brand in economic hard times. But that's not saying much.
527: It feels terrible to me. It really does. I keep looking for ways not to hate them, keep making excuses for their depraved behavior, but I'm running out of patience.
My own first guess: I think they're better at convincing people I consider dumber than myself. It's a mixture of condescension and impotent rage.
Seriously, though, it feels good to hate the Clintons because feeling a sense of urgency is exciting. And b/c this is a close race, there's a sense of urgency about who gets the nomination.
It also helps a lot that Clinton is a woman.
I can't craft a perfect response, but the above the battle stuff has been tried over and over again. It's not an innovation of Obama's. And if he doesn't show that he can push back, forget him-- hi, President McCain. Rove and Fleischer have been getting ready for Obama for months now.
Right now, after a series of insulting negative attacks by Clinton, Obama has fired a staffer because of a single wrongly chosen word, and the episode is over with Clinton winning all the points and Obama standing there looking stupid with egg on his face. If it were a single incident I could see all the arguments for doing nothing much, but to me it looks like episode 718 of a never ending series.
The only difference is that this time the aggressor is a Democrat. I suppose I should switch to the monster, because she won the set and seems to know how things work.
If Obama thinks that his nice guy act will carry him through to November, Hillary's my candidate.
the fact that Clinton's a woman is the only thing preventing me from completely hating her guts. Yes, she used to get worse press coverage from Obama because she's a woman--but, also: he doesn't act like an asshole & insult my intelligence all the time. It's kind of refreshing.
Hatred feels good in general.
I still like the Clintons, hate the Republicans.
To make 529 even better, one might add: "Why is this [the Iraq War] the most important threshold test? Because the most important decision that a CIC must make is whether or not to send American servicemen and women into harm's way." Or something like that.
Can someone make an orange titled post telling everyone to carry around one of Sam Power's books publicly for the next week or so as a subtle show of support?
530: Seriously, I never thought I'd be in this position, but I want to spit every time I see Bill on the television (my lack of emphasis). 534 is probably correct.
if he doesn't show that he can push back,
Obama strikes back with a stiletto, not a club. Just you watch the next couple of days.
The blogosphere always wants to work out some vicarious aggression and cheers for the club.
Obama is perfectly comfortable with, and skilled at, policy attacks. It's a lot easier to attack McCain on policy than Clinton, because she currently, temporarily, playing to primary voters.
513: She shouldn't be validating Sullivan's characterization of her as someone who believes "the rules are for thee and not for me" and who has a "win even though it destroys the party" approach.
feh.
Obama has run a brilliant campaign, he's practically stolen the nomination out from under Hillary without making personal attacks that would have backfired, since she is widely liked (except at Unfogged).
PGD: Tell me when it happens. I've been arguing this stuff about keeping powder dry since 2002, and I'm unimpressed by the progress during that period. Most of the world's stores of dry powder must be controlled by the Democrats by now.
To reprise:
1. Obama did very well in the primaries, but the Clinton people were able to spin it as a big victory.
2. Clinton put out a series of Republican-style negative ads which effectively affiliated her with McCain
3. Obama was made to look weak by the Power business, and by his passivity seemed to concede that he had been wrong to hire Power. And by now I think that there was very little there there.
Zero for three, and Obama hasn't even showed up to play.
Feeling angry and disappointed and disillusioned by Hillary isn't a good feeling, nope.
the majority of Dems are African-American friendly (there's probably more A-A Dems than there are Dems who won't vote for a Nice Black Man like BHO), and HRC will lose more votes from things like "shuck and jive" than she could ever hope to gain.
Oh, bullshit. 20% of HRC Ohio votes (and a similar, but smaller number of Obama's Ohio votes) thought race was an important factor in determining which candidate to vote for. It is a little more than the margin of her victory. I don't know what magic world you're living in.
Emerson, for someone who hates the media, you are placing an awful lot of credence in the last 24 hours & the story they choose as the controversy du jour. So Obama's huge delegate lead, etc. etc. was all prelude to whether he looks good or not accepting Power's resignation on a Friday afternoon? Maybe his campaign was pissed off about getting pulled off-message by self-indulgent interviews during a book tour, & knew that "looking weak" was going to have zero effect whatsoever on MS or WY voters. Or maybe they screwed up. Who knows, but it's just not actually that big a deal.
Wow, I had to leave the librarfy at 4:45. Then I came home to find out that bob had agreed with me. I didn't mean to make that strong of a statement.
Katherine, I don't think that going to rallies is at all cultish. I went to a Patrick one. I just found Power a little googly-eyed for an adult advisor.
FWIW, my godmother is pro Clinton and sees her as main stream Democrat. She seems to feel strongly that there are a lot of people--including women--who don't want women in power and that there's a bunch of right-wing leaning stuff that Clinton leaned toward, but that she's not really right wing, that she just had to do that to look tough as a woman.
It was a very strange conversation, because she said that this time felt like the 70's economically and Obama's following seemed like a Children's Crusade. How would he act differently on Iraq going forward? What was change and hope all about anyway? She compared him to Carter, or teh way she felt when Carter came in, and, in a bunch of ways that didn't turn out great.
536 -- I'm not going to deny the existence of sexism. I think, though, that it's also undeniable that some of her bad press arises from attributes other than gender. Her weak explanations of her commodity trading profits, to reach way back for an example. The cute manner in which Rose billing records re-appeared. Her tone deaf handling of the health care thing. Her seeming refusal to see what kind of man her husband was (is?) in his private life. (I presume that no one is too young to recall that when the ML thing broke, HRC went on TV and said it was all made up, and that there was no truth to any of it. I don't know whether WJC lied to her, and she was a fool for believing him, or whether he didn't lie to her, and she thought they'd get away with it. On the latter, it's not inconceivable to me that her reaction was exactly the same, in terms as sincerity, as the finger-wagging denial issued by WJC.) More recently, is she voting more consevatively than she genuinely feels, in order to position herself for advancement? Does she really believe in the flag burning amendment?
I like her, and wish she was as excited about playing a leading role in a Senate with 60 or 61 Democrats during the first 100 days of an Obama Administration as the possibilities inherent in that role would merit. As opposed to winning a squeaker -- at best -- with little in the way of coattails.
By the way, the people who talk about choosing the wrong base might want to prepare themselves for 'I told you so' when we start hearing in October about how Hispanic men and scared security moms aren't ready to vote for a Democratic woman. The key to winning in November, even after the inevitable appearance by Bin Laden, is massive turn-out by kids (= under 45) all hopped up on Hope. Telling those people now that they were wrong to feel it, that their judgment sucked, that their enthusiasm is an embarrassment to adults, is going to limit turnout to the people who voted for Kerry. Which might be enough, or might not, depending.
On the cult thing, I guess this is a clarifying moment, as Madame Secretary would say, for all the people who wish we could have some kind of populist progressive movement. There is no way to Revolution other than this way -- obviously with some important differences in substance, but not too far off, because there isn't the support for it. Progressives (or whatever) shouldn't be jeering about cults, they should be taking fucking notes.
Well, shit, y'all, if Obama wanted to run for president of a non-racist country, he should've emigrated first.
Ditto Hillary and sexism. It sucks and everything, but that's what this country is like. As are most countries, to some extent or other. Welcome to the working week.
Question to SCMT: aren't some people swayed to vote *for* Obama *because* he's black? And for Hillary *because* she's female? "Important factor," IOW?
. How many thousands of comments have been expended here, explaining to Nice Guy Liberals that they're pretty relentlessly misogynistic?....If nothing else, it's clear that a lot of white males get offended at racist dog whistles, yet can't even hear sexist ones.
Jeebus. Consider the possibility that the reason that sexism gets pointed out and mooted here a lot is because there are a lot of female commenters. (Look through the archives if you genuinely think it's unrelated.) To the best of my knowledge there are no African-American commenters. How is this not trivially, trivially obvious? As Katherine noted in the monster thread, people who think the "shucking and jiving," "hip young black friend," etc., are not race tinged--and leaving aside neutral word usage like "cult," "messiah," etc.--but that "monster" is gender-tinged are applying a gigantic double standard. And these are among the fairest, most decent potential voters imaginable: that is, they're Obama's dream voters. Yet that double standard just is, and there's not a hell of a lot Obama can do about it. Except smile and hope it passes him like and idle wind, which has worked to date.
I mean, for the love of gawd, consider the possibility that women are more likely to pick up on sexism and African-Americans on racism, and then count noses.
people who think the "shucking and jiving," "hip young black friend," etc., are not race tinged
Wait, who are these people? Commenters here? Surely you jest.
522:The worse the economy, the better her fortunes. And I'm not blaming her for that
How generous of you
My own first guess: I think they're better at convincing people I consider dumber than myself
And I think Obama is better at convincing people smarter than myself, like Power. The impotent rage is there, but the condescension is replaced by fear. Can't y'all understand that?
I don't believe the media, Katherine. I think they're very effective at what they do, which includes spreading disinformation. Obama has to deal with it. Electorally speaking, the media picture is real, even if it's inaccurate.
It may be that two or three days from now this will have blown over. I am highly sensitized to Democratic failures to respond to negative attacks and inability to keep the initiative. Perhaps this one time I'm wrong. I spent all of August 2004 waiting to see how Kerry would respond to the Swift Boat attacks, and only found out afterwards that Mary Beth Cahill had convinced him not to dignify the attacks with a response.
Question to SCMT: aren't some people swayed to vote *for* Obama *because* he's black? And for Hillary *because* she's female? "Important factor," IOW?
Yeah, I think I noted that in my comment. I assume it's a big deal for other African-Americans, as HRC's gender seems to be for older white women and, IIRC, women down the income ladder--that is, women most likely to feel or have felt the brunt of sexism in its most naked form. Of course, you're right that you run for election in the country you have, not the one you wish for. I've always said that. I object, however, to being told that things are going fine in Iraq, "flowers and candy," and we only need 100K troops, who will draw down shortly after entering Baghdad.
And if you don't think really smart people can be fooled, let me point you to some hedge funds that need money.
f you think everybody else in the world except yourself is susceptible to a con, or that you could instantly recognize the con, I don't know what to say.
I am not very susceptible, but I am also crazy as a loon, and solated.
Thanks for the sarcasm in 554. I *really* appreciate it.
Someone de-solate McManus stat! Protracted solation can be fatal.
"I mean, for the love of gawd, consider the possibility that women are more likely to pick up on sexism and African-Americans on racism, and then count noses."
yep. This plays out more generally, too. It is more socially & politically acceptable to be openly misogynistic than openly racist. But, there are a lot more women in this country, and in the Democratic primary electorate, than African Americans. You say something that women think is sexist & you've got a big problem. You say something that black people think is racist, and a very large # of well meaning whites go: "oh, those black people, always playing the race card."
Was 554 McManus? If so, please retract my 558. But if not, amplify it.
Her seeming refusal to see what kind of man her husband was (is?) in his private life.
I don't get why this is grounds for criticism, or even why you think it's true. If he said nothing had happened, and she believed him, it doesn't make her a fool. If she didn't believe him, or if she knew, and she said nothing had happened, it doesn't make her a liar; it just makes her a decent human being.
Once you accept that very very smart people can fall for a con, you start asking how this is possible.
Well, greed, lust, and ego are on the table, but I would generalize the means as positivity.
If you believe that you deserve a movie star, then when an attractive person says you are irrestible, you might fall for it. If you think you are smarter than the crowd, financial schemes will work.
And if you want to be a good person and make the world a better place, there will be someone out there to tell you you are the moral bomb and to take your time, money, devotion.
people who think the "shucking and jiving," "hip young black friend," etc., are not race tinged--and leaving aside neutral word usage like "cult," "messiah," etc.--but that "monster" is gender-tinged are applying a gigantic double standard.
What Anderson said. Who the hell are you talking about?
Y'know, this part of the thread is making me wonder if there's a lot of residual anger at the Clintons, even among people who like(d) them. Anger that Bill looked the nation in the eye and lied, anger that he (perhaps) hurt the Democratic Party, anger at his singular ability to waste supreme his supreme talent and some glorious opportunities because of his appetites (even recognizing that it wasn't his fault that there was a new standard in play for him that had never held for previous presidents). I suspect that anger, for the most part, has been focused on Bill through the intervening years. And it has been latent. But for many people I know, that's changing on both fronts.
510: People have said that there were other problems with her [Power's] interview, and for all I know they're right. (We don't have to click on the stupid links to comment, do we?)
Did someone already say this? I haven't read further than 515 or so. In this case, yes, John, please do. Links at 79 and 110 above.
561:Fucking auto complete. But I gave ya the 2nd sentence as a clue.
552:I mean, for the love of gawd, consider the possibility that women are more likely to pick up on sexism and African-Americans on racism, and then count noses.
Have you considered that paranoiacs might be more likely to pick up on delusional mass movements? Huh? Just sayin.
Emerson, don't get me wrong, no matter what happens this is a stumble for Obama's campaign, possibly a fatal one, and I think a case can be made for either muscular counterpunching or throwing Power under the bus. However, to further mix my metaphors, defending Power when she's so far off the reservation might turn into a mud-wrestling match with a pig* that will dilute brand Obama at a critical juncture. In any case, though, it's Friday, and Obama making a good move on Monday will have a lot more impact than making a bad move today. Sacrificing for tempo doesn't look so if you spend your next move pushing a pawn; much better to find a way to put the king in check. Er, queen**. Er, king***. You know what I mean.
* This is speciesism, not sexism, so shut up shut up SHUT UP
** okay this one is sexist
*** i'm so fucked
I was very angry at Bill over welfare reform. But the rest of that stuff, not at all.
"... If he said nothing had happened, and she believed him, it doesn't make her a fool. ..."
Not a fool exactly but unduly credulous. Not a trait I want in a President.
567: Oh, okay. Well, if it was you, Bob, I retract my response.
Unduly credulous because why? Because he was a known womanizer? It's quite possible, you know, to realize that a man is a known womanizer and yet *still* believe that he has the judgment not to fool around with an intern in his office. Especially if he's a man who has a very powerful group of people who are literally making shit up about him in an attempt to undermine his position.
That said, of course, I'm not the least bit surprised that you don't want Clinton in office, Shearer.
Welfare reform, civil liberties, free trade, death penalty, other things I've forgotten (probably in the corporate-stooge area). I didn't like Bill until they tried to impeach him.
Adultery and other marital problems, and the various accomodations that come out of them, are so common that I find it hard to see how anyone could hold this against Hillary. I barely can see how anyone would hold it against Bill. Something like a hundred million dlooars was spent trying to destroy Bill, and the major media all played along for free.
I wasn't serious when I said I'd switch to Clinton form Obama if she continued to trash him with impunity, but I might get serious. Bill did seem to know how to deal with that kind of stuff, and he was a great campaigner.
... mud-wrestling match with a pig*
Now you're taking a cheap shot at the Youth International Party. At least we were honest about our candidate.
OT: McCain is still pimping himself to the loony Christians even after he's clinched the nomination. He's talking to "Left Behind" LaHaye's group, which is as nasty as Hagee's.
I didn't like Bill until they tried to impeach him.
Yeah, I think that was true of me as well. Though I do remember kind of liking his wife.
You're also right that blaming Hillary for Bill's fooling around is "hard to see." It's a lot of other things, as well.
575: On what theological or political points do LaHaye and Hagee even differ? Just emphases or something more?
"Our" candidate? Sure, you say you supported Pigasus now, after Humphrey went down.
I believe that they interpreted the seven-headed dragon rising from the sea somewhat differently.
Here's the wonder of (parts) of the internet: I expect someone will read read 577 who actually knows the answer.
333: I am being a total asshole here to go back 200+ comment simply to lambast Stras, but I feel compelled to note that this may be the most situationally stupid remark I've seen on the Internets (in regard to Josh Marshall's supposed straining at gnats): was the US Attorneys scandal really the most alarming thing we needed to know about the Bush administration in 2007?.
579 makes my heart soar. That's not easy to do, by the way.
Welfare reform, civil liberties, free trade, death penalty, other things I've forgotten (probably in the corporate-stooge area).
Those are the reasons to be very angry at Bill Clinton. It was not a fun party. It became hatred when one realized that it was corporate consolidation enacted by the Democractic party that (for those of us with stars in our eyes) was supposed to stand for just the opposite.
Why does it feel good to hate the Clintons now? It doesn't. It's just because it's easy; important aspects of Bill's administration sucked, to put it very locally and mildly, and Hillary's campaign lends itself to villainization.*
*Why does it look as though that's incorrectly spelled? And yet.
Because you meant to write villanelleization, and then one of those people who understands forms, poetical, would show up and demonstrate that Hillary's campaign does in fact lend itself to such.
572
"Unduly credulous because why? Because he was a known womanizer? It's quite possible, you know, to realize that a man is a known womanizer and yet *still* believe that he has the judgment not to fool around with an intern in his office. Especially if he's a man who has a very powerful group of people who are literally making shit up about him in an attempt to undermine his position."
At the time she was 50 years old and had been married to Bill for over 20 years. This gave her ample opportunity to realistically evaluate Bill's judgment and what his word was worth in situations like this. Blind faith shows a certain detachment from reality.
Of course high level politicians are subject to unfair attacks. But falling into a bunker mentality in which your side is never wrong is still undesirable and potentially dangerous.
"That said, of course, I'm not the least bit surprised that you don't want Clinton in office, Shearer"
It's not like I like other two either. And in retrospect I think Bill was a pretty good President. Hillary may be the lesser evil at this point but she shouldn't have believed Bill if in fact she did.
585: Holy hell! You're really blaming her for believing her husband (if that's what actually happened)? Why? What bad act did such belief represent? What skin was it, or is it, off your nose? How would her believing otherwise have made things better, in other words? Then or now?
For anyone still interested, the latest from Canada on the NAFTA memo suggests there is little basis to the "Clinton did it too" line:
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.
I don't put much stock in any coming out of Harper's office on this.
Have you considered that paranoiacs might be more likely to pick up on delusional mass movements? Huh? Just sayin.
Bob, that's the best thing you've said all year. Not enough redeem all of the really unhinged stuff, but a much-appreciated reminder of why the crazy uncle bit used to be fun.
On topic, more or less: I've been working very hard all year to keep reminding myself that I'll send money to and vote for whoever emerges from this process, however unhappy I may be with the outcome. But damn, is the Clinton campaign ever doing its best to challenge that resolve. And while I've never been a big fan of Clinton-as-politician, I still basically like her and am glad to have her in the Senate. But yuck. How the hell do you punish somebody who manages to get away with this kind of crap without descending into Naderism?
And a very belated but very heartfelt YAY LB! I'll raise a glass in your direction this evening.
Christ almighty, pacing!
No way am I going to wade through this thread at the moment, so ignore me if this has been said, but 590 reminds me that a lot of people seem to go out of the way to say that they "still like" Hillary when she pulls this stuff.
Would so many of us make a point of saying they still liked a candidate if it was a man doing these things? I suspect not.
I hope that's humor, because otherwise I have no idea where it's coming from.
586
"585: Holy hell! You're really blaming her for believing her husband (if that's what actually happened)? Why? What bad act did such belief represent? What skin was it, or is it, off your nose? How would her believing otherwise have made things better, in other words? Then or now?"
I am blaming her because such a belief was objectively unreasonable and a President needs a good BS detector. Lest we get in stupid wars based on bad intel.
I hope that's humor, because otherwise I have no idea where it's coming from.
Only a little serious. Maybe I've just got weird sampling or something when I've scanned these threads, but sometimes it really does seem like I see a lot of "but I still like her as a Senator", etc.
Or, maybe I'm just hater, and a hater with no caffeine in his system at that. I shall reevaluate after coffee.
How the hell do you punish somebody who manages to get away with this kind of crap without descending into Naderism?
This question confuses me: what Clinton appears to be 'getting away with' so far is largely a product of media spin in, yes, the MSM as well as the left blogosphere. She hasn't yet manipulated the superdelegates (has she?) and whether there will be a do-over in Michigan and Florida is unknown, and she's not the only one who's calling for it.
Anyway, anyway. Yes, we'd probably like Clinton to withdraw, and you know why she's not? She's promised a hell of a lot of people that she will run in a very serious manner, and they've backed her with money, and she actually has extensive voter support out there. As a practical matter, a lot of people would be very disturbed if she withdrew now. It's not for us to say whether they're misguided.
If you want to punish Clinton for her campaign tactics, create and disseminate an open letter or petition informing her of the extent of discontent among Democratic voters. Let people sign a statement that they will not vote for her as the Dem candidate, but will stay home.
593: Huh, I think that believing one's friends or loved ones and believing the intelligence community are very different things. In other words, I think that credulity in one case doesn't equate to credulity in the other. Then again, I don't think she's the better choice. So I'm done (quasi) defending her.
I am blaming her because such a belief was objectively unreasonable and a President needs a good BS detector.
oh no Hillary has a bad BS detector what if Ahmadinejad cheats on her and she's the last to know and everyone laughs at her behind her back
what if the Chinese say they'll call her in the morning but they never do and she waits all day by the phone feeling hurt and confused
this is why women shouldn't be president
It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.
By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.
As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.
Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.
Wait? You think Bill fooled Hillary? Oh no. I think she was pretty well aware of the kind of guy she married. That's her business, or their business. But I don't at all think she had any belief in his enduring marital fidelity.
603
"Wait? You think Bill fooled Hillary? Oh no. I think she was pretty well aware of the kind of guy she married. That's her business, or their business. But I don't at all think she had any belief in his enduring marital fidelity."
No, I am saying if she was fooled this would indicate an undesirable degree of creduity. I am agnostic on whether she was actually fooled.
I don't have a problem with most of the things I recited about Sen. Clinton (especially her husband's infidelity): I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. These matters are legitimate fodder for campaign press, though, can be cast in ways that are not flattering to Sen. Clinton, and are not based primarily in sexism.
I'd never blame her for her husband's infidelity. Never before have I had occasion to consider whether her own conduct calls her judgment into question -- but it's ridiculous to say, without knowing more than we know, that there is no set of facts under which her judgment/conduct is questionable. Because it's all behind the cloak, one can (a) ignore the subject entirely; (b) adopt charitable -- or even as we see above, the most charitable possible -- assumptions about the facts; or (c) one can adopt an uncharitable set of assumptions about the facts.
There's plenty of justification for (c).
I agree with oudemia in 603. She wasnt fooled. People know. Many people knowingly live with cheaters. Many people make compromises about what is acceptable in their lives. Many people decide that the net positive of staying married beats the negatives. This is true regardless of whether the negative is infidelity, alcoholism, joblessness, depression, or any other problem
Hart and Obama are correct. It is about judgment. Clinton shouldnt have made the red phone ad.
603 -- It's her business until she goes on TV and states as fact that it didn't happen. Then, in a context where she's asking people to assess her judgment, it's everyone's business.
Well said, Gary Hart, except for the part about calling her "Mrs." Clinton instead of Senator Clinton, and the fact that a lot of people don't trace their distaste for her to her war vote, but to her DLC connection, her Clintonism, if you will, overall.
But of course it does appear to be a run as Clinton as President rather than a run as best leader for the country.
Maybe I've just got weird sampling or something when I've scanned these threads, but sometimes it really does seem like I see a lot of "but I still like her as a Senator", etc.
I think she's a credible wonk and generally solid on domestic policy, but her political and foreign policy judgment is marginal at best. So I'm happy to have her in the Senate--Lord knows there are many there who are far worse--but think she's trying to rise to her level of incompetence by running for President. Of course she's ambitious; they all are at that level. But I blame the campaign bullshit more on lousy judgment than lousy character. And I have a soft spot for the way she's dealt with her, umm, challenging family situation. But I hate, hate, hate her campaign.
Jesus, James, if we started judging statesmen and stateswomen on the basis of their marital relationships there wouldn't be any left. James, all relationships are bad. Only single people have any sense. But normal, fucked up, married people don't trust people with sense, so by and large single people are not trusted in leadership positions.
Once you say that Hillary is married, you've said it all. She obviously has a problem. The nuances are really insignificant.
You're just cracking me up tonight, John, even when you're serious. And I need the laughs really badly. So thanks. I owe you.
612
This is not about being married. If Gore had defended Bill Clinton similarly it would have raised questions about Gore's judgment also.
If Gore had defended Bill Clinton similarly it would have raised questions about Gore's judgment also.
He did. And it is about being married. Giving your spouse an extra bit of spouse is, I think, common, good, and part of a healthy marriage.
Extra bit of trust, though probably the extra bit of spouse doesn't hurt.
the extra bit of spouse doesn't hurt
From certain angles, it does.
Poor Mrs. Clinton: her husband cheated on her and if she didn't know, she should have, and if she did know, she shouldn't have pretended she didn't. Cuckolded, she is. Emasculated.
I'd rather nobody here were taking all of that seriously.
546: Oh, bullshit. 20% of HRC Ohio votes (and a similar, but smaller number of Obama's Ohio votes) thought race was an important factor in determining which candidate to vote for. It is a little more than the margin of her victory. I don't know what magic world you're living in.
Do the math, dumbass. 20% said race was important. 57% of those went for HRC. That would make 11% of the total Dem primary electorate in OH (a pretty racist state). If you think that this somehow counters my original contention - that white racists are a small part of the pool of voters, and therefore a bad bet for HRC to risk racist appeals for - then I don't know what to say. Also, if you think that no one in OH voted against HRC because of her race-baiting, then apparently you've been commenting here for 2 months without reading anyone else's comments.
I guess Tim's premise is that, if only Andrew Cuomo hadn't said shuck and jive, those 11% would have either stayed home or voted for Obama because they didn't know he was black. That's gold, Tim; the campaigns will be calling with lucrative offers any day now.
That would make 11% of the total Dem primary electorate in OH (a pretty racist state).
11% of the total Dem primary electorate were willing to say it to an exit pollster, face to face on a public street. The real number is probably higher.
In any event, we're not talking about people for whom race is a primary factor in their conscious decisionmaking, we're talking about the pool of voters that would be susceptible to racist dog whistle statements. Most of those people would be horrified at the thought of being guided by racism, but would still be swayed by attempts to paint Obama as a smooth-talking hustler, or just not quite one of us.
I am blaming her because such a belief was objectively unreasonable and a President needs a good BS detector. Lest we get in stupid wars based on bad intel.
Objectively!! I'm so sorry, James, sometimes I forget about your firm grasp on Objective Reality. Clearly you're right, and any woman whose husband cheats on her is either stupid or a bad judge of character, and therefore definitely not suited for a leadership role of any kind.
621
"Objectively!! I'm so sorry, James, sometimes I forget about your firm grasp on Objective Reality. Clearly you're right, and any woman whose husband cheats on her is either stupid or a bad judge of character, and therefore definitely not suited for a leadership role of any kind."
Fine, in my opinion such a belief was objectively unreasonable and reflects badly on her fitness too be President. YMMV.
Also in my opinion, anyone who continues to unquestionly believe in a spouse who has repeatedly lied to them has a problem.
You are just making sexist excuses about women being too weak and stupid to be expected to see their men as they are.
You are just making sexist excuses about women being too weak and stupid to be expected to see their men as they are.
This edition of "turnabout is kind of embarassingly ineffective, technique-wise" brought to you by No, You Fall Down: Jiu-Jitsu For Three Month Olds.
I laugh and laugh at 623. This thread is really improving my mood, all of a sudden. Either that or my returning fever -- after a respite of only four days -- is making me giddy. Regardless, I read it again and laughed again.
623 is making me chuckle too. Thanks, Sifu!
It's her business until she goes on TV and states as fact that it didn't happen. Then, in a context where she's asking people to assess her judgment, it's everyone's business.
Oh come *on*.
You are just making sexist excuses about women being too weak and stupid to be expected to see their men as they are.
This does smack a little of feminist concern trolling. But I'm willing to give James the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's misread the early 1970s feminist slogan "the personal is political" as "the personal life of the candidate is a matter of statecraft and high politics."
627's also funny. I don't mean to be piling on James, who I don't know at all. I'm just so relieved to be laughing. So James, if I could impose on you to say more things to make Sifu and Mary Catherine kick you in the teeth again, I'd be most grateful.
Sigh. Threads like this make me very glad that Ronald Reagan is (a) deceased and (b) ineligible to run for President of the United States again.
Seriously. I mean, there were rumors that his wife fucked Frank Sinatra! How did he ever get a second term?
Do the math, dumbass. 20% said race was important. 57% of those went for HRC. That would make 11% of the total Dem primary electorate in OH (a pretty racist state).Do the math, dumbass. 20% said race was important. 57% of those went for HRC. That would make 11% of the total Dem primary electorate in OH (a pretty racist state).
OK, let's do the math. She won, I think, 55% to 45%. 55%-45%=10%. My specific claim is that the votes for her on the basis of race--11%--is "a little more than the margin of her victory." So, cleaning it up a bit, I claim that 11% is greater 10%. Remind me who the ignorant motherfucker is, again? Or does math work differently in your world?
I know who the ignorant motherfucker who can't manage a "paste" command is.
Gary Hart gets it abso-fucking-lutely right.
629: It takes a thread like this one for you to revel in Reagan's deadness? You should let yourself live it up more often.
Now it's Tim on the case. You people are totally cracking me up tonight. We need Shearer around more often. He's like an unintentional court jester. Or everybody's straight man. Or something. I love the guy (air kiss for Shearer).
I know who the ignorant motherfucker who can't manage a "paste" command is.
Possibly (probably) true, but I don't know to what you're referring.
635: I was actually responding to JRoth in #619. Though I do think Shearer's being a nutter about the infidelity thing.
Nutter's funny. But not funny enough. Make me laugh, jester! Now!
I mean, there were rumors that his wife fucked Frank Sinatra!
Holy crap. And I thought Sinatra's switching from Democrat to Republican had something to do with JFK! But I missed the (vain-)glory of the Reagan years, including the rumours of Nancy as mob moll.
(The above comment is in no way intended to state, suggest or otherwise imply that Frank Sinatra had any ties, whether real or imaginary, to any organized crime syndicate, whether real or imaginary, whatsoever).
Mary Catherine sometimes I wish somebody would hurt you, so I could have them killed.
630
"Seriously. I mean, there were rumors that his wife fucked Frank Sinatra! How did he ever get a second term?"
If Nancy had been caught straying before and she had sex with Sinata during Reagan's first term and she had been publically accused and Reagan had said it was all a plot by his enemies and Reagan had really believed it and wasn't just being chivalrous then this would indeed have raised questions about his judgment. Otherwise no.
Oops, "Oh, I just wish someone would try to hurt you so I could kill them for you."
Frankie, why you gotta be so hard to quote accurately?
630: concern trolling abhors a comma.
634: It takes a thread like this one for you to revel in Reagan's deadness?
One of the great regrets of my life is that I spent the weekend Reagan died hanging around at home, but not alone, IYKWIMAITTYD, without seeing the news, so my long-held desire to immediately go to the nearest punk bar and buy a round of drinks for anyone that would toast his death was rendered anti-climactic and I didn't get around to it.
It hurts my head to think that Shearer might mean this stuff.
643: That story nearly makes me weep, it's so tragic. An antidote? Open a beer and celebrate his death right now. I'll join you.
I don't have any beers!!!
This just gets more and more tragic.
[crawls back out from under bridge]
That WJC had sexual relations with that woman, ML, is not a rumor.
That we'll hear endlessly about this whole business, should HRC be the nominee, you can take to the bank. That a non-trivial number of voters will make assumptions and draw inferences is a sure thing as well.
You might think HRC standing up for her husband in public was admirable. I don't disagree. I also don't delude myself, though, with the idea that this is the only possible reaction.
634: When I used to have to teach the second half of the US history survey, I would always stop before Reagan's election. I just couldn't talk about the man without becoming totally unhinged. And I knew that there was a serious risk that I'd end up in a screaming fight with a student. Which, I'm told, isn't a good idea. At least until one has tenure.
Also, I have to go to work tomorrow. You know why? Because the people at work are fascists, that's why. So I'd better turn in for the night.
Maybe I could turn this into a movie that would be an homage to Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (Luis Buñuel, 1972) where the main character is continually attempting to toast the death of various reactionaries, but winds up being stymied every time.
[crawls back out from under bridge]
I initially misread that as "frige", and thought "gee, how would that work? You're kind of a big guy."
Ok leaving the bridge behind, I do sometimes wonder what country some of you folks think you are living in. Personal life separate from public life? Ever hear of a dog named Checkers? A candidate who lusted in his heart? Another who got arrested for drunk driving, what, 20 years before the election? Yet another who looked goofy in a tank, let a scary looking black man out of jail, and concentrated on remaining the public man when asked about what he'd do if his wife was raped?
In my head, words get Ds dropped out of the middle of them all the time.
In my head, that last sentence was "In my hea, wors get roppe out of the mile of them all the time."
So no making fun. It's tough being my head, a fact it is choosing to communicate to me by means of a grinding headache of (by now) several hours duration.
647: I totally agree. But the difference between Shearer's ostensibly empircal argument (which is actually just trolling, I'm pretty sure) and what you're saying is that you're talking about what other people will think whereas he's talking about what he thinks. In other words, I don't relish hearing people rehash the Clinton sex scandals. But I also don't make the leap from that to questioning Hillary's judgement. Hell, there are countless better reasons to question her crap-ass judgement than her decision to stand by her man.
651: don't you dare bring up those "Checkers was gay" rumors. That poor dog deserves his dignity, at long last.
On the other hand, given the two presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, it appears that the one indiscretion that will remain resolutely off the table is Cocaine use, so swell news for Barry.
Sleep is good for headaches, I've found.
655: yes, I did some of that. I'm finding that the headache is helping me find just the right tone for commenting, though.
Someday I'll learn html so I can play the "fixed" game. Regardless, I've heard that China white is really good for headaches. But I'm sticking with Advil and a beer.
And the nap I accidentally took earlier today only made my headache worse. Now I blame rfts (is that right?).
Regardless, I've heard that China white is really good for headaches
Good at causing them, maybe. Coke hangovers are no joke, Ari.
I just (ten seconds ago) got an e-mail from the Ministry of Education, Singapore that reads almost exactly like e-mails I've received in the past from Idi Amin's brother-in-law. Which reminds me: I really do wonder when those diamonds are going to arrive. But this Singapore business, this sounds like an exciting opportunity for cultural exchange. Or Sasha Baron Cohen's next project. I really can't tell which.
659: Dude, China white is heroin. You just lost, like, two kewl points.
660 -- Check out the websites of the people who scam those scammers. 419 busters or something like that.
656 -- Try Cowboy Junkies videos on YouTube. Sweet Jane.
661:wow. So it is. That's humiliating.
Can somebody go back and edit Ari's comment so it says "Peruvian yellow"?
Cowboy Junkies? Cowboy Junkies? No, I think not. You philistine. Instead, I give you Lou Reed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc26EFI1_nw. God, I really need to learn html.
653
"... Hell, there are countless better reasons to question her crap-ass judgement than her decision to stand by her man. "
No doubt, nevertheless believing Bill under the circumstances is an example of bad judgment. Not believing him but going along with his doomed coverup doesn't show terrific judgment either.
664: Not nearly as humiliating as conflating Sweet Jane and Heroin and then making fun of Napi for sending you to the Cowboy Junkies rather than Lou Reed, assuming that he meant so you could hear...
Oh forget it, I'm too ashamed to even go on.
A tutorial for Ari:
"Very interesting web site I did not agree with everything you said though thanks!
<a href="http://garfieldisdead.ytmnd.com/">c1@lis v1@gra increase penis size free penny stocks l@@k paul is dead paul is dead check out my website</a>
Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 03- 7-08 10:52 PM"
653: Keep working it, James. I think you're about to convince somebody. Maybe two or three more go-rounds and you'll have a minyan.
665 -- We're trying to cure a headache. Keep your eye on the ball. And linking really is easy -- especially when you have the right URL.
Dear God, James, not to question your apparently privileged epistemological access to the nature of objective reality, but your 641 just prompted me to move "Dr Strangelove" up to number 1 in my Netflix queue.
The really tricky bit, of course, would be to determine whether, and to what extent, Reagan was "just being chivalrous." A subtle problem, that, and a complex one too, involving, as it inevitably would, matters of personal psychology, broad trends in social and cultural history, subtle moves in gender politics analysis, and a reasonably persuasive account of the transformation of a fundamentally late-medieval European feudal morality into something that looks like an American cowboy code. But the fate of an anxious nation might hang on its resolution.
Re: Nápi's 651, Susan Gallagher on the globalization of intimacy is worth reading, if you have the time.
(A minyan is neither heroin nor cocaine, Sifu. Just trying to keep you from humiliating yourself again.)
670: Nope, Lou Reed's too old in that one (Cripes, is that sentence going to make McManus appear to harangue me about hating on the elderly?). He'd already become an advocate of urban renewal by then. In fact, I'll bet you anything he's now for Clinton. Still, seeing the Velvets play did bring a smile to my face. So, thanks.
Am I to understand that Mary Catherine is both this funny and Canadian? Or am I making up the second part?
How many comments can I run off in a row? Before Ogged band me again, I mean.
675: bands you? Like a wild bird? That's just so he can track you, Ari.
Yeah, I'd forgotten the pubic hair on the Coke.
Maybe it's time to bring back James G. Blaine.
670: Who are those old people and why are they playing a loud sped-up version of "Sweet Jane"?
My old advisor, the one who had Hannibal Hamlin's desk, had a recording of Ma, Ma, Where is My Pa? I tell you that only to deepen your conviction that I'm a nerd. And also because my ankle is swelling where Ogged put this metal thing.
681: Link-embedding show-off. You know, my ignornace hurts. You don't have to keep highlighting how little I know.
Also 681: A vid for which the term sell-out was invented.
685: Oh, now I get it. Hang on, I'm going to practice that at my place, so as not to annoy the proprietors here.
34 Pony tartare - tastes a lot like plain old beef tartare - it was served at my dad's workplace cafeteria.
685: Dude, that shit totally works. You get your kewl points back.
I'm just pleased with myself for calling you a bimbo. It's not something undergraduates often get to call faculty.
I found this awesome weblog that says that not only is McCain very wrinkly, but he's also not the hero we think.
Huh, that didn't work. Oh well. Sifu, you get detention.
Do I have to add the quotation marks around the url?
Make sure you include the </a> at the end, too.
America is different. France just had a presidential race between a woman living unmarried with a long time partner who had cheated on her against a guy whose wife had very publicly cheated on him. The only real issue during the race was how much the personal tension between candidate and partner aka secretary general of the party was creating rival feuding camps.
People sometimes cheat, sometimes that leads to breakups, most of the time it doesn't - how this reflects on Hillary I have no idea.
693-94: Okay, got it now. I didn't put the url in quotation marks. All's well. I'm now master of the all that I survey.
America is different.
This notion sits at the very core of our national identity. In my line of work, we call it American exceptionalism. And we study it like a virus at the CDC.
But America is different. Tocqueville told me so.
when i watch a documentary of JFK assassination i'm always striken how Jacqueline Kennedy tried to escape, climb out of the car
part of me feels so sorry for her and i imagine how much horror she felt, another part feels almost like reproachful like shouldn't she cling to him, hold his wounds, try to awake or something
but, in the end, one will be ultimately alone that's so strikingly clear after watching that docu
in my opinion that Hillary Clinton could forgive and accept her husband and stand by him during his difficult times even if out of political reasons is the sign of much strenghth and ability to compromise, i believe them when they walk hand in hand now, after what they endured together their bond must be much greater now
i would be glad if she wins presidency in an honest race, b/c it's the last chance for her and would hate to watch how her dream'd get ruined if she'll loose, besides if not her there won't be another woman candidate on the scene for another decade may be, no? if not Condoleeza Rice, i don't know may be there are many young aspiring women politicians
Obama still has time, his could be the next term
though of course none of this is my business, it's just what i think sometimes
666: What were her options, then? Fail to believe him and run to the nearest reporter herself? How uttterly bizarre.
699: read, when Jacqueline Kennedy is climbing on the back of the car, she was not trying to escape, she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's head, in the naive belief that he could be fixed.
The problem with American exceptionalism is just its optimism. Exceptionalism is practically the default assumption for any country -- I can argue Swedish exceptionalism, Japanese exceptionalism, Swiss exceptionalism, and several others. The lawlike generalizations historians and social scientists dreamed of didn't show up. History is historical.
American exceptionalism: more religious than almost any developed nation. The heritage of slavery is still a factor. The Southern / frontier / Second Amendment tradition of vigilante violence is still a factor. Large areas of the country are proud of their ignorance.
There are good things too, like civil liberties and receptiveness to immigrants. (Compare Europe on either count: a lot of the civil liberties Bush is threatening are already gone in Europe.)
i don't know may be there are many young aspiring women politicians
Less than there should be but more than you might think. The standard place to start looking for Presidential candidates is among people who have won high-level office in statewide elections. There are 16 female Senators currently serving and eight current governors. The relevant list would probably be a bit longer than that, as it would include former senators and governors who have recently left office.
703 oh i did not know, i'm very sorry
how i understand her
it's so easy to judge someone without knowing the whole story, i usually try to not, i won't
One thing I've always wondered: We hear about Westerners who move someplace "exotic" "going native", but nobody ever uses that phrase to describe an immigrant to the US. Quite the contrary, it's always assumed that nobody is going to be more flag-waving, baseball-loving, steak-eating and America-loving than a recent immigrant or a new citizen. Last night some of my neighbors who hailed from the Horn of Africa importuned me at the bus stop to ask for spare change. One of them, who might have already been somewhat the worse for drink (as, indeed, was I), was chagrined by the fact that I could stand their waiting for the bus, big as billy-be-damned, even though I was an American born and bred and should, by all rights, be driving a nice car. I didn't really go into the full explanation of my carlessness with him, but it was interesting to me that he felt car ownership and frequent driving were a proper metonymy for US citizenship.
699, 703: read, turns out you're a Lenny Bruce fan?
Bruce had an (in)famous routine where he speculated that Mrs. Kennedy was just trying to get out, she "hauled ass to save her ass" in his words.
she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's head, in the naive belief that he could be fixed.
I always find this detail especially awful and poignant.
Bruce was surely right. I never even heard the other version till now, but if you're PR, what are you going to say?
had no idea who was Lenny Bruce, JPC
looked him up
so it was not only me to think that, i feel better now
I love that Lenny Bruce routine. He doesn't want his daughter to get the message that a good woman stays in the car and gets shot at, and if his daughter should someday have to 'haul ass to save her ass' he doesn't want her to feel the least bit bad about it.
not b/c i was right, just b/c i was not alone to think that
i believe Oedemia and am glad to know the true story
711: "When you've been fucking shot at and your husband has just been murdered, then you'll be qualified to have an opinion on whether she acted appropriately or not, dumbass" ?
The gathering up of brain bits is the version of events given in the Warren Report. Of course, make of that what you will.
I must say that if I were advising my daughter about what to do when being shot at from above while in an open-top car, I wouldn't start by suggesting that she should clamber out onto the top, thereby exposing more of her body to be fired upon.
708: That's me! Just like the snowman!
716: Yeah, it's not like she did a roll out the passenger-side door, she shimmied flat out across the car's trunk, making a rather bigger target of herself.
I finally got around to watching the clip of Hillary and I have to disagree with what seems to be the conventional wisdom.
(1) My impression upon seeing that clip was "Wow, what a confident, poised, tough woman. Definite President material." And reflecting some further, it's the type of statement that pisses off Obama supporters and really partisan Democrats, and helps her with everyone else -- in other words, not terrible politics given her current position in the race. (Not great either, but then she's desperate.)
(2) This is supposed to be beyond the pale, because it helps McCain and may "destroy" Obama's candidacy. Bollocks, because:
(a) If a charge of inexperience actually sinks a 4-year Senator's campaign, then he has no business being nominated anyway.
(b) There are a lot of voters, especially older ones, who are genuinely a little frightened and confused by Obama's rapid rise and his ability to beat the experienced Clinton machine. The fact that it's a black guy coasting along doesn't make it any less confusing. So although I know this is not Clinton's motivation, I think it may actually help Obama's campaign in the long run, because Clinton is going head-to-head for 50 states and throwing serious punches along the way validates his candidacy further, more than her surrendering as soon as it becomes obvious she's lost. And he'll win anyway! Do the math.
(c) There is also the idea that now she can't come back and endorse Obama over McCain. I think that's ridiculous; how hard is it to strongly endorse Obama and add in a line like, "Yeah I know what I said during the campaign, but back in 1992, America had a choice between a motherfucking incumbent President with 12 years experience in the White House and a young Democratic governor... blah blah blah"? Seriously, this stuff writes itself.
(3) I see no reason to think that the Power resignation wasn't genuine; she's an academic who may turn into a political liability, so she'll disappear for a bit. What does Obama gain by "standing by her" and refusing to let Clinton "bully" him? This is such inside baseball stuff. Meanwhile in the real world Obama has an insurmountable lead, coming off His Worst Week Ever where he actually gained more delegates than Clinton.
I've never been shot at but I assume that if you aren't combat-trained, any person's reaction is essentially random.
715. Yeah, but I don't think PR in the early 60s were encouraged to say thet kind of stuff. Progress is real if they can now.
Really, who knows what you're thinking under those conditions? Which is dumber, climbing out into the line of fire or trying to collect bits of brain for future use? Different styles of panic is all.
719: Not quite random. The prophet Murphy informs us that everyone who has ever been shot yells, "Motherfucker." It seems reasonable to assume the same for people who are shot at. Someone should go back and look at the Zapruder film and watch Jackie's lips.
If I were 1960s PR, I think my line would be, "She was trying to get help from the nearest Secret Service agent," rather than bringing brain bits into the picture.
722. Wrong. I have been in a group of people who were shot at. It was only plastic bullets, but that wasn't clear at the time or in the context. You don't yell anything, you save you breath and run like hell. Once you reach cover, you yell "Motherfucker".
718: If Obama has an unsurmountable lead, all Clinton can do is damage his fall chances. I fail to see the upside of that from any pojt of view except Clinton's. However, I don't think that his lead is unsurmountable; for one thing, she can win Obama's superdelegates.
Whether or not Power's statement was over the line, and whether or not she's a liability (probably yes to both) and whether or not Obama should have stuck by Power just to make a point (probably not), Clinton completely snookered Obama, which is certainyl a bad sign for the general election. First, by a series of nasty attacks (the Starr thing, the McCain series) which Obama did not respond to, then turning the tables and claiming that Obama-Powers was the nasty one, and then by gloating afterward: "He did the right thing to fire Power, but I have nothing to apologize for."
In the past I've also objected to the joy Democrats seem to take in pissing off their core supporters. I actually think it has something to do with the 26-year history of losses in Congress (1980-2006) and the weakness of several Presidential candidates.
718 c: The film clips the Republicans use, oddly enough, won't cut to Clinton's later statements! I don't see the problem with the idea that a candidate for the Democratic nomination should not make statements supporting the Republican candidate.
I agree that this shows Obama's weakness, and, in a limited sense, Clinton's strength. Hopefully he'll rise to the occasion.
722: Yes, that would align with my family's well-practiced disaster plan: "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout". Although under the circumstances she could only 'crawl and shout'.
The overarching problem with the whole Warren Report is that almost the whole thing is clearly just PR. I don't say this because I am convinced there was a conspiracy (however, on the evidence I do think there was something else going on), but just that it seemed to be written to exonerate everyone official involved from even any hint of negligence much less malice (Secret Service, Dallas PD, the decision as the hospital etc.). So in the end you end up with this official story that is obviously BS in many details (even irrelevant ones), thus creating the conspiracy industry we know and love. (The "official" 9/11 narrative and Commission report suffer from the same problem.)
718: If a charge of inexperience actually sinks a 4-year Senator's campaign, then he has no business being nominated anyway.
But I think you are missing the essential aspect of most of the criticisms (of mine at least), it is okay to do everything she did up to (bit not including) the point where she elevated McCain over Obama. That is the bright line she crossed.
It is fine to say Obama is a shit, but you have to leave yourself room to describe McCain/any Republican to be described as a bigger shit.
"When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout"
I can't stop laughing at this. Maybe I'll run in circles.
728: it does imply that you have one son already well-schooled in crisis management.
I am just about to stand up from my desk, and shake the dust of this hellhole from my shoes. Private practice is over.
Yay, LB!!! Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty!
725: The film clips the Republicans use, oddly enough, won't cut to Clinton's later statements!
Of course, but I wouldn't be worried about voters who are swayed by what Hillary Clinton says via Republican attack ads.
Not that I agree with her statement or approach, mind you. I can't wait until she has to take a seat.
Of course, but I wouldn't be worried about voters who are swayed by what Hillary Clinton says via Republican attack ads.
Why not?
Barbar, why shouldn't Democrats worry about voters swayed by Republican attack ads? Those voters, I think, are often known as swing voters. And they tend to decide elections.
It is fine to say Obama is a shit, but you have to leave yourself room to describe McCain/any Republican to be described as a bigger shit.
Wouldn't the 1992 reference work?
Damn you, Sifu. That's so uncool. Especially the part about being more concise.
Swing voters who find Hillary credible as presented by McCain, but not Hillary credible as presented by Hillary (presumably once she officially loses she will actually back Obama, I'll admit she may possibly not)?
734: No. It's pretty hard to walk back saying that the Republican is the better CIC choice than the mathematically presumptive Democratic nominee. Moreover, despite what Gary Hart says, it really always has been considered just fine to savage opponents within one's party during a heated primary fight. But I can think of no modern case, and neither can people I've asked, in which a member of one party has said that a member of the other party passes the most basic threshold test to become president: CIC. That's a new one. Well, maybe Zell Miller. But he wasn't running for anything and was a discredited de facto Republican.
Ari, have you read the Trib article on HRC? The one that focuses on what she claims is her crisis management and foreign policy experience?
740: Yeah, I saw it. Devastating. As TPM has been saying, it's a very silly gambit for her, claiming to have foreign policy experience.
But hanging out with Sinbad is its own reward!
Damn, I was just trying to write a funny Sinbad comment, something about her ear for pop culture. But then I got hung up on what McCain must think constitutes popular culture: a trip to the nickelodeon parlor? A group mastodon hunt? A Golden Girls or Matlock marathon? I've got to be able to do better than that.
Totally taking the bait from 581: no, the US Attorney's scandal was quite obviously not the most alarming thing we needed to know about the Bush administration in 2007. Was it a legitimate scandal? Sure. Was it as important as torture, warrantless surveillance, military contractor fraud, or mass slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan? Fuck no. But TPM was never going to become Torture Journalism Central, because Josh Marshall has a particularly narrow and skewed set of priorities that make things like GOP corruption scandals and horserace reporting more interesting to him than really massive issues of democracy and empire.
Oh my lord, you guys, the Flophouse article in the NY Times Sunday Styles section.
727- JP is right on here. The Clintons have a scheme to make Obama look too weak and inexperienced to take on McCain, then they would go to the super delegates with a proposal of a Clinton/Obama ticket.
All of the sudden it would be Obama who'd be expected to sacrifice to support the party. It's a crazy long shot, but they rightfully feel it's the only shot they have. They really are monsters (see how I apply that to both Clintons to avoid sexist charges! Smart, huh?)
746: That the flophouse exists, with all of those people living in it, kind of makes me weep for the public sphere. Even though I admire every single person who resides there. Still, it just freaks me out that they're all living under one roof.
Wow.
Of course, someone recently moved out of the flophouse, diminishing its greatness.
I really do wonder what the effect of an NYTimes link will be on Unfogged this weekend, server-wise, commenter-wise. Hmm!
[Hi Mom!]
745 is good. But I think this is a richer vein than our efforts suggest.
I really do wonder what the effect of an NYTimes link will be on Unfogged this weekend, server-wise, commenter-wise. Hmm!
I'm on the case.
753: You've got anti-hoi polloi provisions in place? Awesome. Is there going to be boiling oil flowing? Will someone by scalded?
744: Was it as important as torture, warrantless surveillance, military contractor fraud, or mass slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan?
All of which are abuses of power and specific violations of the rule of law. Exercise to connect that to the political goals and realities (and appreciation of the lack of coverage in other media outlets) of the US Attorney's scandal left as an exercise for the reader.
751: Going to the fountain at the pharmacy for a strawberry phosphate? Eh.
746:Good effing grief, I must clean up my language
blogs for Unfogged.com, which focuses on politics, philosophy and culture
We need more fucking cockjoke threads.
757: We need more fucking cockjoke threads.
What part of 'philosophy' don't you understand?
704: (Compare Europe on either count: a lot of the civil liberties Bush is threatening are already gone in Europe.)
This is a puzzler. Which specific liberties do you have in mind?
On immigration, America and Europe seem actually quite comparable in attitudes. European hostility to "Muslim" immigrants (really hostility to Turks and especially to Africans) is the mirror-image of American hysterias about Mexicans. The only difference is that it's comparatively speaking Europe's first real modern experience with non-European immigrants on a large scale.
733: Those voters, I think, are often known as swing voters. And they tend Diebold tends to decide elections.
(Still a radioactive subject that nobody seems to want to discuss. Democrats are running out of time to start taking it seriously and get active about it...)
stras, that's silly. Different reporters cover different things, & the U.S. Attorney scandal was a pretty big deal--revealed several wrongful prosecutions, got Gonzales out of office, etc. I'm annoyed about the Democrats in Congress focusing on it to the exclusion of torture, etc., but specialization in reporting is a good & legitimate thing.
(Still a radioactive subject that nobody seems to want to discuss. Democrats are running out of time to start taking it seriously and get active about it...)
Herrdoktorslack, I think this is a race Diebold has lost -- state Secretaries of State have finally cottoned onto the huge and glaring problems with the current realm of ATM-manufacturer-built e-voting machines. I've never viewed this as a wholly or even mostly partisan problem (Maryland's experiences while I was living there convinced me of this) -- it's an ass-covering problem, combined with the fact that nobody on SoS staffs ever needed to know about computer security problems. The bad experiences -- lost and irrecoverable votes, more in at least one case than the margin of victory -- people are having, combined with the fact that reporters finally started treating the coalition of activists and computer security experts who have been screaming about the problems for the past ten years as something other than weirdo Media Whores Online types, are starting to make a difference. And as is the case here in Ohio, you're starting to see people get elected (Jennifer Brunner replacing the odious Republican machine hack Ken Blackwell) who are under no obligation to protect their predecessors from having wasted tens of millions of dollars on insecure machines.
That article is crazy! I know those people from a party I went to once.
760: Like I said, it was a legitimate scandal, but I think disproportionate time and energy was focused on it that could have and should have been spent elsewhere. And getting Gonzales out of office doesn't appear to have helped any.
My real worry is that there's a reluctance on the part of elected Democrats - and on the part of more partisan and less ideological bloggers like Marshall - to press torture, war crimes, abuses of executive power, etc., because they're afraid these issues could blow back on Democrats, either because of what past Dem administrations have done, or because of what future Dem administrations might want to do. To the extent that the Democratic Party's priorities over the last year and a half with regard to oversight and investigation reflect its priorities in the future, the country and the world are fucked.
Muckraker's pretty good on this stuff. I have that worry about elected Dems, but Marshall's just more of a domestic politics guy; I don't think he's deliberately pulling his punches.
Someone should tell Armsmasher to quit smoker, or at least not to get descriptions of himself smoking into the New York Times.
Oh man. Becks, I hope you're not counting on remaining pseudonymous.
I was kidding when I said that Rove should be impaled and his body fed to starving hogs. Also, I don't have any hogs, and they're all very well fed and not starving, and vegetarian too.
Smoking, smoking, not smoker. He should feel encouraged to use his smoker frequently, whether it gets feature in the Times or no.
Ditt0 766.
Becks, the online handle for the fourth roommate, blogs for Unfogged.com
Unfogged.com? What is this, 1999?
759. British racism is currently focussed on the Poles. Make of it what you will.
Also, I'd just like to register my unhappiness that once again the fucking Fashion & Style section is focusing on unattainable lifestyles enjoyed only by a privileged few.
I think we might need a new thread to replace this one. It could get kind of creaky--especially if people start clicking over from the NYTimes.
Hahahaholyshit, that article is so insane.
I'd like to take this opportunity to reject and denounce the support of anyone everyone who posts who has ever posted anything objectionable at this site.
Jesus, it is hilarious, that what with the weekly kvetching about the NYT Style section on this here blog, that there should be a feature about the flophouse, if anything the iconic home of Unfogged, in it. It's just too delicious.
If there's lots of spare baked goods, pass them around, will you.
I plan to put up a "dear ny times people, please go away" post, but I'm torn: should it be as simple as that sentence, or should I try to make it as long and tortuous as possible?
761: Hopefully you're right. The ass-covering explanation seems right, but of course does not rule out partisan corruption. (That irregularities turned up and records disappeared in Ohio in '04, where a Republican SoS had approved voting machines from a Republican campaign contributor and publicly promised to deliver the votes to the Republican candidate, is surely not coincidence.) It may be that the media is taking this more seriously -- I don't see much in the way of profile for it, given the importance of the issue -- but I find it hard to believe that Republican SoS's won't be sorely tempted to engage in shenanigans in 2008, and it would be nice to see some motivation from the netroots on the issue. Some pretty important swing states have Republican Secretaries... like Florida.
771: Ah yes, the Polish plumber phenomenon, right?
Sweet Jesus. The Style section. Every other time somebody or something I'm familiar with it's been bad news.
At least it wasn't a Modern Love about the flophouse.
"Becks denies that she took her handle from the fine German beer, but no one believes her. Her previous nicknames were 'St. Pauli Girl' and 'Baltika #9'.
778: clearly you should write a Modern Love post.
I think that if there should be a real inflow of NYT people, we should try to ressurrect the Being and Time book group for a day or so. Speaking of which, I recently realised (to my shame, I'd never really followed up on this stuff) the extent to which Heidegger was an enthusiastic Naxi. I, uh, haven't really thought through how I feel about knowing about that.
778: Maybe just post one of your mixes.
I plan to put up a "dear ny times people, please go away" post, but I'm torn: should it be as simple as that sentence, or should I try to make it as long and tortuous as possible?
Can you do it in the style of a Modern Love column? They seem to find those compelling.
Next, Modern Love: "I thought making cock jokes about obscure literary figures was innocent enough, but a commenter showed me how serious literature (and cock) can be."
778: Cross-post something from waste.
783: yeah, funny that. But hey, maybe they can ruin snappy black uniforms for the rest of us, but we can take Heidegger back!
Dammit, double pwned.
should it be as simple as that sentence, or should I try to make it as long and tortuous as possible?
This is rhetorical, right?
Do not click on this link unless you (a) got here by clicking the link on nytimes.com, and (b) are at work.
No, I'm completely, completely serious. This link is for newly arrived nytimes visitors only. Anybody else who clicks on it deserves what they get.
Or maybe a thread about the character flaws of people who read the NYT Styles section.
778: If your normal posts aren't you "try[ing] to make it as long and tortuous as possible", I shudder to think what you can achieve if you put your mind to it.
783: The thing with Heidegger is to keep a particularly jaundiced eye on all the "dwelling" stuff.
793: I'm not saying they aren't, just that I can also be direct.
Next step: Unfogged, the HBO series. It could be like The Wire, but without the drama and black people.
791.---What has he done to his penis?
JM: He has transformed it into a gourd of some sort.
We could borrow The Valve's totem for a day.
783: Speaking of which, I recently realised the extent to which Heidegger was an enthusiastic Naxi
If you just came over via the Times, this illustration of some of the subtleties of the concept of "being" is the kind of sophisticated philosophical wordplay often in evidence at Unfogged.
Is that a nudibranch? a mollusk? an elephant penis?
the long and tortuous post would be a polite thing to do
but really, it's so exciting, these famous people blog here and may be read my comments too, how strange
Jesus, Ben. Post the fucking thing already.
802: you don't know the mighty geoduck?
I definitely think the NYT post needs some kind of horrible image below-the-fold. Or maybe just a link to this.
Okay, definitely a link to that.
Is that a nudibranch? a mollusk? an elephant penis?
Geoduck, JM.
I'm still writing the introduction in the style of Polus, JP. This shit takes time. You're just lucky I decided not to make it a lipogram (guaranteed to increase the tortuousness of your syntax at least 100%!) else it would never be up in time.
We could just repost the picture of Labs' colon.
802: What kind of ugly nudibranchs are you looking at, JM? They're the adorable, pettable-looking creatures of the not-too-deep!
They're like if slugs came in dayglo!
795:
1. If short, it might be best to be polite and suggest the concern is for the server capacity. If long, you might fill the front page with such long tortuous prose and get commenters to leave comments in the same style there. Don't be fascinating, though.
2. I assume the principals had notice and have already addressed any relevant issues. In any case, it might not make sense to point out potential problems in comments; email might work better.
3. Like MC, I denounce all commenters here, and all who may comment here in the future, including myself. Love me, Mr. G-man.
4. It seems unlikely, but if this comment is indiscreet, delete it.
"Geoduck" is pronounced "gooeyduck"? That could not be less intuitive.
I love that Tim has shifted into crisis management mode. I imagine him speaking 814 in an urgent monotone.
810: I'm still writing the introduction in the style of Polus, JP.
Okay, as long as there are some cock jokes in Ancient Greek. Or should those be in the comments?
You know I posted two greek-based puns at waste, JP; where was the appreciation then?
That could not be less intuitive.
It could be pronounced 'Chumley'.
I decided not to make it a lipogram
Too bad. Pardon my misogynistic phrasing, but if only you had nuts, you could lay claim to a truly virtuoso blog post. What a lost opportunity.
I figure there should be nudibranchs that look like giant penises.
Off (either) Topic: Am in Chicago for my grandmother's funeral. Her passing was as sweet as passing can be; age of 92-to-95, surrounded by family, very little pain or evident consciousness. (She did wait until an hour after I got off the plane and saw her to die, which suggests some form of consciousness.)
Her hospice care provided a "music thanatologist": a harpist who came to sit with her and played in rhythm to her breathing. My mother sat beside her and aligned her breathing with her mother's while the m.t. played, and said it was unlike any other experience she'd ever had of music.
If long, you might fill the front page with such long tortuous prose and get commenters to leave comments in the same style there.
That would delight me, though.
the principals had notice
Actually, Becks, the wench, warned us something would be happening and then fled to Costa Rica. And me with my only post on the front page about dragons. I was going to write something heartfelt about leaving private practice, but I think I'll save it for a week or so.
Fuck, that article was horrible. Celebrities have nice lives and can shrug that shit off, but we have the worst of both worlds. We're dorks AND have to get written up cutesy by the Style section. Obscurity, please.
I'm available for an interview on a heartland perspective on the real shit about Unfogged.
I do believe we may have our first nytimes commenter in the other thread.
i'm gonna have to step up my commenting game for the NY Times people
829:
In a Wobegon cafe that smelled richly of pine and slightly of axle grease, writer John Emerson, who would not give his age but said he was "long of tooth," offered a take on the Flophouse that might be common to these parts: "It doesn't look right. All those computers and not enough meat. I think they're gay and they like Obama."
I'm really on tenterhooks wating for Ben to weave together insanely refined pedantry, truly frightening linguistic sophistry, and either coprophagia or necrophilia porn. Anything less will be both a great letdown and a huge wasted opportunity. The stage is set, w-lfs-n, claim fame as your bitch. Now, man. Now!
835: you need a comment massage. That'll get the, uh, words flowing.
"Commenting with a happy ending!"
I decided not to make it a lipogram
Can't you just write a regular post, and then take out all the 'g's or something?
830: Where, the McCain thread? I hope you don't mean Ilana. That's just my new pseud. Speaking of which (OT -- as if there's a T anymore), does anybody know a brief sketch, Steve Martin I think, in which he comedian says something like, "Actually I'm a ski instructor from Sweden named Gjern Bleh." This has been bugging me for days. Mostly because I can't think of the actual name used for the ski instructor.
Don't dismiss the possibility that the McCain image is already keeping people away. It's like keeping a pit bull in your front yard.
i'm too anxious
i live on the fourth floor and this roof leaks
horrible sounds of water drops in the corridor
very distracting and anxiety inducing
don't know whether i should call their office and tell them or should wait until monday or rain'd stop
I am very short on the tooth, especially the uppers.
839: The McCain sign we have up scares away the neighborhood pitbulls.
damn it this is my chance to get noticed and move up to the internet-commenting big leagues and i'm choking
i've dreamed of this day for so long and it's all going wrong
Try performance-enhancing drugs. Like a good book, a well-prepared lunch, and a glass of wine.
843: Or, you know, someone could post something on Bush's decision to veto a bill banning torture. But that's probably too on the nose. Maybe marry that post to something about dragons? That might do the trick.
762. That article is crazy! I know those people from a party I went to once.
763. Like I said, it was a legitimate scandal
Heh. I thought that NYT article was still in progress. Overall, it isn't as bad as I feared. But I had awesome fears.
822: Condolences and peace, wrongshore. It sounds like as good a death as one could hope for. Hospice is an amazing thing.
843: The time is now, felix. Reinvent yourself as a wizard riding a unicorn down a rainbow in space. You can do it!
(Also, condolences and best wishes to Wrongshore.)
779. Polish worker's have quite the rep in Britain. Latest: Sicko's Sex With A Henry Hoover
Thanks, guys. Grandma, on me going out to march at the '96 Democratic Convention: "Someone's gotta tell 'em." Also, she did a wicked Michael Jackson dance, after that long video with the car-smashing came out. Black & White?
I don't know how I missed 822. Condolences. And thanks for sharing that scene, which sounds like a as good a death as I can imagine. Still, I'm very sorry for your loss.
Condolences, Wrongshore. It's sad.
Also: the juxtaposition of comments 850 and 851 seem to be as fitting an introduction to Unfogged as any Times reader could want. I think Felix can relax now. Because he's been scooped.
Commenting has slowed down. Everyone's flushing their stash, I guess.
852: In that guy's defense, Henry is clearly tricked out like a whore.
Ashley Parker, author of the article?
my condolences, Wrongshore, um mani badmi khum
my father's side grandma were a very strict person, she lived until her 97, never ate after 3pm
she widowed young when she was 37, all her 5 children went to the university thanks to her determination may be
i remember once she whipped me with her rosary, just one time, coz i said something wrong
it was very painful
lo siento, wrongshore. I will be in a similar position sooner rather than later, and I dread the day.
861: The Ashley Parker who wrote the article discussed this in an article, "Hey, Pop Idol, Surrender My Name!" last year.
In 2006 she was described as a researcher for Maureen Dowd at the end of one article.
Wrongshore, I'm sorry for your loss.
But still, Barnsley 1-0 Chelsea! Woo! Or is this not the thread for woo? Fuck.
Condolences, Wrongshore. Nice that you were able to see her before she died.
859. Henry 's colors are bright. And he's smiling! But what about the pavement in the "related story". I can't believe that an innocent roadway did anything to invite that teenager's assault.
Ari, I hope you find my efforts pleasing.
867: I assume this is an in progress score, fm? I am not finding any mention of that result (see P'mouth over Man U), but not that shocker.
Oops I see it now. Woo! is right. An illustration of why the FA Cup rules and why the structure of American sports leagues and championships suck.
Condolences, though it sounds about as graceful a passing as any of us could expect.
854: your grandma sounds cool, Wrongshore.
701
"666: What were her options, then? Fail to believe him and run to the nearest reporter herself? How uttterly bizarre."
She had lots of options. She could have avoided publically committing herself as to whether she believed him. She could have tried to convince Bill to come clean. Or she could actively participate in Bill's attempted coverup.
Hillary Clinton has been trying to have it both ways. She wants to claim she was an involved and important part of Bill's adminstration (giving her valuable experience for own Presidency) except for things like this where all of a sudden she is just the dutiful wife automatically backing her husband but not personally involved.
Condolences, indeed, Wrongshore. And i'll third or fourth that it does sound like a good way to go.
Fuck you fucking people. Can't a woman sleep in on a Saturday without falling hopelessly behind while six or seven good comments render themselves irrelevant?
772 made me totally guffaw. PK asked what I was laughing at. I told him that if I told him, it wouldn't sound funny. "Aw, please?" he said. So okay, fine, I read him the comment.
"That's so unfunny it's almost a little bit funny," he said.
I think the kid's ready to start commenting at Unfogged. Don't you?
(Condolences to Wrongshore; may we all have such a peaceful death.)
Also, I really hope that Mrs. Shearer has been duly notified that, should there ever be a conflict between her husband's ambition and his loyalty to her, she can count on her husband to throw her to the wolves.
I hope you're listening, w-lfs-n: well done. I'm duly impressed and will spread word of your greatness.
Now, on to other business: the Times article really is horrid. The author should be ashamed. Because there were actual issues of interest about which she could have written. Including, but not limited to, the question of what it means that so many very high-profile critics/journalists live in one place and/or are such good friends. Whole books, some quite good, have been written about such intellectual communities. But nothing at all here on the subject. The Times really does suck.
Finally, Obama wins Wyoming by a huge margin. I know that there can be no thread, for fear that Times readers might try to participate (shudder). But can we please talk about it here? Please? If not, I understand.
Hasn't Clinton already explained that Wyoming is a boutique state?
The Times really does suck.
Well, yes. I have empathy for the individual writers--blah blah deadlines, blah blah standards will let you get away with lazy-ass stuff, blah blah--but the editorial policy is teh totally lame. Almost any of us here present could have written a better article.
Come on though, the fact that Obama could pick up almost as many net delegates by winning Wyoming as Hilary did winning Ohio (20+ times the population) shows how ridiculous these nomination rules are.
the fact that Obama could pick up almost as many net delegates by winning Wyoming as Hilary did winning Ohio (20+ times the population) shows how ridiculous Hillary's claim to still be in it is.
I'm not criticizing him, I love how beautifully he's played this. He's smarter, more subtle than Hillary. She wants to plow through every barrier but he figures out ways to manipulate his way around them.
883, 884: It's not an either or. The rules are absurd; her claim still to be in it is absurd. Comity restored.
886: different asburder-gories, though.
887: You're just spoiling for a fight, huh? But I'm not fighting with Santa. No way. You can't make me. I'll get coal in my stocking.
888: I'll get coal in my stocking.
888: SANTA DESTROYS CONSCIOUSNESS.
Goddamit. SRSLY. What the hell happened?
889: Alive and well, B. At least it was until 892 scared everyone away.
FUCK. Okay, never mind, then.
FUCK YOU, WORDPRESS.
Wordpress has been sucking lately. More than usual, that is.
"You must be logged in to do that."
20+ times the population
On the other hand, Wyoming has nearly twice as many letters as Ohio, so.
You guys are awake! Go read 355 on the NYT thread for breaking news.
Just wait for Mississippi!
Yes, but Ohio uses three letters to fill four spaces, while Mississippi uses four letters to fill eleven spaces. The implications for the general are obvious.
SURRENDER, DHIMMICRATS! NONE CAN DEFEAT THE STAR-CHILD!
I love that video.
He means the Churchill quote literally. If John McCain becomes president, there will be house-to-house fighting against foreign enemies in American cities, and a slow retreat from the beaches into the hills. If the Islamofascists can't give him what he wants, he'll start a war with the Chinese.
this is his solemn promise to you, the voter
The shots of stars and galaxies are his way of saying: yes I will destroy the world, I've always been straight with you about that, but what is one little world in the eye of eternity? From stardust we came and to stardust I will return us. Vote McCain in '08.
Kalo asmi loka kshaya pravriddha lokan samahartum iha pravrttah.
908: What in the hell was that? What is "Man in the Arena" even supposed to mean? [Google pause.] I see that it's a Teddy Roosevelt speech. Like anyone's going to have any freaking idea.
I hope we will see much more incoherence from McC.
879
"Also, I really hope that Mrs. Shearer has been duly notified that, should there ever be a conflict between her husband's ambition and his loyalty to her, she can count on her husband to throw her to the wolves."
I am not running for President. The President is expected to place the interest of the nation above loyalty to friends and associates. If, as President, Hillary Clinton continued to put loyalty to her husband above her duty to the nation this would not be good particularly given Bill's proven ability to get into trouble.
