[I’d vowed I was going to take this “Real Time” hiatus week off of politics. Well, at least I’ll skip “funny” for now…]
I was telling some friends today that I’d heard some suddenly-disenchanted 20-somethings muttering about voting for McCain if Hillary Clinton won the nomination by what they consider dirty tactics. One response: “Actually, I’m almost 37.”
To that, you can add this, an interesting screed from my Republican friend from New York, Robert George, who has some fascinating (if ragged) thoughts about the race and the races. I don’t think this points to a strategy for Obama so much as a warning for all Democrats: Record turnouts in the primary will not necessarily be there for you in November.
I think this all really points to a need for a moratorium on the “Hey, the general election’s gonna be even tougher!” argument that is favored by Hillary’s surrogates these days (I’ve heard some Obama fans making similar arguments, and they really, really should hope nobody’s listening). It is a startlingly similar excuse to the classic one that you hear coming out of violent, abusive families.
And yes, such families DO toughen people up (parents, children, and pets alike), but they do not prepare its members to do anything positive in the world. And the family itself is destroyed by it. So if the Democratic party means anything, the “Hey, it’s rough out there!” excuse has got to go away right now.*
[*This is all explained in the seminal parenting manual, “You Think This (whack!) is Bad? (whack!) You Think This is Bad? (whack!) Just Wait ’til You Get Out There in the Real World! (whackitty whackitty whack!!),” University of Trenton Press, 1954. Thank you all for your parenting book advice, but I’m sticking with the classics.]
—
I recently re-read David Foster Wallace’s account of John McCain’s 2000 campaign, “Up, Simba!” (which you can find in “Consider the Lobster“). What jumps out at you is how similar that race was to this year’s Democratic race; the “movement,” insurgent candidate vs. the hand-picked party machine candidate. Bush, the machine candidate had of course been a prohibitive frontrunner, but in name only. Once the voting got underway, he found himself behind in delegates and momentum…
Bush’s tactic, back in 2000, was to drag McCain into a muddy political gutter-fight. Not so much because it tarred McCain, but because the fight itself dampened enthusiasm in general, and dampened enthusiasm favors the choice of the (usually older) party faithful. It worked, of course. And of course that sort of thing can work for Republicans in the general election as well. For Democrats… not so much.
The old, tired, “Hell, slapping ‘em around only makes ‘em stronger!” argument might be true, but in politics it’s not about “‘em.” It’s about “us.” And “we” are coming apart.
Fanny Roborat
54 comments
sharon
March 11, 2008 at 3:06 pm
1The Dems are already a dysfunctional family, Bless Their Hearts(tm). I’m willing to pull the lever… er …. fill in the little oval … for them one more time, but if they don’t stop this sibling squabbling Right Now, I fear that November is going to send them into the corner for another 4-year timeout.
siobhan
March 11, 2008 at 5:59 pm
2For some reason, the “I’m not gonna vote if s/he is the nominee!” crowd can’t cope with some less-than-wonderful campaign move, but they are not the least bit troubled by the thought of Justices John Yoo and David Addington.
Go figure.
Harold
March 11, 2008 at 7:18 pm
3Just came back from meeting (and getting my photo taken with) Chelsea Clinton in Scranton this afternoon. (Posted on my site.) I saw Hillary yesterday. Still no sign of Barack locally, and the upcoming events he has scheduled look like they’re all invitation-only.
I don’t agree with your take on this, Adam. I don’t see Barack as a David to Hillary as a Goliath. Just a week or so ago, wasn’t Hillary considered on the ropes and on the way out?
I also don’t agree with the people who are threatening to go nuclear - “If the nominee is Hillary, I’ll vote for McCain, or not at all.” Can they really be that stupid? Wait…let me look at the 2004 election results. Yes. Yes, they can. A lot of people chose to vote for Bush. And a lot decided not to vote at all. And look where they brought us.
But maybe the Bush vs. McCain comparison isn’t that far off. Bush had the evil and soulless Karl Rove undermining McCain at every turn with every dirty trick in his book. Each time I see some new dirty stunt pulled that hurts either of the prospective Democratic nomnees, I have to wonder: what’s Karl Rove up to these days? After all, who benefits the most from the bad blood between the two potential Democratic candidates - or potential running mates?
So assuming we all get through this to the Convention in one piece, the question will be: Can Barack swallow his pride and say, “Yes, I will be your running mate”? Can Hillary?
Be friends, you English fools, be friends: we have French quarrels enow, if you could tell how to reckon. - Henry V, Act 4, Scene 1
tim
March 11, 2008 at 8:33 pm
4I can’t vote for McCain, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. He’s just yet another stooge for the Military-Industrial complex, despite the fact that it cost him five years in the Hanoi Hilton. Hillary will at least ask a few questions before pulling out the rubber stamp, and, I hope (there’s that word again), Obama will actually re-evaluate the whole enterprise. Hell, Obama might even get the Pentagon to pass their accounting audits. What a concept!
David
March 11, 2008 at 8:41 pm
5I am generally of two minds on this one (or maybe the inverse…). What I dislike most is that we cannot afford to be a house divided in the general election. Thus once the nominee is determined, if either candidate fails to offer the vice-presidency to the other, or either refuses to accept the offer from the other, I will be hard pressed to forgive either one of them. The nation desperately needs a Democrat in the White House, period. And by no stretch of the imagination is John McCain a good idea as president, so I can only conclude that anyone who would vote for McCain over Hillary out of spite does not understand either American electoral politics, how government actually works, or larger reality in general. And if I knew the person who said that to you, I would be happy to lay an adult awareness of the past 48 years of this grand experiment on said person.
What I think most needs to happen is for Obama to “make lemonade” and to win Pennsylvania and the nomination. He needs to be focused on maintaining his lead over McCain, and to stay on a high road offensive. His team needs to purge itself of animosity toward the Clinton campaign, both for their own well being and because that animosity bleeds over into the public arena and feeds this story line we don’t need.
Excellent choice of quote, Harold.
Chris Harlan
March 11, 2008 at 10:11 pm
6Oh gee, Adam. I’m not sure the battling dysfunction family is quite appropriate as a metaphor, though arguing against it makes me feel dirty and like I have something to hide–I don’t! I swear I don’t–but I think Democrats are far too disassociated to be a family; we’re more a large gathering of small tribes. One of our problems, and one of the beautiful things about us, is that we don’t blend so well. The one thing I’m grateful to George Bush for, is that he really is the Great Uniter, and I have ever confidence that J. Sidney will continue in his train.
What do you do about somebody who is on the cusp between Obama and McCain? Its a puzzler. Ask them if you can help them find their meds? Point them toward a literacy class? Politely ask them if they are ditto head trolls?
I don’t know. I hate to say it, but McCain’s playbook is certainly no cleaner the Hillary’s, so the only thing I can see is a little touch of misogyny.
Wow, Hillary and misogyny rhyme–they were made for each other!
Chris Harlan
March 11, 2008 at 11:36 pm
7PS. I blame the above on having the flu.
etbnc
March 12, 2008 at 6:37 am
8“It’s no accident that our political beliefs are structured by our idealizations of the family.”
(from the book, Thinking Points, Chapter 4)
I’ve found a lot to value in the progressive work of the folks at the Rockridge Institute. Rockridge is working on ways of seeing and thinking about politics that I find helpful to get past some of the counterproductive habits we’ve developed in our political culture.
(The book, Thinking Points, is available there in PDF form there.)
Since I don’t want this to get filtered because of links, I’ll offer just one as a starting point: RockridgeNation.org
Now it’s back to lurking for me ….
Cheers
Adam Felber
March 12, 2008 at 9:18 am
9Etbnc - That’s exactly what I was thinking of - I recently read Lakoff’s “Don’t Think of an Elephant.” And while I’m not convinced that his suggested new frames are the best we can do, his mode of thinking is very, very important.
Harold: I don’t think we disagree about Hillary and Obama: The David and Goliath metaphor just isn’t one I’d use. It’s more like the insider, “”machine” candidate against the insurgent. Hillary was, like Bush in 2000, the anointed frontrunner before a vote had been cast. Obama and McCain both emerged as outsider-fueled “movement” candidates, forcing Bush (and now Hillary) to fight voter enthusiasm with cold water.
Adam Felber
March 12, 2008 at 10:03 am
10David and Chris - I don’t think voters work the way you want them to. You can’t dismiss anyone who would vote for a Republican in 2008 as stupid. Or misogynist. Much as you (and I) might want to. Something else is going on.
“I can only conclude that anyone who would vote for McCain over Hillary out of spite does not understand either American electoral politics, how government actually works, or larger reality in general. And if I knew the person who said that to you…”
I can tell you something about this person: Your conclusions about him are wrong. I know him well enough to know that he understands electoral politics, how government works, and larger reality.
So what’s happening here? One clue is your assumption that such a vote would be “out of spite.” It’s a reasonable assumption, if looked at one way. But it’s also a mistaken one.
“Ask them if you can help them find their meds? Point them toward a literacy class? Politely ask them if they are ditto head trolls?”
Again, the person who said this is not “off meds” or illiterate or a conservative. Liberal, in fact, and professionally literate.
So what’s going on here?
It comes back to a point ably made by George Lakoff, whom etbnc and I mentioned above. Voters are emotional. Elections are won on things like “values,” which are a combination of our perceptions of a candidate’s “worth” and the way he or she projects his or her system of ethics, and THEN (lastly, least importantly) on actual policies and proposals.
Democrats can mock “family values,” but they ignore “values” at their peril. We’ve managed to screw up a few recent elections by missing this point.
I don’t really think my friend, and thousands like him, are necessarily McCain voters. I do think that this campaign has rendered them less likely to vote and to urge other people to vote. Which is the point I tried to hammer home above.
I don’t know. I hate to say it, but McCain’s playbook is certainly no cleaner the Hillary’s, so the only thing I can see is a little touch of misogyny.
McCain’s campaign WILL be dirty, but he has escaped being seen as using dirty tactics against members of his own party. This matters.
I think if McCain had implied Romney or Huckabee were less qualified for the presidency than Hillary Clinton, he would’ve come under the same ire that Gary Hart and Nancy Pelosi are unleashing on Clinton right now. And rightly so.
—-
Again, I’ll bet that my friend (and the 20-somethings I referred to above, who are not fictional either) won’t end up voting for McCain. But their wavering means something, and that something isn’t “They’re stupid, illiterate, uneducated, unrealistic, medication-needing, misogynist ditto-head trolls.”
Earth is being scorched. And a related and important issue is that one of the casualties of the Clinton campaign’s tactics right now is Hillary Clinton.
The only Democrat who has taken the White House in the last 30+ years did so by being The Kind Of Person We Want as President. That’s how Hillary was running at first too, reversing the deadly “I’m the person with better policies” campaigns of the past 8 years.
But when she ran into the Obama roadblock, things changed. And now she’s fighting in a way that will cripple the Democrats should she win the nomination:
Experience. Military preparedness. The 3AM call. WHO WOULD YOU CHOOSE!?
McCain, most voters would say.
Let’s remember: Hillary Clinton has held elected office for all of 7 years. Less than a term and a half. Her military experience is “none.” She spent eight years as the President’s spouse, but that’s a job that requires no oath of office and confers no official responsibility.
McCain’s military experience… well, we’re all aware of that. And he’s served in Congress for 25 years.
Hillary Clinton will not be able to make the case that she is more experienced, more militarily competent, nor a better defender of America than McCain. The tragic mistake is assert that these are the ground-rules for choosing a President.
So unless Hillary can take back her entire campaign against Obama, just about every major point she’s hitting on the trail these days hurts her. In order to beat Obama, she’s framing the discussion in a way that vastly favors a Republican candidate, and this particular Republican to boot.
AND she’s picking up a reputation for being “dishonorable,” something that won’t stick to “POW” McCain no matter how dirty he gets.
—
We can talk about Supreme Court appointments and health care until our lungs collapse. They won’t make any difference at all if we go into the general election in this manner. We Democrats need to drop the idea that the right set of policies is (or even should be) enough to sway the population and win the election.
Not everyone who doesn’t think like us “a Democrat at all costs,” policy-obsessed progressives is stupid. They look at politics a little differently, and if we want to win, we have to understand that. Heaping contempt on them is not going to get us there.
etbnc
March 12, 2008 at 10:09 am
11I’m glad you found value in the book, Adam. What I like about Rockridgenation.org is that the process of figuring out new, effective approaches is interactive and ongoing there.
Cheers
Dave von Ebers
March 12, 2008 at 11:00 am
12Hmmm.
Adam, I’m really stuck here. I don’t quite agree that policy issues are unimportant or should be given less emphasis. I don’t necessarily agree that Bill Clinton won the presidency by being “The Kind of Person We Want in the White House.” Actually, Bill Clinton’s campaign was far more issues-driven than values-driven. I think Bill’s success was largely due to his ability to stay on message at all times; to completely ignore the static coming from the right; and to remain focused on the issues that mattered to the public — at that time, of course, being primarily the economy. I remember the guy saying, over and over and over, stuff like “more people are working harder than ever, for less wages, than ever before …” And that stuff resonated with the American public.
On the other hand, you had WWII Vet and all-around “nice guy” George HW Bush, who’d successfully defeated evil Saddam Hussein (formerly our friend — ooops!) in, what, 90 days, in what might have been the most popular war in our lifetime … A guy who oozed “values” (on the surface, at any rate) … who lost to “womanizing, draft-dodging, pot-smoking” Bill Clinton, largely because Bush 41 didn’t know that they scanned groceries at the check-out lane at your local grocery store.
And let’s not forget that the Republican’s “values” strategy very nearly cost them the elections in 2000 and 2004. Gore in fact won the popular vote in 2000 preaching issues over wishy-washy “values” (the only arrow in GWB’s quiver); and Kerry nearly defeated Bush in 2004 — which would have been the only time in U.S. history that an incumbent president lost a bid for reelection during wartime. Yes, we lost (or, “lost”) those elections, but I’m not sure you can simply jettison policy and be effective as a Democrat.
In my view, Kerry (in particular) lost the election in 2004 precisely because he was more interested in image than policy. As soon as he stood up at the Democratic convention and said “John F. Kerry, reporting for duty!” with all the flag waving and militaristic nonsense, he became an easy mark for the Republicans. And he spent the rest of the campaign defending his war record, defending his “character” and responding to right-wing attacks. By contrast, Bill Clinton was all about the message; and he couldn’t be bothered by the stupid right-wing attacks on his character. As Roger Ailes (the bad Roger Ailes) once said, “man, the guy can take a punch.”
In the end, I wholeheartedly agree that values matter — but by that I mean our values: Protecting the environment because it’s the right thing to do; ending the war in Iraq because it’s the right thing to do; restoring habeas corpus because it’s the right thing to do; honoring treaty obligations and outlawing torture because it’s the right thing to do; providing universal healthcare because it’s the right thing to do … “Family values” are great — hey, I’m the youngest of 11 kids; I think I know a little bit about “family.” But we liberals also have community values, and those matter too!
For us, values and policy go hand in hand; they are not mutually exclusive. Let the other guys claim to be Christian, or to have “values,” while the preach hate, agitate for wars of choice, rape the environment, despoil the federal treasury, engage in torture, deny gays and lesbians fundamental civil liberties, demonize Arabs and Muslims … We need to stand firm in our beliefs, because our beliefs are morally right.
I think, in the end, we’re right on policy issues, and the public seems to agree with us. Sure, we can’t ignore the fact that “character” matters — or, what passes for “character” in the eyes of the voters — but I don’t think we can win without staying on message.
Having said that, your last comment about not heaping contempt on those who don’t think like us is absolutely correct. I’m just saying whoever wins the nomination has to have the courage of his or her (or, “her or his,” if you prefer) convictions, or the public will see right through him. Or her.
(Of course, after reading this over, it’s obvious to me why I’ll never run for office!)
waterfowler
March 12, 2008 at 12:19 pm
13This is all fascinating to watch from over here. Of all of the wing-nuts I could choose from, McCain was last on my list. But, come Nov., I’ll be voting for our repub. lib.
DavevE, I do take offense. “hate, rape, torture, demonize…” not me, and I’m about as far right as you can get.
Meanwhile, back in East Tree Stump… the bluebonnets are in full bloom.
Adam Felber
March 12, 2008 at 12:23 pm
14I don’t quite agree that policy issues are unimportant or should be given less emphasis.
Neither do I, David. So I guess neither of us agree with me?
Seriously, what I’m saying is that to win elections, policy should be expressed as a function of values, not vice versa. And I’m not extolling “family values,” but the real values you mention.
But I do disagree about Bill Clinton. His substance was great, but it was his extremely personable and empathetic nature that led the voters to appreciate his substance. That thing that he projected justified and personified all the values you list above, and that thing was a consistent way of conducting himself that said “I care” as loudly as he ever literally said “I feel your pain.”
None of his policy ideas, so similar to the ones put forward by Dukakis and many others, would’ve resonated without that. A candidate whose policies don’t “feel” to the voter like they are emanating from that elusive “inner core,” well, that candidate is starting out at a disadvantage, and we’d be well-served to keep that in mind, no matter who gets nominated.
Dave von Ebers
March 12, 2008 at 1:53 pm
15Okay, Adam, I wholeheartedly agree with your last comment, and I guess I misread (or misunderestimated?) your earlier comment. I especially like this formulation: “policy should be expressed as a function of values, not vice versa.”
I was kinda, sorta trying to say just that … but in a more cumbersome, roundabout sorta way. (What? I’m used to billing by the hour, ya know?)
And I think we’re saying the same thing about Bill Clinton, too. I’m saying his political genius was in staying on the message; you’re saying that he was particularly compelling when he delivered the message. I couldn’t agree with you more. I’ve never seen anyone who could speak extemporaneously like Bill Clinton … in complete sentences, with, y’ know, subjects, verbs and objects, without cue cards or anything. I can barely write like that.
Kerry, on the other hand (who was a likable enough guy), allowed his campaign to be dominated by “strategists” who tried waaaay to hard to construct this ideal persona that would appeal to everyone without offending anyone … and the result was a complete disaster. I’ve probably mentioned this before, but not long after the 2004 election there was an article in the Village Voice that said Democratic strategists were bemoaning the fact that Bruce Springsteen and John Mellencamp and “Hollywood personalities” of various stripes had vocally supported Kerry — the thinking being that those effete liberal types must have turned off middle America — to which the author of the article responded with something like, “Isn’t it funny that the guys who spent the money are complaining about the guys who raised the money …”
Anyway, I guess what I’m saying is we need somebody like Bill who can deliver the message effectively, in a way that people believe, without obsessing over “strategy” or what the other side’s doing.
Sorry to be running on at the keyboard today … it’s just a helluva lot more interesting than the piles of work on my desk.
Dave von Ebers
March 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm
16P.S. to Adam: So much for your hiatus …
etbnc
March 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm
17Adam wrote, “policy should be expressed as a function of values”.
Bingo! Also, ditto, and me, too.
I agree with Dave’s agreement. Well said.
David
March 12, 2008 at 2:54 pm
18Adam,
I concur wholeheartedly (and wholeheadedly) with your analysis. For all the political acumen and knowledge base the 20-something has, there is still something amiss for that person to mutter that she/he would vote for McCain if Hillary were the nominee. When I said I would love to have a conversation with that person, it was because there would be a point to the conversation, as opposed to say a conversation with my McCain-believing friends. It would start with How can you say that? And I would first listen, in part because you are dead right that there is something going on here. And then, should it seem worthwhile to that person, I would lay out what I have seen happen starting with Kennedy in ‘60, and why a person who gets it even saying she/he would vote for McCain over Hillary left me dumbfounded.
A fellow Democrat who formerly (before he had a chance to dig into the real John McCain) thought McCain was an ok political figure, and who is an Obama or Hillary voter but supports Obama, said to me last night that while he will still vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, he was beginning to understand why there is hatred out there for the Clintons, because he was beginning to really dislike her.
I think at this point the only answer is for Obama to win and Hillary to accept that outcome with as much grace as possible, and then get back to championing worthy causes like she used to before the Iraq War.
By the way, in case it didn’t come across in the first part of this, I wasn’t trying to say that the 20-something was an idiot, only that that was an idiotic thing to say, and that it betrayed a serious lack of appreciation for larger political realities, especially as they have been shoved up our asses starting with Nixon (and LBJ’s terribly two-dimensional Texas anti-communism, the one thing LBJ and McCain apparently share in common). But you are absolutely correct that Democrats need to understand what is being set in motion here, and that the most significant factor in presidential elections is some variation on emotion coupled with what are perceived as essential personal qualities in a candidate.
Issues usually degenerate into hot-button issues in the general election, and they usually become magnified in the press because they are easy and exciting to report on, especially in compressed form. Iraq is apparently no longer a hot button issue, even though we are getting our geopolitical asses handed to us there. Hillary re-introduced the night terrors hot button out of desperation, I assume, and for that she gets the idiot-of-the-year award.
This is a battle between the old guard and the direction the Democratic Party needs desperately to go, and between a candidate who will likely lose to McCain and a candidate who will likely defeat McCain and the Republican machine. So maybe your friend is right: if Hillary is our nominee, might as well vote for McCain because of the likelihood that she will deliver the election to McCain, just as she is now delivering the story lines to McCain.
So Obama, you’d better be smart enough and politically talented enough to restore the winnning Democratic story line to this election.
David
March 12, 2008 at 3:05 pm
19And I also agree that policies should be expressed as a function of values. That is a good and as fundamental a touchstone as there is. Hillary used to understand this.
Clinton won in ‘92 in part because of Ross Perot. But his ability to connect with people was certainly a powerful factor. Reminds me somewhat of FDR. We got him sort of out of blind-assed luck, and then his very powerful ability to connect with people allowed him to lead us successfully (and progressively) through one of our two worst periods as a society. And his wife, Lobster love her huge soul, pointed toward the end of American apartheid. So please, Lobster, make it a lucky trifecta with Obama.
Back to the couch now, and hoping I at least somewhat ameliorated the impression generated by the anger in yesterday’s comment.
David
March 12, 2008 at 3:41 pm
20Off the couch for just a second. Excellent commentary by James Moore:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/colorcoded-hillary-alert_b_910 35.html
Jim (OJNTNJ)
March 12, 2008 at 4:47 pm
21Cool,
For a stated political hiatus, the host and commenters have done well in providing some great memes:
1. “policy should be expressed as a function of values.”
2. promoting community values above so-called “family values,” or as I like to call them “hypocritical, hysterical, control-freak values.”
3. J. Sidney McCain the III. Lather, rinse, repeat: J. Sidney McCain the III.
becca (and brian)
March 12, 2008 at 4:58 pm
22A snippet from an article in the NYT follows. Now granted, she went on to say that a “redo” would be fine with her as well so I don’t want to twist her words, and maybe starting with suggesting this option is just a classic negotiating tactic of anchoring way above where you want to end up to make that desired position look more reasonable, but when her name was the ONLY name on the ballot in MI and when she was the only candidate to visit FL (even if it wasn’t “campaigning”) how could she possibly say the following with a straight face or in good faith:
becca (and brian)
March 12, 2008 at 4:58 pm
23hmmm…okay, that worked in the preview pane
becca (and brian)
March 12, 2008 at 4:59 pm
24oh well, here’s the quote referenced in #22:
Mrs. Clinton, in an appearance before a Hispanic business group in Washington Wednesday morning, argued that the delegates should be seated based on the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries, which were held in January in violation of Democratic Party rules.
Mrs. Clinton won both contests by sizable margins and would narrow the delegate gap with Mr. Obama by about 60 delegates if the January results are honored, but the delegations have been barred because of the party rules violation. She now trails Mr. Obama by more than 100 pledged delegates, according to most counts.
“The results of those primaries were fair and should be honored,” she told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce here.
becca (and brian)
March 12, 2008 at 5:01 pm
25and btw…
those of us who live in OR (and WA?) are pretty amused at all the freaking out over the concept of “vote by mail”. It seems to work pretty darn well here, right acronym Jim?
(then again, i can understand with passions as inflamed as they are and good will as low as it is (and wiht our history of Florida voting debacles) why some folks are nervous)
Jim (OJNTNJ)
March 12, 2008 at 5:09 pm
26Absolutely B&(B). Voting by mail is ideal for apathetic, tardy-prone, procrastinists like myself.
Activist, active, type A, prompt Oregonians like it too!
SeattleDan
March 12, 2008 at 5:26 pm
27You can still vote at a voting booth here in Washington State. Most of us, though, vote by mail. Works fine.
David
March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm
28This vote-by-mail would simply involve mailing letters to all registered Democrats in Florida. There are problems with the voter rolls, and there would be additional problems if it were based on this year’s primary, because that would exclude people who stayed home out of respect for party rules. I’m not sure how the voting would be secured, because it would have to be done, and counted, the same way absentee ballots are handled to be reliable. If that is the case, and we can behave similar to Oregonians as far as the integrity of the process is concerned, I’ll try to live with it. But this is not like having it be an expectation and a process up front going into the primary. Be interesting to see how the polls stand now in Florida and Michigan, which I assume the Clinton camp has determined favors them, and fits with their mantra that the big states favor Hillary (hope Pennsylvania goes Obama).
I am more inclined to say Look, there were rules in place. Florida and Michigan went counter to the rules in place for the primary vote, and now Clinton wants to gain an advantage by counting them, something she most assuredly would not champion if Obama had carried Florida and Michigan. It has nothing to do with caring about voters and everything to do about want delegates. Obama did say he would cooperate with the Democratic National Committee, which is the final arbiter of the rules for primary elections.
Truth is, Democrats created another debacle for ourselves for which there is no really good solution. But you can’t really go wrong by living by the rules in place and saying so, and then changing the rules to prevent such a debacle next time around. That does have resonance with commonly held values. The alternatives smack of electoral manuevering, of which as a Floridian I am sick unto death.
On an utterly practical note, Obama stands a much better chance of winning the White House than Clinton, and isn’t that ultimately the primary reason for a party choosing a nominee? The party needs to be able to establish the primary agenda of the nominee, whoever that nominee is. They are first a Democrat and second themselves. It is not the other way around. This is a public office, not a private job.
Dammit, somebody superglue me to the couch.
piglet
March 12, 2008 at 5:44 pm
29Okay, I’ll come out of my room (where I have been sulking and listening to The Flaming Lips until the grown-ups stop yelling at each other - we’re still using that dysfunctional family scenario, right?) and second the amusement over “vote by mail.”
No, seriously, I’m starting to tune out, because I’m tired of all the manufactured dudgeon and press-released harrumfing from both sides, and I’m sure I’m not alone.
I’m going back up, slamming the door, and turning up The Vines really loud.
Dave von Ebers
March 12, 2008 at 6:04 pm
30One thought about Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s thought of this (duh), but I highly doubt George Herbert Walker Bush — He Who Didn’t Know How A Grocery Store Scanner Worked — could’ve won a one-on-one contest against Bill Clinton. Republicans love to say that the “only reason” Clinton won was because Perot was in the race.
What’s the word I’m looking for here? Oh, yeah … hogwash. Well, it wasn’t really hogwash but I’m a little shy about goin’ blue here, what with all the, ahem, queueing of comments ‘n all.
So, anyways, seems to me Perot’s supporters were mostly folks who were disaffected with the status quo. Sure, I suppose in the absence of Perot, some of ‘em would have voted for GHWB. Some of ‘em. Quite a few would’ve stayed home, and quite a few would’ve voted for Clinton. Even if you assume that more Perot voters would have gone for GHWB than Big Bill — a dubious assumption, ask me — how in God’s name could Bush’ve over come Clinton’s fairly sizable lead?
Not freakin’ likely, seems to me.
Now, I doubt any of that would qualify as “original thinking,” but I’ve grown tired of hearing the zombie-like refrain that Bill Clinton didn’t even win a majority of the vote. (Neither, of course, did th’ Bushwhacker in 2000 … but hey, who’s counting? Pun intended.)
An’ I gotta say … I got dibs on “J. Sidney McCain III.”
Jim (OJNTNJ)
March 12, 2008 at 6:15 pm
31Of course Dave vE. Sorry for not giving credit where credit is richly deserved. Now, who was it who postulated “Sid Vicious?” I believe it was someone at the General’s place.
SeattleDan
March 12, 2008 at 9:59 pm
32Acronym Jim, of whom is this General you speak?
In both ‘92 and ‘96, exit polls indicated among Perot voters that had Ross not been in the race, it was 50/50 for those voters between Clinton/Bush or Clinton/Dole. Clinton still would have won both races.
Keith has some good commentary about Ferraro’s words on Obama.
sallyMutant
March 12, 2008 at 11:04 pm
33Electability is a horrible criteria. But it is more important than anything in this election.
Charisma, inspiration, whatever, has also seemed a horrible criteria; sort of unthinking. But only for me. I’m such a wonk that i can be (slightly) turned on by a candidate’s voting record or ADA rating.
I’m lucky to live in a diverse precinct. One neighbor is a working class religious right White guy. Next to him is a nice young Vietnamese-descent couple. We’re living on land that was, before it was subdivided, the White guy’s ancestors’ large family farm 4 or so generations ago. Good neighbors.
North is a street with huge lots (Room for a pony? Horses!) owned by Waspy types. A large, 70’s tract neighborhood spreads to the east, perhaps 50% African-American-50% Anglo, west are 50’s ranch houses, my guess is 80% White, 20% African-American, which abruptly abuts working class, mostly African-American-occupied apartment blocks.
Who attended our caucus in unprecidented numbers? And even though the lines were long and the little church where the caucus was held was packed, who persevered to vote in the caucus? (Hint–not pony owners.)
There were Obamaniac Anglos there. And I know Hillary has many African-American supporters, but. . .
If Hillary gets the nomination, it will BREAK SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS’ HEARTS. They won’t want to vote for McCain. They won’t want to vote.
If our precinct had been a college town, student-heavy precinct my instinct would be the same about students. (And instinct is a HORRIBLE criteria.)
Charisma, inspiration, whatever, is a horrible criteria. For me. Yet I was buoyed by the feeling of inspiration at our caucus.
But I will work for and vote for Hillary the Buzzkill if that’s the way it is after the convention.
Resident Editor
March 13, 2008 at 6:27 am
34The singular is “criterion.” Sorry.
Dave von Ebers
March 13, 2008 at 6:36 am
35Hey, Jim, no problem … I didn’t mean to come across as whining for attention. I’m just sorta tickled that the whole JSMIII (not to be confused with the DSM-IV … ooooh, bad joke there; I’m almost sorry I wrote it) got some traction.
And SallyMutant … I laughed out loud at “Hillary the Buzzkill.”
As far as “inspiration” and “charisma” go, I think all successful politicians trade in them to some degree. But I don’t think we liberals are so easily swayed that we fall for empty rhetoric, either. Bill Clinton had both the gift of gab, as my Irish ancestors would say, and competence … and I’d like to think one of the slogans for this year’s election would be something like, “Competence Matters.”
Man, that’s been sorely missing these past seven years.
Boomer
March 13, 2008 at 9:02 am
36Wow, sallyMutant, tough crowd of ex-librarians and English majors, huh? Well, at least we’ll all remember “criterion” now.
Dave von Ebers
March 13, 2008 at 9:22 am
37“Criterion”? Wasn’t that a little European two-seater, back in the day?
Kinda like an Alfa Romeo, except that an Alfa Romeo looked better up on blocks in your driveway …
Murray
March 13, 2008 at 9:59 am
38I’ve always maintained that people vote for a president for the wrong reasons. They don’t vote for policy issues, or expected leadership qualities, but because they like the guy (or gal). When Clinton won in 92 it wasn’t that America had smartened up but because Bill was more popular than HW. That’s Hillary’s problem. She would make a fine president but she comes off as shrill and spends a lot of time yelling. As a matter of fact her sound bites are almost always her yelling. You never hear Obama screaming. He is calm and sounds comfortable even when he is returning an attack. This is a guy that people will vote for. He has the same magnitism that Bill has. He is comfortable with himself and people are comfortable with that.
Obama would be hard for McCain to beat, I’m not so sure about Hillary.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
March 13, 2008 at 4:47 pm
39The General’s SeattleDan? Why that bastion of conservative militant Christianistism can be found here.
It’s not blog whoring if you whoring someone else’s blog.
It’s blog pimping.
Acronym Jim, Blog Pimp extraordinaire.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
March 13, 2008 at 4:50 pm
40As you are well aware, you mischievous bibliophile.
Zee Man
March 13, 2008 at 6:01 pm
41I watch Countdown religiously (which is a stretch for an atheist like me) and last night he had one of his Special Commentaries. In case you missed it: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/12/countdown-special-comment-sen -clinton-this-is-not-a-campaign-strategy-this-is-a-suicide-pact/
Clinton fans be forewarned.
Zee Man
March 13, 2008 at 6:24 pm
42Oh and this, too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_ main.html?name=Toles&date=03132008&type=c
One thing about working in this Hell Hole that is DC, is that there have been a lot of new bunkers put in over the last 7 years. I may have to find one and baton down the hatch, if Ann sees this and #41 above.
BTW, Billy Crystal was the “Worst Person in the World!” tonight for striking out in an exhibition game against Pittsburgh (PITTSBURGH!!!) while he’s suiting up for several days with the Yankees. (Some sort of 60th birthday present, 2 days working out with the Yankees. Happy birthday, Billy! Do hang on to the day job.)
sharon
March 13, 2008 at 7:02 pm
43I just tried twice to post a snippet from, and a link to, BHO’s 2002 anti-war speech. Both times it disappeared into the ether. I’m beginning to wonder if maybe my computer is bugged.
Go to his website. Find it yourself. If you haven’t already read it.
SeattleDan
March 13, 2008 at 7:35 pm
44Thanks, Acronym Jim, for the link! I like that General Guy!
your blog pimp, SD
Ann
March 13, 2008 at 8:49 pm
45Oh, Zee man, haven’t you been reading my comments? I’m not blinded to HRC’s flaws.
And it’s “batten.” That was a gimme, wasn’t it?
Jim (OJNTNJ)
March 13, 2008 at 9:52 pm
46Sharon, I believe this is the speech your trying to link to.
SeattleDan, you’re quite welcome. You now owe me $5. I intend to send my goons to Seattle to shake it out of you if you don’t pay up. Who cares if it’s a $250 flight. It’s the principle that matters.
David
March 13, 2008 at 9:53 pm
47Dave,
I agree Clinton was able to kick GHWB’s ass in the final stretch, but down this way Perot siphoned off Republican votes. I’m thinking more in terms of the electoral college, but I could be wrong with my impressions. I also think his presence, and his early popularity, helped weaken significantly the incumbent’s stature, in that it contributed significantly to the general story line that gained such understandable traction in the press that people really didn’t want four more years of the incumbent. It got a hell of a lot of attention, turned the general election into an open free-for-all, and really created a playing field on which Clinton’s natural strenghts could shine. Press story lines are powerful shapers/reinforcers of popular perceptions. But no, it certainly wasn’t just Perot’s presence that “gave” the election to Clinton. He won the damned thing.
Florida legislature said No, Democrats cannot use the regular county elections offices and personnel for a make-up primary (estimated cost is $12 million), so now the Florida Democratic Party is putting together a party run, counted, and funded mail-in primary. Don’t know where the money will come from, or how significant a financial burden it represents. Also don’t know how many people who would now like to register and vote but can’t there are. There was no point in new people registering for the first primary, since it wasn’t going to count. We voted because we were already registered. Hillary is the likely continuing beneficiary, so this is probably a victory for the old guard. And a victory for the old guard is likely a defeat for the future of the Democratic Party because it will cost Democrats a chunk of a whole new demographic.
The other interesting development is that the reformer at Immigration and Naturalization has created a whole new backlog by modernizing the system. Net result is that hundreds of thousands of new immigrants (according to NPR) who wanted to vote in this direction won’t be able to. Guess which direction immigrants are trending…
cooper
March 14, 2008 at 3:10 am
48“I’m beginning to wonder if maybe my computer is bugged.”
Sharon, you’re still wondering if one of your electronic devices might be bugged?
David
March 14, 2008 at 3:27 pm
49…to vote in this election…and I do know how to spell strengths, dammit.
Sharon, what’s to wonder? cooper’s right. Wish the folks at Orkin were right-to-privacy liberal activists.
Zee Man
March 15, 2008 at 6:11 am
50All of these erudite, pithy, and hilarious comments that we write here and offer up to the comedy gods (who look a lot like a giant, hovering plate of spaghetti, BTW), only to have them “disappeared” into the great unknown, do you think they’ll ever serve any good. Perhaps one will be intercepted by a technologically advanced civilization, zooming across the galaxy at warp speed, and they will find it amusing, maybe even give out a chortle, perhaps die laughing at our wit. This would be a good thing, because if they traced the transmission back to Earth and chose to investigate our planet out of curiosity, we would no doubt blast the bejesus out of them with a preemptive strike - no questions asked - a justifiable act of self-defense. Yeah, it’s better to die laughing. Oh, hi Fanny! Come here darling! Look at this NY Yankees baseball bat I have here, signed by Billy Crystal himself. Come closer, sweetie. I want you to get a good look at it…
Aunt Sam
March 15, 2008 at 11:27 am
51I’ve been reading Adam’s blogs & the responses y’all have to offer for a few weeks, so right now I’m feeling like the lurker from the sidelines hoping the cool kids will accept her. Fortunately, I am relatively confident in my grammar.
I live in the NW suburbs of Chicago, so can confess to being sweet on Barack for a few years now. There was a great commentary in Friday’s Chicago Tribune, written by Cass Sunstein, a former colleague of Obama at U of C Law School.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,21 69730.story
Boomer
March 15, 2008 at 3:57 pm
52Welcome, Aunt Sam! The more the merrier.
David
March 15, 2008 at 5:35 pm
53Cass Sunstein - the name sounds familiar. Looking forward to reading the commentary. Meanwhile, regarding Smilin’ John McCain, Robert Dreyfuss has weighed in in The Nation magazine with a pretty good summary of who and what Ole Smilin’ John is, and actually has always been:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080324/dreyfuss
David
March 15, 2008 at 5:43 pm
54Many, many thanks for that link, Aunt Sam.