Campaign (0.00 / 0)

Before the primary started, Senator Clinton had huge celebrity, name recognition and massive party machinery behind her. If she's so "electable", why isn't she doing better? Why is she being beaten by a rookie?

Also, was Sen. Amy Klobuchar one of the superdelegates you were talking about endorsing Obama?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/a...

---

by: Semblance @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:44:18 PM CDT

The misogyny of the media (4.00 / 2)

and I think the left wing blogosphere has abdicated its responsibility to hold the media liable for their actions.

Trashing Hillary Clinton impacts other female candidates, female elected officials and women in the world. Read this Wall Street journal news piece to get a sense of what has happened to real women in the real world.

At the Barricades
In the Gender Wars
Clinton's women supporters fear her bid has unleashed a sexist backlash

http://online.wsj.com/article/...

When Sen. Clinton started her presidential campaign more than a year ago, she said she wanted to shatter the ultimate glass ceiling. But many of her supporters see something troubling in the sometimes bitter resistance to her campaign and the looming possibility of her defeat: a seeming backlash against the opportunities women have gained....

But her campaign has also prompted slurs and inflammatory language that many women thought had been banished from public discourse. Some women worry that regardless of how the election turns out, the resistance to Sen. Clinton may embolden some men to resist women's efforts to share power with them in business, politics and elsewhere.

snip

But even some women who don't support Sen. Clinton express unease about the tone of some attacks on her. "Why is it OK to say such horrible things about a woman?" asks Erika Wirkkala, who runs a Pittsburgh public-relations firm and supports Sen. Obama. "People feel they can be misogynists, and that's OK. No one says those kinds of things about Obama because they don't want to be seen as racist."  

or as zuzu at Feministe said so well

but that I'm calling this shit out because this shit hurts women. Women like me. Women like many of you. Women like your daughters, your sisters, your mothers, your friends, your spouses, your SOs. If it's okay to dehumanize a US Senator and presidential candidate as "that thing" or dismiss her as "that bitch," or set up a 527 called "Citizens United Not Timid" (aka C.U.N.T.) to "educate the American public about what Hillary Clinton really is," then we now have an environment in which it's okay to dehumanize, demean and diminish ordinary women because they're women.

And the media does this to her everyday...and the left blogosphere has done a lot of media criticism in the past, but not now..It seems becasue they have now taken sides in this primary...they no longer notice or care because it's the wrong candidate.  

The Obama campaign does not attack her on issues...they attack her on character...claiming that she is a liar....everyday  Funny that was the media assault on Al Gore.

We shouldn't allow the media to treat any of our candidates this way....but we do.   And it will harm women and women Democratic candidates.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 00:05:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please (4.00 / 3)

Or perhaps there are legitimate reasons why Democrats don't favor Senator Clinton? Reasons like D, L and C?

---

by: Semblance @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 00:20:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is not a thoughtful response (4.00 / 1)

merely a reflexive one.

Read the other articles   read Susie madrak at Suburban guerrilla, zuzu at feministe...read the Wall Street Jurnal article and week...then come back and comment

Oh Susie has dinner with paul Krugman who talks about the hate mail he gets becasue he quite rightly points out that the candiate with the progressive policies are TA DA...not the one you favor but the one I favor, Hillary clinton.

I picked her because she is the most progressive and the most partisan democrat in this race.  Barack Obama in policy and attitude is to her right.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 00:41:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The examples you quote (4.00 / 3)

"That bitch" and "Citizens United," those are coming directly from the right wing - John McCain and Roger Stone, and yet you try to imply that Obama's campaign is the one who is using misogynistic attacks, when the vast, vast majority of such vile attacks are coming from the freepers and the red staters.  

You're allowed to think that Senator Clinton is the most progressive and partisan Democrat in the race, just as I'm allowed to believe that the same is true for Senator Obama.  But please don't imply that there's some fundamental implication of misogyny in every single one of Barack Obama's criticisms of Hillary, because that's simply not true.  The reason his campaign makes points out of her less-than-truths and occasional hypocrisy is because they exist, not because they've invented them in some laboratory of misogyny.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:03:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Krugman (0.00 / 0)

Krugman's full of it... Hillary does not have many progressive policies and is far fromt he most progressive... plus Krugman has had an agenda for quite a while against Obama.  He has lost ALL credibility.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:06:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

some education re: your views on Obama (4.00 / 1)

You state that Obama is to her right with certainty.  You have zero real basis for such a statement.  

Campaign communication is purely symbolic.  What you are looking at and judging is the candidates positioning.  That changes throughout campaigns.  Read Obama's race speech.  Is that a "right" position?  I could go on.  

I do not hate HRC.  I am not in awe of Obama.  I support Obama for a host of reasons, including the fact that I believe he is more likely to win.  I also think is not one whit less experienced than HRC, who as a Presidential spouse I do not believe achieved much more than any typical Senator.   I know many people who share all of these views.

You make blanket statements, however intelligently, but you have a gigantic blindspot - your own subjectivity.

A majority of primary voters this year favor Obama.  Just deal with that.  

And in the end, Tuzla - aside from Mitt and the Squirrel - was the biggest blunder of this campaign.  Look how well Obama handled Wright by comparison.  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:24:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well John Edwards would disagree with you (4.00 / 1)

And he was definitely the most progressive and populist candiate in the race before he dropped out.

Read John Heileman on why Edwards hasn't enodresed Obama...his heathcare bill is not as progressive as hers

But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out-tempus fugit!-and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards's imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton's plan (and by extension Edwards's) for its insurance mandate.

None too deft for a man supposedly with such political gifts. Edwards was really predisposed to obama.  but then of course cancelling their meeting just before the Feb caucuses would have been preety insulting in and of itself.  making Edwards wait for almost another 10 days.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you still don't understand (0.00 / 0)

proposals during a campaign are PROPOSALS.  Once a person is elected, it's a different scenario entirely.  We have no idea what congress will be like.  We have no idea how public support will be for a policy element X months/years in the future.

You are a policy/rhetoric literalist.  That's a mistake.

And did you think HRC handled HC reform well the last time?  Do you think she handled Tuzla well?  Do these reinforce your belief in her superiority as a candidate and potential President, or do you selectively ignore them?  Do you selectively ignore aspects of Obama's experiencce and performance that might lead you to believe that he could be a good nominee and President?  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:06:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Policy proposals are where you start (0.00 / 0)

given the nature of congressional bill making and that progressives while making gains are/will be still in the minority in the congress...then progressive proposals get less progressive.

So where does Obama compromise his health care plan...I mean he compromised upfront when he eliminated universality...does he compromise on the amount of th esubsidies....that would further ensure failure.

Policies are a window into the candiate's soul...really...And then you have to judge how committed they are to carrying them out.  And on this I find him wanting as well.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:13:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not true (0.00 / 0)

policies do not always get less progressive.  and what makes you think HRC wouldnt' compromise on universality?

and not all universality is created equal.  there are degreees of coverage.  you're a literalist, bending yourself into poses so you can justify your candidate choice.  

So if HRC learned from that dark-soul proposal she championed in 93, then Obama can't learn from this one, assuming it's as bad as you say?  Come on.  Is Obama incapable of improving or adjusting to prevailing policy winds?  Really.  

And by the way, HRC got that Iraq thing pretty wrong.  How do you defend that?  

If you like HRC better as a person, fine...just don't make bogus arguments that are unsupportable.  I find that "wanting" just as I find HRC's "experience" and campaign skills wanting.

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 17:38:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Further proof (4.00 / 1)

Paul Krugman told Susie Madrak when asked that Austen Goolsbee was a student of his.  Goolsbee was not at the School of Economics at Chicago but the Business school and that he's quite conservative

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:07:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What does that have to do with (4.00 / 1)

electability, your points of misogyny, or anything else that's been discussed? Plus, Goolsbee is in fact a professor of economics, and I don't see how it's relevant that it's at the business school, or at the University of Chicago.  It has a number of conservative professors, but it's not a mini-Milton factory, in the same way that graduates of UC-Berkeley or UMichigan (Hayden's alma mater) are not Tom Hayden factories or whatever.  Give these institutions some credit.  I certainly wouldn't want to be painted with the broad stroke of being tied to the reprehensible policies of my own university simply because I go there.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:03:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Krugman has NO credibility concerning Obama (2.00 / 2)

NOT because of his disagreements on his economic policy, but because he made it PERSONAL....
Krugman is obviously looking for a job  SOMEWHERE........
So just because HE says something doesn't mean it is TRUE....

NO SALE

---

by: gaiilonfong @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:37:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Krugman has repeatedly said he doesn't want a job (4.00 / 1)

in any administration.  this is a canard meant to discredit the only person in the MSM who has stood up for our values since 2000.

Nor is he angling for a job for a son...as others have said...he doesn't have a son or a daughter.

He has never made it personal....never ever.  He has only criticized him on policy issues.  He like Obama until Obama used his inferior health care plan to attack the better ones of Edwards and Clinton by using right wing talking points.  that's why he's criticized him.

This is a perfect example of how Obama has obscured people's ability to see beyond himself to assess rationally policy issues.  

I am voting for Hillary but I do have places where I criticize her policy stances....many fewer though than I have with Obama.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:02:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pretty simple - her Iraq vote lost almost all credibility for me (3.43 / 7)

And that has everything to do with standing by progressive principles and nothing to do with gender.

Seeing how hard Hillary and Bill Clinton are willing to fight to help themselves (right now), I wonder - if they had put half this much effort into arguing against the war in 2002, would we be in the mess we're in now?

---

by: barath @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:50:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We would still have attacked iraq --Congress was irrelevant (0.00 / 0)

Because when the Presidient of the United States wants to go to war and that president was George Bush....even a
100-0 vote on the AUMF would not have deterred him.

You forget that in 2002 he initially didn't even feel he had to take his moves to go to war to the Congress.  He felt he had power all on his own.  He had to be dragged kicking to that AUMF vote and even to the UN.

Presidents have enormous power when it comes to war making.  Nothing would have stopped him....

By the way I was against the war from the beginning as soon as it became clear in the 2002 State of the Union that Bush was making Iraq an enemy, I knew where we we headed and I knew that it was unstoppable.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, but that's just a terrible argument (0.00 / 0)

Even if that was the case, and it almost surely is not, Hillary could have at least made a stand, even if she was the only vote, against such an egregious misuse of executive power.  Plus, if Hillary believed that the AUMF was so irrelevant, why did she cosponsor a measure to revoke the old one and enact a new one in the current Congress?

Hillary had a choice: enable a war, or try to disable a war.  She opted for the former, and she has consistently admitted as much.  That's the reason I and many other Democrats will never be able to support her in the primary, and it's perfectly legitimate.  We want someone who at the height of war fever, stood and said no, not someone who stood and said yes.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:17:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I answered the question you asked (0.00 / 0)

You implied that if she had voted against the AUMF there might have been no war....That Congress and the American people could have stopped the invasion...I was disabusing YOU of that idea.  There would have still have been a war....nothing and I mean nothing...not even God would have stopped Bush and Cheney

Irrelevant was my word....not Hillary's....not at all.

She thought Congress was very relevant...which is why she wanted Bush to bring the matter to Congress.  She thought congress could slow him down, that inspections would happen etc.

Don't ascribe to her my thoughts.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:07:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (0.00 / 0)

Why do Clinton supports always claim sexism or worse when there candidate makes stupid comments in the media and has run a TERRIBLE Campaign.  First and Foremost, look into your own house for why you are losing... Mark Penn.  Penn said this would be over by Feb 5 and was too arrogant to have contingency plans in case.  Instead, when Feb 5 became at BEST a tie for Hillary or at worst a win for Obama depending on your criteria (and given he took the PD lead that day, hasn't given up the PD lead since that point, and won the most PDs that day, I'd say he won) they were left in a scramble and without any real operations in the Feb states allowing Obama to build a lead in PDs and making it so that he can easily get 50% +1 in the PDs and control the Credentials and Rules committee making it so that HE will control how FLorida and Mich are seated.  

The campaigns HUGE mistake is going to be considered the biggest blunder of this primary, followed by Obama's failure to distance himself from Wright in 2007, followed by Hillary running an incumbent campaign and getting blown away in organization in Iowa (which would have won the whole thing for her right there.), followed by MAYBE the Kitchen sink approach which netted her short term gains but as the latest poll has her trailing 52-42 may be backfiring as this behavior BRINGS UP all the things people dislike about her.  

And one last thing... DOnna Edwards.  Your theoretical mysogny sure didn't hurt her.

And I'd like to point out that the media has been MORE than favorable to Hillary this past month.  

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:04:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Donna Edwards... (0.00 / 0)

  ...is a woman?

 Darn. I want my money back. Being the misogynist I am for not supporting Hillary, I can't believe I let that one slip through!  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:05:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Give me a break .. (4.00 / 1)

Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro both stepped in it .. So Hillary shouldn't be taken to task over her Tuzla lies? .. or for her arrogance(meaning thinking she'd have it wrapped up on Super Tuesday)?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:50:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's funny.... (4.00 / 2)

 I thought my opposition to Hillary Clinton was due to her unquestioning support for the Iraq war (which continues to this day), her leadership role in the DLC, her trigger-happy vote on Lieberman/Kyl, her effusive praise of the man she's theoretically trying to run against in the fall, her employment of anti-union Republicans on her campaign staff, and her constant utilization of right-wing talking points and tactics to attack her Democratic primary opponent.

But I stand corrected. It's all because she's a woman. Because if she were a man, I'd have no problem whatsoever with any of the above.

Hey, John McCain's for all of the above. And he's a man! Hmmm...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:01:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where's the sexism? (4.00 / 2)

"The Obama campaign does not attack her on issues...they attack her on character...claiming that she is a liar....everyday  Funny that was the media assault on Al Gore. "

You've undone your own argument.  If the idea that calling Clinton on her "misstatements" is the same "assault" as that used against Al Gore - doesn't that suggest a rationale other than sexism?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:05:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Last night I said winning this election is a moral obligation (0.00 / 0)

I disagree with Chris that discussing electabilty is shallow.  ( I posted it last night and it disappeared) I think questions of electabilty are essential and necessary

Because even more so than in 2000 and 2004...because time is running out for Americans and America...we have to win.

So I disagree with the idea the electability is not an important issue...it's crucial

Just as Hillary touts her electabilty so does Barack...why else does he keep talking about his appeal to Independents and Repeublicans...which by the way I think ,along with Chuck todd by the way,  that Reverend Wright will have destroyed that in the general election.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:20:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with you about discussing electability... (0.00 / 0)

or at least amongst us and the pundits.  When candidates and their campaigns talk about it, it loses its authenticity since no candidate wants to admit they are not or no longer electable. The problem with electability is that it can't be proven until after the fact.  The polls had Gore winning in 2000. He was the uber-electable candidate, but he was ultimately proven unelectable even though he garnered the most votes.  No one will be proven electable until it is too late, but we can argue over what dynamics may or may not get someone over the top.

I think if Obama has lost his appeal to Independents then he is truly no different than Clinton, who has little appeal to Independents and much of that is washed away by almost guaranteed Republican and Independent anti-Clinton turnout.  I just don't see any way Clinton wins at this point.  Independents have flocked to Obama not necessarily to the Democrats.  Had Clinton wrapped up the nomination back in February I would have felt certain that the Democratic brand would have carried the day in the GE, but now that Independents have found their inspiration in Obama it is hard to see them transferring support over to the Democrats, much less to Clinton considering she would have virtually stolen the nomination in their minds.

 

---

by: Ricky @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 14:55:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually the blogosphere has done pretty well (0.00 / 0)

At least it has when the criticism of Hillary was truly off-base. Lots of non-Hillary-supporting blogs criticized the media for the "blue dress day" story, for example. And Chris Matthews' comments got a lot of criticism from the blogs.

My personal misogyny-detection test is to ask how I'd feel if Bill Clinton were running again and saying the same things Hillary is. It never makes any difference: I wouldn't be voting for Bill either.

Blogs like this one started to turn seriously against Hillary when she started implying that McCain would be a better president than Obama. That crossed a line.

---

by: Pericles @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 15:39:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that dribble isn't even worth commenting on (0.00 / 1)

---

by: samsgrandma @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 23:18:20 PM CDT

thank you anyway for commenting (4.00 / 1)

on things that are not even worth commenting on.  Thats true dedication.. to what, I am not sure.  But the fact that you would spend the time posting a comment, in order to inform us all, that in doing so, you were wasting your time commenting on a comment that would be a waste of time to comment on, makes me think that you are truly dedicated  (or adamantly oppossed) to the comment that incited the motivation to comment, or that you dont care one way or the other so strongly, that you felt it necessary to communicate your extreme ambivalence.  Either way, thank you for your strongly held and at the same time pathetically irrelevant commentary.  

---

by: winston smith @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:40:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bla Bla Bla (0.00 / 0)

So many words, and yet so little said.

I can respond in one line:
If electability does not matter, then I VOTE KUCINICH!
Who's with me?

---

by: TaiChiMaster @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 23:38:38 PM CDT

Not me... (0.00 / 0)

I'M voting for Ralph Wiggum.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:08:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you missed the point (0.00 / 0)

It's not that voters shouldn't think about electability. It's that candidates shouldn't campaign on electability. When they do, you get a campaign about nothing. That was John Kerry's problem last time around.

---

by: Pericles @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 15:41:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My major problem with electability arguments (4.00 / 2)

I know McCain is not going to just roll over and we're going to get 65% of the vote, but implicit in virtually every single one of Hillary's notable statements on the campaign, as evidenced here, is that right now, McCain is a super strong candidate, virtually unbeatable, we don't stand a chance, we need to respect his strength and popularity, etc. etc.  

The commander in chief test is the most egregious of such statements - she constantly and consistently portrays McCain as some sort of supreme political figure, and does so only so she can turn around and try to elevate herself to that level, in the same way a name dropper drops names because they look better by appearing to share the company of notable others.  She does this because that's the only argument she has left, even if it's terribly damaging to the party as a whole and very helpful to McCain.  

So that's one of my main problems with an electability argument - they almost always come weighed down by the implication that our opponent is much stronger than we are, even when the opposite is true, and Clinton has simply reinforced that argument over and over again.  

At least when Obama makes an "electability" argument, he does so on his own terms, i.e. he often times essentially argues that he stood against the Iraq war, he's good on the economy, and John McCain is shitty on the war and shitty on the economy, and so let's have that debate, because John McCain sucks and we're awesome, and that's the reason we'll win.  I never get that from Clinton.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 00:58:25 AM CDT

That is insufficient because we have to play the cards we get (0.00 / 0)

Not the ones we would like to get.

And the media and the public thinks John McCain passes the Commander in Chief test...that's what she's referring to.

And Iraq isn't going to be so easy to play as positively for us as it did in 2006

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:10:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um, no (0.00 / 0)

If she was "thinking" that, and was simply referring to the media and public's perception of the matter, she should have said, "The media believe Senator McCain has passed a sort of 'commander in chief' test, but I believe that this isn't true, and that I am more qualified to be commander in chief."  Really, did she say that? No, she didn't.  She needlessly elevated John McCain from the right in order to make a destructive about her opponent.  McCain is eminently beatable on Iraq and every other issue, but the Clinton campaign is making it seem as if that is not the case.  

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:58:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly (4.00 / 1)

Candidates lose the argument (and the election) when they accept the media and the opposition's framing.  We don't have to accept that McCain knows best on war.  Rachael Maddow nailed it tonight on KO - McCain uses both an increase and a decrease in violence as an argument to stay in Iraq, so therefore it doesn't matter to him what we do, we're staying there forever.

---

by: barath @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:53:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

That is the central contradiction of McCain's Iraq policy.  If we're "losing," we have to stay so that we don't lose, and if we're "winning," we have to stay so that we don't lose our gains, which of course simply reflects how illusory "winning" can be in Iraq.  Even if the surge was a success (and it's almost definitely not), how do we sustain that, and what are the Iraqis doing about it?

The answer is that we can't escalate forever, and the Iraqis are never going to step up and do anything until they know we won't be providing an indefinite blanket of security to them.  This all of course exists in large measure due to the policies and statements of  John McCain and his ilk, so I'd rather not reinforce anything he says or does, but it seems that Hillary either A) Doesn't care, B) Agrees with him, or C) All of the above.  Not that it really matters, because they're each destructive.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:50:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

After that analysis of Hillary (2.00 / 2)

debcoop...you sound just like a Taylor marsh, Jeralyn Hillary HACK.
We ALL know why Hillary made that mcCain comment aqnd it had NOTHING to do with the press....LAUGHABLE INDEED

you are bordering on a TROLL

---

by: gaiilonfong @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:40:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't play a rigged game (0.00 / 0)

If a Democrat accepts the media's framing, then he or she loses. You absolutely do not reinforce it.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Primal fear (4.00 / 1)

You know, I am starting to wonder if the Obama supporters are suffering from electability problem. As a political Junkie, I follow the campaign very closely, I have not heard Hillary raise the electability issue once. Sure when a reporter ask her if she is more electable, she says yes... (I bet it's the same response Obama give).

Did I hear her say, Vote for me, I'm more elctable, obama would lose? No

Is she running ads saying that democrats should vote for her because Obama would lose to McCain? No

And yet again and again, SHE is accused of raising the issue. She does not, she avoid the issue avoids it, who can blaim her? If you start saying that Obama is not electable, then you have to ecplain why, and man you don't want to go there.

I believe that some Obama supporters do have concern about the electability of their candidate, but instead of facing them they prefer to project those fears and turn them into some evil scheme created by HRC.

---

by: TaiChiMaster @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:19:07 AM CDT

Do not mistake (0.00 / 0)

what you do not explicitly hear and do not explicitly see for what does not truly exist.  Just because she doesn't say I'm more electable doesn't mean that aspects of her Senate career and presidential campaign aren't laden with that exact implication.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:55:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rip Van Winkle ... (0.00 / 0)

is what you sound like .. when Hillary says that her and Saint McCain have passed the CiC thresold .. that's exactly what she is doing .. she's saying that Obama isn't electable

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:52:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But What is Behind an Electability Argument? (4.00 / 1)

I kind of have to agree with TaiChiMaster.  Electability does matter, and there are things that go into electability that are not policy based or resume based.  That is why Kucinich cannot win, despite what many see as the superiority of his policies.  And those unquantifiable factors that make up electablity matter once a person gets into office.  

Now I am not saying Clinton is more electable than Obama, but every Democrat, and seemingly more and more Independents and Republicans, wants to win in November.  Picking the candidate with the best chance of winning is tantamount to many of them.

In the general election the electability argument goes away, although being electable does not.  It is a primary election only argument, and as such it is focused on those core voters most stridently partisan, and to them, electability is extremely important.

But in the general, since you are not making the electability argument, you do not have to worry about turning off voters.  Then, all arguments will be on why your opponent (McCain) is not right for the job.  That is when you swing moderates and independents your way.

So it is perfectly reasonable for candidates to make the 'electable' claim in the primaries, and the dangers you speak of (making the party seem hollow and power hungry) are not that big of a concern at this stage in the election.

All that being said, the 'electability' argument has been used to great effect in tampering down grassroots candidates and true progressives in favor of establishment, moderate, and elitist candidates.  So I do not like the argument in general and wish we would get rid of it and let the voters determine who they think is electable.  As we have seen, they will sort out the non-electable ones pretty quickly.

www.progressivemovement.net, talking about how progressives can improve their messaging.

---

by: Parmenides @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:19:27 AM CDT

Great point! (0.00 / 0)

When I worked in the tech industry and coached folks on how to make the case for their new products, the worst thing they would do ... and it was something they all did ... was to go into a meeting saying "We're positioning our new widget as the solution to XYZ" instead of directly saying "our new widget solves XYZ" It is the quickest way to undercut any claim you are about to make ... and it's maddening to see candidates fall into the same trap.

Thanks for calling this out.

---

by: Siun @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:24:29 AM CDT

Thanks (4.00 / 1)

I hate "electability" arguments because no one really knows what makes a particular candidate more electable than any other. Especially amateurs like voters (think John Kerry).

Stop trying to act like a politican and act like a voter. That's what you are better at.

---

by: Chris Andersen @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:30:50 AM CDT

Reid's Games (0.00 / 0)

I dont comment too much during the primary wars, its too demeaning to get caught in the blogger wars, but I was so happy tonite to read again, what i considered to be one of Bower's finest posts.  Why People Don't Think Democrats Believe What They Say  links above.  

The acticle truly challenged some basic thinking for me, and was also able to articulate a frustration that I had had about the democratic process.  I felt like everyone, from the party leaders done the line to the activists, the voters, and the bloggers, were more interested in politically posturing than in the work of government.  People openly talked more of how to positions proposals so that they would be useful, rather that simply advocate for good proposals.  In 2004, I felt like everyone I talked to about the election worked for one of the parties, and were willing to use sophisticated arguments to justify why have a position was a political benefit, rather than being a reponsible plan.  It was surreal, and I did not like these conversations.  

Harry Reid in the summer of 07 really pissed me off.  He wanted to pull a political stunt to force the GOP caucus to stay in chambers for an all night phillibuster session about a iraq war vote.  He succeedded, and got his stunt.  

It was widely reported before hand that this was a political stunt, and ultimately it failed.  So my thought, informed by Bower's article, were maybe we should not advertise our political stunts before hand,  Maybe we can wield power granted by the constitution to effect change, but not do it as an advertised stunt, but rather as an expression of a true democratic deliberation.  I dont think Harry ever read Bowers.  

Just some thoughts

---

by: winston smith @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:04:23 AM CDT

Clinton's electability argument is garbage (0.00 / 0)

It's hard to take an electability argument from Clinton seriously when she is trailing Obama by 10% among Democrats nationally in recent polls and is doing worse vs McCain in hypothetical general election match ups. In order for the superdelegates to even consider nominating her despite her losing the pledged delegate race, she first has to show that there is a substantial electability difference in her favor and really she would need to demonstrate that not only is there a difference but that Obama flat out isn't electable. Neither of those tests have been passed at this point. She's asking the superdelegates to deny the nomination to a candidate who appears to be at least as electable as she is and probably more so. It's a mystery why she thinks that argument will succeed. She should get out now while she still has an iota of respect from the rest of the party.

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:55:53 AM CDT

A pipe dream (0.00 / 0)

I think the whole idea of Super Delegates running to Clinton is a pipe dream on Hillary's part anyway. She keeps saying this, yet week after week, the Super Delegates are coming out for Obama.

I mean, we have to assume the Super Delegates are not dumb. They know Clinton will slaughter the downticket candidates, they know she's probably hiding a lot of garbage in her tax returns and in Bill's library fundraising, they remember that Bill killed the Party when he was in the White House, they already know that Hillary's Tall Tales are the stuff of legend.

Even using Hillary's rationale, I don't see how they come out for Clinton in the end.

---

by: Bush Bites @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:10:50 AM CDT

:: Beating McCain Is Not A Message That Will Beat McCain (1.33 / 3)

My political connections are zero. Just work everyday for most of my life and have realized politics does have an effect on the economy and the jobs in this so called free market system. Actually only know as much about these politicians as one would get from these blogs,  a Wikipedia,  and any scandal stuff spending huge amounts of time surfing for good bad and ugly stuff on the Internet. Plus reading about the candidates in their own books and writing.

Here, with Obama, this last January 2005 was installed as a Senator. Just about finished his book on the 'Audacity of Hope".  This has many alarming passages just as controversial as Mr. Reverend Wright Sermon, yet wonder why so many top editors and news paper people commend him for great stuff. Obama said he finally got settled in after the very first year to understand what he need to do and felt comfortable as a Senator. Very interesting, here the guy is in office for a year and runs for president. Please I need this argument for my next job interview, no experience is necessary for anything any more; anyone from the streets of Chicago should go for the next CEO slot. Seems that experience get you to the presidency.

Mainstream Media has the electorate so confused and so misinformed it is beyond comprehension. As for politicians like Amy or even the Kennedy's supporting Obama is more than partisan it supports long history of secret back room deals under the blanket of " National Security Secrets" really done for profiteering, but with the disguise of patriotism and liberty makes money for the secret political trust fund babies.

Obama is the best way out for the Constitutional Monarchs. Heck Lieberman is only one of the few who flag the desperate suppression of truly a free America by switching sides. To be sure Gore learned a huge lesson; however let's see what he will do with that knowledge. Also understand why Gore left politics.  

My best guess is that a huge list of politicians that run as so called Democrats are more than partisan but actually work both sides of the equation just as fast as the Arabs can hand out the Petro-Dollars. Sad but true, after reading Gerald Posners book "Secrets of The Kingdom" and Al Gore's "Assault on reason" America is and was controlled by Arab influence for decades only now has surfaced to become a very frightening thing brought to us by the Neo-Con Greed and they are trying with all that they can to turn this mess around. Or likely blame it on the Democrats via Barack Hussein Obama who is part of the gaming. It is a Jihad between the Constitutional Monarchs, and the Islamic Theocrats.

The message is clear and the media has the power to make it happen for the best. But it was the media that brought America to the present situation.          

 

---

by: joze46 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM CDT

Everyone knows (0.00 / 0)

When Obama makes electability arguments, he's transformative.

When Clinton makes electability arguments, she's insulting Democrats.

DUH!!!!!

If this is the future of the party, count me out.

---

by: edgar08 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:44:35 AM CDT

And you'll be so sorely missed. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Think I'm a demographic of one? (0.00 / 0)

Good Luck.

---

by: edgar08 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:53:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

if you're so quick to leave the party over a single point that you do not make a substantive argument against, I'd say that's fairly true that you are a demographic of one.  There are plenty of rational, clear minded, articulate, reflective Clinton supporters who I care deeply about converting to Obama, and I try do so in a reasoned and thoughtful way - those are the people I know I can convert, and need to convert - not those simply looking to be rhetorically glib.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:05:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok. Lets me rational (0.00 / 0)

Do you think Obama has made electability arguments on behalf of himself?

Yes, yes.  I know.  It's different when he does it.

Right?

---

by: edgar08 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:07:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They're different (0.00 / 0)

because they're about maintaining and building the strength of the Democratic Party.  The terms of his argument are geared in our favor - that we are better, that we have the right principles, the right policies, we can deliver the change America needs.  HRC opts to cede all of those strengths by embracing McCain.  I wrote the following upthread, and it is relevant to the point you're trying to make:

...she constantly and consistently portrays McCain as some sort of supreme political figure, and does so only so she can turn around and try to elevate herself to that level, in the same way a name dropper drops names because they look better by appearing to share the company of notable others.  She does this because that's the only argument she has left, even if it's terribly damaging to the party as a whole and very helpful to McCain.  

...that's one of my main problems with an electability argument - they almost always come weighed down by the implication that our opponent is much stronger than we are, even when the opposite is true, and Clinton has simply reinforced that argument over and over again.  

At least when Obama makes an "electability" argument, he does so on his own terms, i.e. he often times essentially argues that he stood against the Iraq war, he's good on the economy, and John McCain is shitty on the war and shitty on the economy, and so let's have that debate, because John McCain sucks and we're awesome, and that's the reason we'll win.  I never get that from Clinton.

So yeah, bet your ass there's a difference, and I'll take Obama any day.  While not perfect, he has been far better in his career and his campaign for the presidency in building our brand and not reinforcing right wing memes, especially compared to Clinton.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:12:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I knew it (0.00 / 0)

You see, when Obama speaks favorably of Reagan and then disses Dems for lacking the moral courage to vote against the AUMF, I think he's undermining the Brand.  I think people like Reid, Murtha, Kerry, Edwards, and many others had their reasons for voting for the AUMF and that those reasons were not a sign of weakness.

But you agree with Obama on this point.  You think those dems were weak.

And I don't.

So that's the fulcrum of our perspectives.

Point is, from my perspective Obama is just as destructive to the brand as you think Clinton is.

---

by: edgar08 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is Hillary Clinton more "electable" than Barack Obama? (0.00 / 0)

I'd say that the evidence says, no.

At the moment, she's losing an election to a candidate that has been characterized as inexperienced and lacking in substance.  How does that, in any way, suggest that she might win an election against a candidate that has more experience (in years) and whom she has already admitted has at least as much credibility to be the CiC as she does?

The argument is illogical.  If we take the Clinton line that "Obama can't beat McCain" to heart, then what does it say about Clinton's chances of beating McCain, when she is struggling to find a reason to stay in the race against Obama?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you making an (0.00 / 0)

Electability argument for Obama?

---

by: edgar08 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:06:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

I'll leave that to others.

I'm just saying that the Clinton electability argument is BS.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would have less of a problem with that (0.00 / 0)

Clinton's electability argument is crap.

That's fine.  That's a fair opinion to have.  It might be.

What's stupid is saying that electability arguments are, by definition, one thing for one person and, by definition, a different thing for someone else.

---

by: edgar08 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:28:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think I said this: (0.00 / 0)

"electability arguments are, by definition, one thing for one person and, by definition, a different thing for someone else."

But, clearly, these two candidates cannot have the same electability arguments. So, yeah, electability IS one thing for for Clinton and another for Obama.

The Clinton electability argument does not apply to Obama.  He isn't claiming that he has more experience, or has crossed some kind of CiC "threshold", or has successfully beat back the Republican noise machine in the past.  

On the whole, I think the "electability" issue is so nebulous as to be virtually useless.  Except, that is, as a way to speak negatively of one's opponent - because that's really what a candidate means when they say, "I'm more electable than my opponent".

That said, I think certain positions may help Obama in the GE against McCain.  He can make a clear case for being very different than McCain on the issue of the war in Iraq and the GWOT, too.  He's already attacked McCain by pointing to his admitted lack of knowledge about economics.  Obama's is a forward looking campaign, while McCain is looking to the past to support his campaign (re: all the talk about the "military legacy" in his family and his own experience in VN).  

Do these make Obama "more electable"?  I don't know - but they are advantages that he can capitalize upon in the GE.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:57:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]