PDA

View Full Version : Candidate Postmortem Edition


Bloggingheads
02-01-2008, 01:14 PM

threep
02-01-2008, 02:16 PM
Reihan Salam rocks, good catch.

bjkeefe
02-01-2008, 02:43 PM
Reihan Salam rocks, good catch.

Yes, I completely agree. I'd say Reihan goes immediately onto the short list for Most Witty Diavloggers.

This was an excellent diavlog. It's rare to hear people speculate about candidates' motivations in a way that doesn't sound like conventional wisdom mixed with cocktail party psychology. While it's only slightly unusual to see respectful disagreement on BH.tv (one of the reasons I'm a fan), it's quite unusual to hear both sides understand the other's point of view so well going in.

These guys were rare. Please bring them back early and often.

piscivorous
02-01-2008, 02:49 PM
He may be a good catch but what was he smoking when he said this Minor foot note to history at best. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8469?in=00:30:31&out=00:30:38)

bjkeefe
02-01-2008, 03:11 PM
He may be a good catch but what was he smoking when he said this Minor foot note to history at best. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8469?in=00:30:31&out=00:30:38)

Pisc:

I'm guessing you're trying to say that Edwards will be a minor footnote at best. If so, my gut instinct is to agree with you, and I wouldn't even have had to qualify my agreement abdomenly (thoracicly?) before listening to this diavlog.

However, if you listen to the next three minutes (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8469?in=00:30:31&out=00:33:38) or so, after what you dingalinked to, I don't think Reihan sounded at all under the influence. I thought he made a case that was at least plausible.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "minor footnote" versus "important historical figure," though. I'd probably still agree that the average young American, twenty years from now, won't know who John Edwards is (unless he does something else in the meantime). On the other hand, "the average young American" is ... well, let's just say that the current chief White House spokesperson did not know until very recently the difference between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs invasion.

piscivorous
02-01-2008, 03:40 PM
Yes the following three minutes explaining his reasoning is sound but all it really says is that he succeeded in driving the conversation to the left in a Democratic primary. But that was inevitable as even a brief analysis of the primaries, of most previous Presidential elections, will show that the various candidates drift in the direction of the loudest partisans, both left and right. So he gets credit for doing what is usually the normal evolution of a primary campaign. Once the primaries are over it become an Emily Latell moment and it's all never mind as they candidates drift back to the center.

somerandomdude
02-01-2008, 04:33 PM
This is a terrific episode.

One question though: Reihan mentioned Giuliani being lazy. I've never heard this charge against him before. What's the evidence here?

bjkeefe
02-01-2008, 04:39 PM
This is a terrific episode.

One question though: Reihan mentioned Giuliani being lazy. I've never heard this charge against him before. What's the evidence here?

First thing that comes to my mind is his decision not to slug it out and do retail politics in Iowa, NH, and SC. It's possible to say that this was strategic; it's also possible to see this as being unwilling to work for a respectable or even surprise runner-up showing.

Also, I have read in several places (see the Achenblog, for instance) that even in Florida, there just wasn't the level of commitment to engaging with people that we demand of our candidates. He did more direct mailings and photo-op-style appearances than actual meet and greets, and his "townhalls" were packed with admirers, not people he should have been trying to win over. McCain and Romney both seem to have been making much more of an effort in these two areas.

bjkeefe
02-01-2008, 04:50 PM
... all it really says is that he succeeded in driving the conversation to the left ... Once the primaries are over it become an Emily Latell moment and it's all never mind as they candidates drift back to the center.

Pisc:

I can see how you'd say that, and part of me agrees. Certainly, whoever is the nominee for the Dems is more likely than not to run to the center in the general.

However, thinking of some of the points that Reihan made, here are some possible scenarios that could make Edwards into a historical figure of some note, at least to political junkies:

o Edwards as a moderate (especially as a Southerner) -- could see this as important historically: if South continues to moderate/US continues to homogeize, historians might point to Edwards as a key (representative) figure.

o His detailed health care and global warming plans forced Obama and Clinton to come up with their own detailed plans. If you had asked me a year ago if I thought any kind of national health care plan was conceivable, even if the Dems won the White House, I would have said "no way." Now it's looking a bit more likely. Could be that Edwards will be seen as an important impetus.

o Darker speculation: "American workers as victim" -- if US continues to slide and population can't/won't adjust to new global realities, Edwards could be seen as first to speak to this. Perhaps a new mood of isolationism will come about, and Edwards will be associated with that. Or, a much more harsh attitude towards big business/overpaid CEOs, or things of that nature, resulting in either a more regulatory climate or a real change in social attitudes in which billionaires are no longer lionized.

All speculatoin, to be sure. I'm just saying I could see Reihan's idea as a plausible one.

piscivorous
02-01-2008, 05:46 PM
Pisc:
1 Edwards as a moderate (especially as a Southerner) -- could see this as important historically: if South continues to moderate/US continues to homogeize, historians might point to Edwards as a key (representative) figure.

2 His detailed health care and global warming plans forced Obama and Clinton to come up with their own detailed plans. If you had asked me a year ago if I thought any kind of national health care plan was conceivable, even if the Dems won the White House, I would have said "no way." Now it's looking a bit more likely. Could be that Edwards will be seen as an important impetus.

3 Darker speculation: "American workers as victim" -- if US continues to slide and population can't/won't adjust to new global realities, Edwards could be seen as first to speak to this. Perhaps a new mood of isolationism will come about, and Edwards will be associated with that. Or, a much more harsh attitude towards big business/overpaid CEOs, or things of that nature, resulting in either a more regulatory climate or a real change in social attitudes in which billionaires are no longer lionized. (replaced bullet points with numbers)


You seem to be stretching on this one so lets look at the three points separately.

1 The south has been moderating for quite some time. At best Edwards may be recognized as one of the first democratic Presidential candidates to exploit this shift but it is unlikely that "historians might point to Edwards as a key (representative) figure" I have on word "Macaca"

2. You can make the argument that Edwards forced the other candidates to come out with their plans earlier than they may have done, given the normal flow of primary timing, but this primary season is rushed compared to normal and he was only first out of the gate. Health care was and is Hillary's signature issue so can you really believe that she wasn't going to come out with a health care plan sometime during the primary season. Next to the Iraq front, in the WOT, the existence of anthropogenic global warming is one of the major divides between the left and the right so again it was inevitable that all the major Democratic candidates were going to address this issue.

3. The "populist" isolationist slant to Edwards rhetoric is nothing new to American politics and Edwards renewal of this of tried theme is nothing new.

bjkeefe
02-01-2008, 06:10 PM
Pisc:

You seem to be stretching on this one ...

Yeah. I wasn't claiming firm belief. Just sketching out some scenarios.

razib
02-02-2008, 12:05 AM
as i said on my blog reihan has a refreshing signal to noise ratio, whatever you think of the signal. i don't know hayes ouvre as well, but everyone should check out his piece on heterodox economists, very good writing.

Baltimoron
02-02-2008, 12:32 AM
Wow, you do a fine job of eliminating real people from the broad sweep of history.

Baltimoron
02-02-2008, 12:44 AM
Unlike piscivorous, I think real individuals and organizations do things everyday, and aren't the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, so I liked your points:

1. What about the DLC as a sign of that moderation?

2. I think most of us were waiting for Clinton to reprise her healthcare platform, but that Edwards made the topic an acceptable platform topic for discussion in the primary, and not something Clinton had rendered toxic in '93 for all time. Obama was late with his plan, and refused to be specific.

3. I think my first blog post was Robert Rubin talking on the Charlie Rose Show, and I recall, as a free-trader, it was all singing to the choir. But then, Dani Rodrik's more skeptical pro-globalization arguments started getting traction for me. I thought Edwards would catch fire, too, and I was actually excited about a Rubin vs. Rodrik debate in the mouths of GOP vs. Democrats. Clinton, though, is so free-trade skeptical that I would just prefer to minimize the issue and prioritize healthcare reform now. I think Dems agree on free trade, so Edwards couldn't add something substantive, only anger. The real debate will come in the general election runup. Also, Edwards just doesn't do angry well. He's far too cute!

Baltimoron
02-02-2008, 01:13 AM
I'll join this lovefest, too. Thank heavens for the links, so I can read up later.

I was really struck by this brainstorm, that libertarians and participatory dems might have some common ground, located around this notion of powerlessness. There's that libertarian poll that plots responses on a graph (I can't recall the URL) constructed of the left-right and authoritarian-libertarian axes. I wonder where participatory democracy fits on that visual? Is it another axis on a more three-dimensional visual?

bjkeefe
02-02-2008, 04:10 AM
Baltimoron:

Thanks for chiming in. I thought my points had some merit, but I didn't feel like arguing for them that strenuously yesterday.

2. I think most of us were waiting for Clinton to reprise her healthcare platform ...

On this one, I sometimes have the sense that had Edwards not pushed a detailed health care plan, the Clinton campaign might have been awfully gun-shy about making this a major issue, since it's easy to think of how well it turned out the last time they tried to get this going.

bjkeefe
02-02-2008, 04:14 AM
razib:

as i said on my blog ...

Link? And maybe add it to your profile?

piscivorous
02-02-2008, 09:45 AM
Generally when an argument is made that is non responsive ramblings, to the points raised, I will not bother resounding but in this case I will

1 D.L.C. Leaders Cut Edwards Out (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/dlc-leaders-cut-edwards-out)

2 Clinton Outlines Legislative Priorities (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8LCB6GO0&show_article=1) Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some." Notice the date of the article Nov 13, 2006

3 The "populist" isolationist slant to Edwards rhetoric is nothing new to American politics and Edwards renewal of this of tried theme is nothing new.

Baltimoron
02-02-2008, 09:46 PM
Wow, piscivorous managed to acknowledge human action in 2 of 3 points. Don't worry, it's Sunday-I'm sure God will forgive you!

1. It just goes to show there's more than one way to skin that cat! I don't think anyone would mistake Edwards '04-'08 as a DLCer. In that way it shows his political maturity and leadership, growing out of the Blue Dog soil as it were. Secretary of Labor would be a good prize for him!

2. I guess you're arguing against Brendan here, because I always knew Clinton would return for a rematch and hoped she would. I want to return to the States, but I'm not moving from a country with universal healthcare to one without it. The party and country needs the Clintons to keep this issue live. It's now become my only campaign concern--in answer to brendan's previous responses on my website.

3. Populism spans both parties this year, but only Edwards managed to match rhetoric to places like New Orleans and endorsements. I take his "failure" seriously, more than Huckabee's. I agree that his downfall was not message but the package--young white guy among a woman and a multiracial man.

piscivorous
02-03-2008, 12:51 AM
Wow, baltimoron managed to actually string a serious 3 coherent thoughts together to write a comment that makes an actual argument.

bjkeefe
02-03-2008, 01:20 AM
Wow, baltimoron managed to actually string a serious 3 coherent thoughts together to write a comment that makes an actual argument.

You sound like you hope someday to be able to achieve the same.

piscivorous
02-03-2008, 01:48 AM
I realize that all of you on the left prefer emotional appeal as opposed to argumentation but I wasn't aware that you could also sense emotion though the bits deposited on your monitors via the either. I'm definitely impressed now.

Baltimoron
02-03-2008, 07:20 AM
You sound like you hope someday to be able to achieve the same.

No, he just lets the argument take him where It may.

Piscivorous, I'd wager my insult to argument ratio is better than yours! I'd even wager that I could make your argument better than you can, but the payoff for me would be slight.

Thanks for the assist, Brendan! But, you know, we shouldn't be civil in front of the Republicans. They might float away with self-righteousness. Or, try to squelch free speech just for fun!

johnatthebar
02-03-2008, 07:41 AM
Kent Brockman: Well, a refreshingly frank response (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8469?in=00:05:14&out=00:05:22) there from senator Bob Dole.

piscivorous
02-03-2008, 11:03 AM
I have no doubt that your “my insult to argument ratio” is less than mine as you are one of the fry in this pond of gratuitous self-congratulatory groupthink. However I have no problem digressing to a format of insult and Ad Hominem, when confronted with repeated instances of such behavior, as a number of your fellow confederates here will attest. I also find it humors that in a comment where you decry the use of insult in your last paragraph you invariably manage to increase your “insult to argument ratio”; rendering your indignation somewhat meaningless.

Drew
02-03-2008, 04:46 PM
Whenever a diavlog features two New Yorkers, there should be an option for 0.4x speed.

bjkeefe
02-03-2008, 07:16 PM
LOL! Being from NY, I did not have that wish, but I can understand it.

Baltimoron
02-03-2008, 11:53 PM
No, piscivorous, all you have is talking points, much like your GOP confederates. I tend to be conclusory, but since I have more experience than you, a whole lot of conclusions is still more argument than your hefty totals. And, I don't weigh in during the scrums.

Your opening complaint here was beginner-level at best, and Brendan's response showed more research and insight than you deserved. So, let me make your argument for you: Edwards is a minor player because he represents the last of the Dems' attempts to challenge the GOP among white, southern males. In the future, the Dems will take equally from the Clintons' strength among Hispanics, and Obama's new community organizing schemes he displayed in Iowa and SC.

But, I've left plenty of arguments - and links - on discussions on the space treaty, DPRK, and UNCLOS, and where were you? Lost in the ether waiting for talking points and instructions?

So, better quality, less robo-talk. Stop watching FOX!

piscivorous
02-04-2008, 01:45 AM
Actually I haven't had a TV for about the last 10 year so I'm not really aware of what you mean by "quit watching Fox" so you might want to quite using talking points yourself.

In the second place if you were actually paying attention to comment thread you would notice that I was responding to three specific speculations that Brendan raised concerning the part in the diavlog concerning (paraphrased) "Edwards being an significant historical figure in this election cycle," which your so clever answer doesn't address at all.. So before you criticize my non TV watching habits why don't you work on your reading and retention skills as they obviously need some work.

Baltimoron
02-04-2008, 02:02 AM
I was referring to your original response.

And, I've already remarked how ethereal your arguments are in subsequent responses to Brendan. You have this marked preference for non-personal forces over individuals and organizations.

Lastly, please don't watch TV on my account, because your debating style is very FOX-like.

piscivorous
02-04-2008, 02:20 AM
Then spend the next week or two learning how to properly use the tree view so that your response to a comment actually appears below the comment it refers too.

P.S.
Just to be sure I went back and checked the parent of this child thread in the comment chain and guess what it to refers to Brendon's original three speculations Unlike piscivorous, I think real individuals and organizations do things everyday, and aren't the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, so I liked your points:

1. What about the DLC as a sign of that moderation?

2. I think most of us were waiting for Clinton to reprise her healthcare platform, but that Edwards made the topic an acceptable platform topic for discussion in the primary, and not something Clinton had rendered toxic in '93 for all time. Obama was late with his plan, and refused to be specific.

3. I think my first blog post was Robert Rubin talking on the Charlie Rose Show, and I recall, as a free-trader, it was all singing to the choir. But then, Dani Rodrik's more skeptical pro-globalization arguments started getting traction for me. I thought Edwards would catch fire, too, and I was actually excited about a Rubin vs. Rodrik debate in the mouths of GOP vs. Democrats. Clinton, though, is so free-trade skeptical that I would just prefer to minimize the issue and prioritize healthcare reform now. I think Dems agree on free trade, so Edwards couldn't add something substantive, only anger. The real debate will come in the general election runup. Also, Edwards just doesn't do angry well. He's far too cute!

Funny that.

Baltimoron
02-04-2008, 02:34 AM
He may be a good catch but what was he smoking when he said this Minor foot note to history at best.

And spend the next week learning how to be civil!

I'm not the one with a chip on his shoulder larger than his head! If you can't keep track of your own arguments, perhaps you need a week off, period!

No response to anything else? Your silence is profound. Perhaps you should let us all appreciate the worth of your contributions in your absence!

piscivorous
02-04-2008, 03:23 AM
Yes I think you should take a week or so to learn to be civil as the following quotes of yours, directed towards me, are just from this comment thread.

Unlike piscivorous, I think real individuals and organizations do things everyday, and aren't the manifestation of the Holy Spirit...

Wow, piscivorous managed to acknowledge human action in 2 of 3 points. Don't worry, it's Sunday-I'm sure God will forgive you!

hey might float away with self-righteousness. Or, try to squelch free speech just for fun!

..but since I have more experience than you, a whole lot of conclusions is still more argument than your hefty totals

This does not count the numerous times you have made comments at me in previous diavlog comments and I am really getting tired of ignoring your insults so be prepared to have some fun in the future.

Baltimoron
02-04-2008, 05:19 AM
You mean you're going to try to be better a**hole now, or you're going on vacation?

piscivorous
02-04-2008, 05:41 AM
No from now on I am going to be sure and highlight every falsehood you tell. For example this line It doesn't surprise me that America is frustrated about diplomacy considering how much State's budget has been slashed (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=69714#post69714).

Baltimoron
02-04-2008, 05:51 AM
You have to ask yourself, if you're just in this to drag others down, or if you actually make a difference. You won a small battle, but are you better for it?

piscivorous
02-04-2008, 11:27 AM
quite possibly as you have as you have, at least for this comment, quit using insult and innuendo to address me.