PDA

View Full Version : The Week in Blog: Witch Slap!


Bloggingheads
03-08-2008, 10:38 AM

Bloggin' Noggin
03-08-2008, 12:19 PM
I don't understand why the Obama campaign accepted Powers's resignation. The prompt apology was quite enough. I'm sure Hillary's people are saying equally nasty things about the Obama people off the record.

Of course, Hillary's decision to weaken Obama vis a vis McCain pretty much shows that Samantha Power apologized for speaking the truth -- only slightly exaggerated. Hillary seems not to care whether the Democrats win if she is not the nominee.

joelopines
03-08-2008, 01:53 PM
She cares, all right. Obama's losing would be her alternate route to the White House in 2012. What she can't abide is the thought of two terms of Obama.

ohcomeon
03-08-2008, 02:05 PM
I think you are right. Her best case is she wins. Her second best is McCain wins and the country is in such terrible shape in 2012 that she sweeps to victory. I hope I am wrong but the signs are certainly there.

Bloggin' Noggin
03-08-2008, 02:40 PM
Here (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-campaign-so.html)is Reihan Salam's interpretation of the campaign -- "interpretation in the sense of "performance". It's just brilliant!

If only Power had said "She's Godzilla, by the way."

Bloggin' Hussein Onoggin

del
03-08-2008, 03:03 PM
Hi All,

Closely rivaling my obsession with the undiscussed "Obama likes Islam" meme that's recently been introduced into this campaign is my frustration with this overdiscussed "Obama is a wuss" meme. Simply put, race matters in terms of who is and isn't allowed to respond to white womens' bitchslaps with beatdowns, and as much as many conservatives (and some Obama supporters) might like to see it I don't think channeling Jules or Marsellus from Pulp Fiction is the way to appeal to rural Pennsylvania seniors.

Del

look
03-08-2008, 03:29 PM
Yes, these things must be handled dellllicately, and there's a lot to be said for giving her enough rope with which to hang herself. Since Ohio she's come off as a three year-old running her tricycle into the furniture.

ohcomeon
03-08-2008, 04:19 PM
It's only a matter of time until Obama makes the observation that anyone who says the slightest negative thing about Clinton must be fired immediately. Now that he's done it once, he will probably never have to do it again. I think the press would love to pick this up as a theme. Instead of calling her a bitch he can call her a cry baby.

Wonderment
03-08-2008, 04:36 PM
First, let me say that Conn is a lot more simpático in the t-shirt and baseball cap than the Republican suit.

Second, PLEASE bring Samantha Power to BH. She is a very interesting and passionate thinker, and we would have lots to debate on her ideas regarding military interventions to stop genocides.

Third, the McCain-is-a-great-war-hero myth plays right into the Obama-is-a-wuss meme. Bill is right to note that if Hillary can play Obama as a wuss, imagine what McBomb will do to him. If you don't want that to happen, start deconstructing McCain's "heroics" ASAP.

del
03-08-2008, 04:49 PM
Hi Wonderment,

I actually think that the wuss meme will be tricky for McCain to deploy given people's subconscious biases not only about the strength of black men but also about the strength of /young/ and /tall/ men. Whatever the two of them say to each other in the debates, the visual when they shake hands is going to be of a youthful 6ft1 guy looking down at an elderly 5ft7 guy, so I think McCain's actually at risk of coming off as a bit of a martinet/having a Napoleon complex, etc. This is all highly speculative, of course, but as you probably know the taller guy usually wins (with, I suspect, tallness being a proxy for other "vigorous" qualities that certain tall guys, e.g., Kerry seem to lack).

Del

Eastwest
03-08-2008, 05:32 PM
Re: "Cry-Babies":

Seems most Obam-Again evangelists here are illustrating just such a "cry-baby" tendency.

Face it: Hillary put out a lose-lose "test" for Obama and he was flummoxed, didn't know how to dance outside of the question, and got rolled like a sucker.

Obama lost his nerves and demonstrated for all to see that he quails even before strong women and rolls right over into "submissive peeing" mode. (Just wait till the Republican Swift-Boat launches from the dock.)

This just underscores the very valid implicit subtext of the brilliant "3 am" ad.

Add to that: Obama threw over a very intelligent and savvy advisor, a woman at that. And that implicit "loyalists (especially female ones) are expendible" stance will hurt him more than most folks want to admit.

Obama screwed up big time. But, typical of cults, the Obam-Agains just go: "Waaaa, Waaaa, Waaaa.." and blame somebody else, rather than cop to the truth.

Politics is War. Obama's in trouble of his own incompetent making. So good we'll get a chance to examine him yet more closely for another 5 months.

EW

basman
03-08-2008, 05:53 PM
If it happens more than once it's often?

I missed that class.

bjkeefe
03-08-2008, 06:05 PM
Just under six minutes in: If Conn is going to insist that "those who have taken a Logic class know that often means more than once," why then does he keep saying "three-sided triangle?" Did the same Logic class teach him that triangles "often" do not have three sides?

========

It's now about 27 minutes in, and all I can say is, the longer this diavlog goes on, the more I lose what little respect I have left for Conn. Examples from the past twenty minutes alone: The damp-palmed eagerness with which he's trying to portray the Powers incident as the end of the Obama campaign, the spin-conscious choice of words (Obama has Andrew Sullivan "snowed?" Really?), the ceaseless hammering of the same old talking points ("Obama inauthentic," "Obama unable to stand up to attacks"), his use of the term "netroots" to mean "something I read on one lefty blog," which I guess follows from his definition of often, and the capper, the thing that made me click Pause: his dismissal of others for weakened analysis because they have a preference among the candidates. Both the pot and the kettle are still ROFLing.

Conn has sounded this entire diavlog like nothing so much as a wannabe Rush Limbaugh, trying to get Clinton the nomination under the thinking that she'll be easier for McCain to beat. It's not making for a very informative diavlog, to put it as politely as I can. Having to sit through what feels like spring training for an eventual slot as a trained seal on Fox, instead of being able to bask in the intelligence of the expected episode of Science Saturday, only adds to the pain.

Thinking about the past few diavlogs between these two, the mildest thing that can be said is that it's time for them to stop trying to pitch their show as coverage of the blogosphere. Bill seems to read a few at most; it is only by comparison with the recent Conn that he seems at all well-rounded. Conn lately seems to limit himself to reading Daily Kos and maybe the occasional post on one or two others, and incessantly extrapolates from this "the (left) blogosphere." Conn was light-years better at this blogo-wrap-up schtick when it was his job at Blogometer. Since he got started getting his wingnut welfare checks from the Heritage Foundation, he's not so much of a reliable source in this regard anymore. Again, to be as polite as I am able.

If Conn wants to be yet another partisan hack, that's his business. It's clear that Bill is happy to go along, and play the hack for the other side. But the thing is, not only are they not delivering on the original premise of their regular show, they are not even particularly good at this partisan yapping thing. There are a thousand other people out there doing the same gig, and since none of them are particularly enlightening either, I think I'll turn this one off early. The thought of going outside to shovel snow in the middle of a sleet storm is suddenly much more appealing.

bjkeefe
03-08-2008, 06:15 PM
Eastwest:

Another brilliant example of using boldface to make up for a weakness in content.

Do you think anyone will be more likely accept your arguments if you persist in shouting?

WHY NOT JUST TYPE IN ALL CAPS???? AND USE LOTS OF EXTRA PUNCTUATION!!!!

Wonderment
03-08-2008, 06:16 PM
If it happens more than once it's often? I missed that class.

Sure. Examples:

The US often dropped nuclear bombs on Japan.

At the start of the 21th century, GWB was often elected president. (Oops, that was only once; or was it nonce?)

del
03-08-2008, 06:41 PM
Hi All,

I doubt anyone's going to get Power "on the record" about the campaign at this point, but I'd personally love to see her debate Mahmoud Mamdani about Darfur (admittedly a left-left affair, but conservatives should take note of Mamdani's Kristof-loathing):

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html

Best,
Del

Bloggin' Noggin
03-08-2008, 07:15 PM
I dunno, Brendan. The "witch-slap" thing came right out of Josh Marshall's analysis. And I think Conn was right that Obama would have looked better standing by Power. Tell Hillary politely that if an apology wasn't enough, then she should shove it. I don't see it as a huge deal, though -- he should just learn for next time how little it gets him to give in.

I agree with you that Conn seems rather less even-handed and honest than he did with Blogometer. He does seem to spin the Republicans out of obviously losing positions more often than he used to. (I pointed out some cases in my comment on his last diavlog.) But I haven't noticed him singing the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" song or denying global warming (though I wonder whether he would).

David Brooks was funny on the News Hour regarding the Power flap:

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of knives, they've already started, I mean, just the last 24 hours, this Samantha Power situation, a foreign affairs adviser to Obama said in an interview in Europe, called Hillary Clinton a "monster." Then she resigned.

Howard Wolfson, the spokesman for Clinton, says that, if Barack Obama goes after Clinton, it's like being Ken Starr. I mean, what's that all about?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I would say Power and Wolfson are two different sorts of creatures.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, they are. OK.

DAVID BROOKS: Power is a serious foreign policy intellectual who got tired, who was fed up with Clinton, and said something which she thought was off the record which was reported.

And the difference between the two campaign staffs I think is striking. The Obama people are nice, they're fresh, they're normal, and they're honest, and they have a little trouble playing politics for that reason.

The Clinton people are not like that. And so to me what Power did was a mistake. I don't think he should have fired her; I think he should have stuck with somebody and be loyal, somebody who's a valued adviser. But to me, it's a sign of the positive side of the Obama campaign.

[My typographical emphasis -- Brooks didn't shout, but as I recall he did give the contrast a subtler emphasis -- a pause and a kind of chuckle after he said that line]

themightypuck
03-08-2008, 08:33 PM
Did Conn say the "three sides of the triangle" or "the three sided triangle?"

bjkeefe
03-08-2008, 08:46 PM
TMP:

Did Conn say the "three sides of the triangle" or "the three sided triangle?"

He said (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9308?in=05:41&out=05:45) the latter.

bjkeefe
03-08-2008, 09:11 PM
BN:

And I think Conn was right that Obama would have looked better standing by Power.

Possibly. The punditocracy seems split on this one -- half think he looks weak by caving to the Monster (http://www.hillaryclinton.com), the other half think he had no choice but to accept/ask for the resignation because he's running on a theme of a different kind of campaign. I happen to agree (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/03/monster.html) with you, for what it's worth: I would have had Powers apologize and then had my spokespeople go all Ari Fleischer afterwards: "The Senator has moved on." Also, it could have been a good chance to make Hillary look like a whiner again.

Ultimately, though, it was well-played by HRC, and there really wasn't a clear way to look good on this one for Obama. It might have been the case that the calculation was "Let's get this over with, so that our win in Wyoming becomes the new story."

The bad part, for the Democrats as a whole, is that everyone seems to think that Samantha Powers was a rare gem. But maybe she can come back once the ADHD MSM has a couple of weeks to forget about it. I kinda doubt Obama will remove her from speed dial.

But I haven't noticed him [Conn] singing the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" song or denying global warming (though I wonder whether he would).

Give him time. Once that wingnut welfare check turns into Golden Handcuffs, I expect him to "raise questions" on both of these issues. Chances are, he'll start by playing it along the lines of "I read on The Corner that ...;" i.e., keeping up that facade of reporting on the blogosphere.

David Brooks was funny on the News Hour ...

I heard that, and I agree. I hadn't heard until then that Powers thought she was off the record. KCRW's Left, Right and Center had a slightly different version: they said that she blurted it out and then asked for it to be kept off the record. Whatever the case, it was a truly trivial moment, but absent anything else to write about, that was the story of the day. Too bad, but that's how the game is played.

To be fair about it, Brooks hates the Clintons, and likes Obama as much as any Republican can. But it was kind of a delicious moment.

Another point that Brooks made (IIRC -- could have been that I heard it elsewhere) was that the Clinton campaign invoking the name of Ken Starr seems kind of stupid. Yeah, it resonates with the whole Clinton-as-victim feeling (which I admit, I used to share) for some, but really, anyone for whom that'd work is already going to vote for her. Anyone else who hears Ken Starr's name is going to think "Oh, yeah. Clintons in the White House means ongoing chaos and/or a re-energized wingnut brigade."

del
03-08-2008, 09:33 PM
The bad part, for the Democrats as a whole, is that everyone seems to think that Samantha Powers was a rare gem. But maybe she can come back once the ADHD MSM has a couple of weeks to forget about it. I kinda doubt Obama will remove her from speed dial.


Everyone I know in academic political science is filled with loathing for pretty much everyone at the Kennedy School (Huntington, Power, Nye, etc.) and while I personally think that's /mostly/ sour grapes I wouldn't worry about the fate of a future Obama administration without any single figure . . . for an empirical argument that there's basically no there there in terms of EXPERT POLITICAL JUDGMENT, see Philip Tetlock's book of that title:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QgGRar_TCjIC&dq=expert+political+judgment&pg=PP1&ots=1byyW_bxrA&sig=FNRE7uksXPCjHZjPrmqmB4waTHI&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=expert+political+judgment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

Best,
Del

bjkeefe
03-08-2008, 09:55 PM
del:

I don't have any way of commenting on the merits, or lack thereof, of Powers. I think you're right that one person isn't going to make or break Obama's foreign policy team, though. After all, he did call Iraq right.

del
03-08-2008, 10:31 PM
Hi BJ,

I don't think most academics (me included) have read anything beyond Power's op-eds either, but whether one specializes in the historical minutiae of Sudan or the statistical esoterica of group identity worldwide there's always an academic constituency that has a knee-jerk negative reaction to merchandise-moving phrases like "the age of genocide" and "a problem from hell." Plus the photo shoot and being called "the smartest woman in America" by Marie Claire probably didn't help : )

All of that said, I'd still like to see Power on bhtv! To paraphrase Rumsfeld, we engage in democratic discourse with the pundits we have, and at least on bhtv one gets to talk back to the screen!

Best,
Del

bjkeefe
03-08-2008, 11:05 PM
del:

"a problem from hell."

That was her? No wonder I didn't pay attention. Nothing like using an outdated teenager phrase to unsell me on a book.

All of that said, I'd still like to see Power on bhtv!

Indeed. As would I. I hope she wasn't the "important female" that Bob Wright accused me of scaring away.

... we engage in democratic discourse with the pundits we have ...

I am still wiping beer off my screen and out of my nose from that one.

StillmanThomas
03-09-2008, 01:17 AM
About 3 minutes in Conn gloats that Obama winning more delegates in Texas after losing the popular vote just shows how undemocratic the Democratic party is. I heard this predicted weeks ago, and my understanding is that it's a direct result of the outrageous gerrymandering the Republican party has done to the Texas congressional districts.

Nate
03-09-2008, 01:18 AM
No Science Saturday this week? boo

Eastwest
03-09-2008, 01:46 AM
Re BJ's Squeaking About Bold-Face Type:

Excellent example of your preference for obsessing on superficialities over substance.

(The weirdness of "bold" here is a BHTV site-specific fluke wherein their serif font bumps up massively. Note the difference with how they treat the sans-serif fonts. The intent was to flag the essence of topics, that's all.)

But, again, substance: Obama has ineptly volunteered for trouble:

1) NAFTA duplicity;

2) Hypocrisy on Iraq. (He wouldn't pull out anytime soon, despite his implicit promises.) Powers affirmed this.

Also, Barak knows damn well, that, though he had nothing at stake with his vote, Hillary would have lost her Senate seat had she not given benefit of doubt to the overwhelming misinformation and phony intelligence from Bush et al which conned even Colin Powell.

This would have eliminated her genuine hope to bring about future change.

3) Demonstrated Submissiveness Under Challenge (Firing of Powers.)

4) Throwing Over Loyal and Capable Feminist Loyalists to Fend Off Personal Controversy.

So, BJ, I know you have a hard time with substance. But there's some more for you to choke on.

(Or perhaps you'd prefer to freak out about Italicization or Underlining?)

EW

Eastwest
03-09-2008, 03:09 AM
Reihan seems to have an articulation problem.

As for his career in acting: suggest he not quit his day job.

Also (re contretemps), if he wishes to phony up any more French, he might learn to pronounce it at least approximately first.

EW

Jeff Morgan
03-09-2008, 03:22 AM
I think the main difference was the caucus (remember Texas does both a primary and caucus); without Obama's caucus delegate lead, Hillary would have gained the most delegates.

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 04:09 AM
EW:

If it makes you feel better to label my mild criticism of your stylings as "squeaking" and "freak out," by all means. Who am I to deny an outpatient comfort when he is so clearly in need of meds?

I do not, however, accept your accusation that I am "obsessing on superficialities over substance." I remarked that you were using the former to make up for a lack in the latter. That was my only point.

Look. The fact is, we all had to grow out of our first exposure to WYSIWYG word processors. I know, I know, it's a temptation to push every one of those shiny buttons in the toolbar. Boldface, [I]italic, and underline, in particular. Woo-hoo.

I'm just sorry to see that you have yet to grow out of it, when everyone else on this board apparently has. I am also sorry to see that you fail to realize how much it undermines the content of your thoughts (I stipulate! I stipulate!) when you make your posts look like the output of a bunch of sophomore business majors, putting together their first Tips!!! Newsletter, a quarter of a century ago.

I will close by noting that I dread the day that you discover graphic emoticons.

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 04:28 AM
Jeff and Bokonon:

As far as I understand it, you're both right. In addition to other obsessing, I watched the Texas returns last Tuesday by constantly refreshing the TX SecState's page, and it was clear to me from the ongoing results that it is possible to win the primary (in delegates) while losing the popular vote. That was the way it was trending most of the night, once Obama lost the lead in the popular vote. Only in the end did the Monster (http://hillaryclinton.com/) pick up a slim delegate lead as well.

There's a further complication, in that the precincts, or whatever they call them, are weighted according to turnout in the past election, or primary, or something like that.

So, the bottom line is: Gerrymandering mattered, but it wasn't the whole story.

Okay, that wasn't really the bottom line. We continue to dig.

The caucus results aren't part of the delegate counts. Yet. The good ol' boys have yet to figure out how to count past 41% reporting on that score. (Going by the NYT (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html), here, but I grant other news orgs may be projecting by now.)

Finally, Bok, for all of my eye-rolling at Conn and the staleness of his talking points, I do have to grant his point in the abstract: There is a lot that's undemocratic about the nominating process, and the Democratic Party is arguably worse in this regard. I'm not even going to get into why Iowa and NH always get to be first, or whether FL and MI should or should not count this time. Here are just three other things that I'd like to see addressed over the long term: (1) Caucuses are blatantly undemocratic (no secret ballot, high barriers to participation); (2) the byzantine and disparate rules that govern the assignment of pledged delegates in the states; and (3) the superdelegate thing. I buy aspects, or at least the originating spirit behind all three, but the fact is, there is very little that's democratic about any of them.

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 04:33 AM
No Science Saturday this week? boo

Dude. For someone who once billed himself as Grand High Exalted Mystic Official Historian ... you're just finding out about this now?

We peons were hoping you were just holding off on posting because you were the only one who knew the skinny, and just wanted to torment us in our ignorance.

But in all seriousness, if you came here jonesing for SS, as I did, and have not yet watched: avoid the BillConn like the plague. It will not uplift.

If you already watched, sorry about not warning sooner.

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 04:50 AM
All ball-busting aside, EW, it seems to me that you used to make a better argument before you started getting mark-up happy. I only wish that you would get back to letting your words stand on their own, instead of gussying them up. It's a distraction, plain and simple.

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 04:52 AM
Disagree. His Monster (http://hillaryclinton.com/) was quite good, I thought.

graz
03-09-2008, 05:13 AM
Re BJ's Squeaking About Bold-Face Type:

Excellent example of your preference for obsessing on superficialities over substance.

(The weirdness of "bold" here is a BHTV site-specific fluke wherein their serif font bumps up massively. Note the difference with how they treat the sans-serif fonts. The intent was to flag the essence of topics, that's all.)

But, again, substance: Obama has ineptly volunteered for trouble:

1) NAFTA duplicity;

2) Hypocrisy on Iraq. (He wouldn't pull out anytime soon, despite his implicit promises.) Powers affirmed this.

Also, Barak knows damn well, that, though he had nothing at stake with his vote, Hillary would have lost her Senate seat had she not given benefit of doubt to the overwhelming misinformation and phony intelligence from Bush et al which conned even Colin Powell.

This would have eliminated her genuine hope to bring about future change.

3) Demonstrated Submissiveness Under Challenge (Firing of Powers.)

4) Throwing Over Loyal and Capable Feminist Loyalists to Fend Off Personal Controversy.

So, BJ, I know you have a hard time with substance. But there's some more for you to choke on.

(Or perhaps you'd prefer to freak out about Italicization or Underlining?)

EW

Eastwest:

Listen... even though you are all-knowing and must have anticipated my post, is it redundant to ask for you to accept the mantle of smartest forum participant? And as such will you consider upping your posting frequency so as to enlighten and correct all the misinformed, wrongheaded and simply less equal posters. I await your beneficence and wisdom. I need a new hero now that you have taken Obama off the pedestal. Lead and I will follow. I will drink any flavor of kool-aid, ingest any substance you proffer.

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 05:49 AM
graz:

It is indeed redundant. And also pointless.

For if the Master of 50% of All Principle Compass Directions had wanted your unworthy ass as a supplicant, you would not have needed to have asked His indulgence.

He would have made it clear to you, long ago.

graz
03-09-2008, 05:56 AM
graz:

It is indeed redundant. And also pointless.

For if the Master of 50% of All Principle Compass Directions had wanted your unworthy ass as a supplicant, you would not have needed to have asked His indulgence.

He would have made it clear to you, long ago.

I am crestfallen, humbled and indebted.
Grazie

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 06:09 AM
I am crestfallen, humbled and indebted.
Grazie

The Master of 50% of All Principle Compass Directions ... or Fiddy Cent, as I like to call him ... does have one shortcoming: He will on occasion fail to heed the pleas of us lessers.

So, I'm glad that I could be of some help, and wish only that I had an equally puntastic way to sign off, myself.

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 06:25 AM
BN:

Upon later review:

... he should just learn for next time how little it gets him to give in.

I want to express my regret at not noting, in my first reply, how cogent this thought was.

graz
03-09-2008, 06:33 AM
The Master of 50% of All Principle Compass Directions ... or Fiddy Cent, as I like to call him ... does have one shortcoming: He will on occasion fail to heed the pleas of us lessers.

So, I'm glad that I could be of some help, and wish only that I had an equally puntastic way to sign off, myself.

Of course we are his lessers - we are only offering our two cents - he gives Fiddy Cent.

Signing off now

donroberto
03-09-2008, 06:38 AM
If you've ever been a gamesmaster or commissioner of a betting pool or fantasy league, you'd be quite aware of enormous problems involved in changing rules in the middle the game or season. Hell, if you've ever played poker, you know the problems quite well.

There are almost always bad rules, but as long as they are equally unfair to all participants, they should be reviewed and changed before the start of the next contest or season, but never in the middle of the current one. Providing relief to one aggrieved party usually means aggrieving another. So a redo of Michigan and Florida is not only a terrible idea, but a form of cheating. But being that as it may...

Chuck Todd made the point today that even if there is a re-do, it is likely Hillary wins Florida 55/45, Obama wins Michigan 55/45, they split the delegates and end up in the same place as if they had just agreed to a 50/50 delegate splitting option in the first place, all of which would amount to a waste of tens of millions of dollars just to keep Hillary and her supporters from whining. (the last characterization being my own and not that of Todd)

JIM3CH
03-09-2008, 07:58 AM
Now now Brendan, being the undisputed chief historian does not carry with it the obligation to be up on current events as well. Give Nate a break. I have to admit I don't often read the mumbo jumbo on the front page either. In fact, anymore, I often don't listen to the diavlogs; instead I dive right in and read the comments first.

DenvilleSteve
03-09-2008, 10:29 AM
The pro Israel voters and Israel Lobby were gunning for Samatha Power for the last few months. The prospect of Obama changing US policy towards Israel/Palestine to one of neutrality was something I had some hope for. Alas, Obama thinks he cant get the nomination with the Israel wing of the democrat party wary he would withdraw US financing of the occupation.

-Steve

ogieogie
03-09-2008, 11:20 AM
...these things must be handled dellllicately...

Brilliant and subtle choice of reference.

When Bloggingheads comments rock, they ROCK.




Bogie Hussein Ogie

basman
03-09-2008, 11:27 AM
Just saying on the most important point to emerge from this diavlog:

"Source: gcide
[Often \Of"ten\ ([o^]f"'n; 115), adv. [Compar. {Oftener} ([o^]f"'n*[~e]r); superl. {Oftenest}.] [Formerly also ofte, fr. oft. See {Oft}., adv.] Frequently; many times; not seldom. [1913 Webster]"

deebee
03-09-2008, 12:49 PM
I think that the Monster comment is a win-win for Hillary because it shows that the Obamians are spooked and intimidated by her and she gets to act self-righteous at the same time.

After all, being a Monster ain't all bad since it echoes that "Bitch is the New Black" cry that portrays her as the strong one.

uncle ebeneezer
03-09-2008, 05:28 PM
HERE'S WHAT I THINK!!!:

I disagree that the Powers resignation was an obvious "loss" for Obama. Letting Powers go is hardly a white flag to the Clinton campaign, and as Bill noted the whole thing was expedited in about one news cycle so as to minimize the damage. If Obama didn't let Powers go (and isn't it possible that she WANTED to get out after making such an obvious blunder?) all the Hillary-tards would be saying "you see, this just shows that he doesn't know how to run a campaign. What will he do against McCain? Etc., etc."

I am however disappointed that Obama didn't use it as more of an opportunity to put it in terms of his own narative. He could have:

A.) Declared that this sort of thing has no place in his campaign and that he respects Powers he didn't feel her comments were appropriate to the kind of campaign he is trying to run. IE- rules are rules. A nice benefit to this approach would be that when the press inevitably asked him whether the pressure from Clinton had had anny impact on the decision, he could have resoundingly answered that

"No, that was not a consideration. My campaign will not be dictated by whatever story Hillary is trying to tell on any given day. First of all, the stories change so frequently that it can make you dizzy. One minute she's honored to share the stage with me and complimenting me, the next she's saying I'm incapable of answering a phone. Another problem is that the Clinton campaign likes to play it a bit loose with the facts in order to try and score cheap points. Just go online and lookup the current story on the Nafta nonsense that the Clinton camp felt so eager to use to smear me. Go look it up. It's on the Toronto Globe and Mail website. But the most important reason why we are not taking our cues from the Clinton campaign is because she has shown time and time again that she is only intent on continuing to use the same old name-calling tactics that are more fitting for Karl Rove than a 2008 democratic nominee, and quite frankly that's the kind of thing that Americans are tired of and that we are trying to get away from. So if you think that's the sort of thing that you want then you'll have to go to some other candidate. And that's why I had to regrettably part ways with Ms. Powers"

OR, B.) if he wanted to keep Powers he could have said something like:

"I've spoken with Ms. Powers and she has assured me that we will never hear anything like that again and I have to take her at her word. A very wise man once said 'to err is human but to forgive is divine.' Now I don't claim to be divine but one of the most important things I have learned through my years as a devout Christian, is of the power and importance of forgiveness. Ms. Powers has issued sincere apologies to everyone involved and I think it's time to move on and get back to the issues that really matter to the voters rather than the Clinton campaign staff."

And in summary i just want to say that to me the whole Hillary/Obama decision can be summed up in some simple math. Hillary gets Dems to vote for her (even slightly more than Obama.) Obama gets Dems + Independents, including a bunch of starry-eyed young'ins who seem only intent to vote for HIM as well as the Independents that McCain will try to court to put him over the top. Against Obama, the fight would be over the Independents. Hillary would lose a substantial amount of the Independents to McCain AND drive a huge turnout of ambivalent Reps who foam at the mouth at the mention of the name "Clinton." So the question is do you want Hillary as the nominee, or a Dem in the White House?

THAT IS ALL!!!!!!

Bloggin' Noggin
03-09-2008, 07:00 PM
There is a lot that's undemocratic about the nominating process, and the Democratic Party is arguably worse in this regard.

Worse than the Republican process? I wouldn't grant that at all. Winner take all (the Republican process in most of the states) is not especially democratic. It produces an early decision, so it may have practical benefits, but it's hardly more democratic: a near-tie can lead to one person getting many delegates and the other person getting none, and of course, an early decision means that a lot of states don't get to make any difference to the vote at all even when there are many plausible candidates. I happen to think that McCain does maximize the Republican's chances, so he was the best choice, but I'm not at all sure he was the most popular choice among Republicans.

Wonderment
03-09-2008, 07:22 PM
I disagree with a lot of my fellow pro-Obama posters on last week's events.

After Texas, it is clear that Hillary will not quit prior to the Convention, nor will anyone force her to. Before Texas, the Obama campaign had a legitimate hope of avoiding Super-Delegate voting and winning the contest without aiding and abetting McCain. Now it's too late.

Call Hillary intransigent, monstrous, tenacious, manically ambitious or whatever you like, that doesn't obviate the fact that there needs to be a deal, and it needs to come soon. A prolonged fight only helps the right wing.

The Clinton proposal that Obama fold and become VP is a non-starter, but something else may be negotiable.

Here's one idea, but feel free to add your own:

Hillary gets to be commander-in-chief, but she agrees NOT to seek re-election in 2012. She also lets Barack name half the cabinet.

Such a deal would not be a backroomer, and could be ON THE TABLE before the American people.

Clinton says, "The people support us both and can have us both. I will be a one-term president, and I will support my VP, Barack Obama, in his quest for the presidency in 2012.

This has the added advantage of saving the Party all the money and trouble of the 2012 primary season. It all gets ratified in Denver in '08. The Superdelegates, many of whom will still be senators, governors and reps. in 2012, guarantee enforcement of the deal.

Obama likes the deal because he gets to be the most powerful VP in history and the probable president of the US from 2012-2020. Hillary gets to fulfill her dream.

Of course, bringing the deal to fruition requires a successful 4 years for Hillary: ending the war, delivering universal health care, repairing at least some of the catastrophic damage done by the Bushies, and so on. But everyone has the incentive to make that happen and to pave the way for the Obama years of 2012-20.

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 07:44 PM
Wonderment:

That's a fascinating idea. The flaw, of course, is that Hillary Clinton will never, ever, not in the life of the universe and even if it solved all of humanity's woes, make a pledge that limits her power or tenure. And I wouldn't trust her even is she did.

But try this: McCain pledges to be a one-term-only president, with Obama as his VP. Sounds crazy (and won't happen, of course), but consider:

o McCain came close to being John Kerry's running mate

o Obama is all about unity and ending petty partisanship

You could also trust McCain on this pledge quite a bit more, since he will be about 97 in 2012.

bjkeefe
03-09-2008, 07:50 PM
BN:

I did say "arguably," not "inarguably," and you make a good point.

I don't know if I consider a winner take all contest necessarily undemocratic, in and of itself, but you're right that, effectively, a series of them is. As you note, such a system tends to end the primary prematurely, given the way money and support flow to the early front-runner.

The undemocratic aspects of the Democrats' process that I listed in my previous post still seem worth addressing, though.

deebee
03-09-2008, 09:15 PM
The decision to revote in Florida has to happen real soon in order to for it to become logistically feasible by June 10, so waiting until after Pennsylvania as suggested is not an option.

As someone who moved to Florida from the Northeast four years ago and who has relatives in Michigan I can unequivocally tell you that Obama's incentive for getting these two states involved is to keep them out of the Republican column in the fall since John McCain is very competitive in both. These voters are currently demoralized about the situation and furious at the Democrats for their original boneheaded decision not to come to some compromise at the outset. Also any win without their involvement will prove incomplete and tainted.

As of now, it appears that the resolution will come in the form of a less expensive mail-in vote for both states paid for by donations.

Wonderment
03-09-2008, 10:06 PM
Well, the problem I see with your McCain-Obama ticket is that they actually disagree on the major issues, whereas Clinton-Obama are in basic agreement, and certainly can agree on whatever the Democratic Party Platform is.

Another idea I have is an actual coin flip. The disadvantage to this one is that I don't think they could go public with it and might have to lie about why the loser dropped out.

Here are the terms of the flip-not-flop:

Heads becomes president; Heads agrees to appoint Tails to the Supreme Court as soon as a Justice retires or dies. Heads gets the Big Job, but Tails gets a great consolation prize -- a lifetime appt. to the court.

jmcnulty
03-09-2008, 10:23 PM
To call Hillary Clinton a "monster" is an insult to self-respecting monsters everywhere. Obama, instead of caving, should have let her have it. This is a woman who has not released her tax returns, her White House papers (eight years afterwards -- planty of time to catalogue), and Presidential library contribution list. Against this, Rezko stacks up pretty weakly, especially for Obama, a guy coming out of Cook County politics. Hillary now smells blood in the water and thinks that Obama is too saintly to repond effectively to her attacks. As Mickey Kaus astutely observed weeks ago, "By the time this campaign is over, people will think that Hussein is Obama's middle name." Obama cannot be both a saviour and the defeater the Gorgon. He has to be one or the other. Hillary will burn the party right down to the ground to win the nomination.

Nate
03-09-2008, 11:04 PM
I hearby bestow the title to whomever wants it. Too much pressure to perform. ;)

bjkeefe
03-10-2008, 01:12 AM
Wonderment:

You're right about the issues. My suggestion didn't come off as funny as it sounded in my head beforehand.

I don't like the coin flip. That presupposes a tie. Unless something unusual happens, I expect Obama to be in the lead in pledged delegates. I think the superdelegates just have to vote for him.

I am rethinking my earlier fantasy about giving Hillary the Senate Majority Leader slot. I now think that she would just use that position to continue doing battle with Obama.

bjkeefe
03-10-2008, 01:13 AM
Nate:

Too late! It is a position for life!

;^)

johnmarzan
03-10-2008, 01:22 AM
if i were barack, i'd forgive samantha power for her silly "monster" remark and invite her back into the campaign.

and make a promise to barack supporters that it will never happen again.

People will respect you more for it, Sen. Obama. Don't let the Clinton machine push you around.

and oh yeah, screw hillary!

http://politicaljunkie.blogspot.com/2008/03/to-barack-obama-forgive-samantha-power.html

Nate
03-10-2008, 02:41 PM
Wow, even those on the SCOTUS can step down when they want; I feel honored. ;)

I'm still disappointed about no SciSat this week, though. :( Hopefully it does not a foreshadowing of a gloomy week to come.

bjkeefe
03-10-2008, 03:19 PM
Nate:

The beauty of the position, though, is that you're free to define it however you want. If Benign Neglect and Masterful Indifference become your new guiding principles, who is anybody else to say anything?

The absence of SciSat and its weight as an omen seem not overmuch. So far since, Obama has won Wyoming and MSNBC has canceled Tucker Carlson. On the other hand, my governor just broke the news that he was involved with a prostitution ring.

Wonderment
03-10-2008, 04:06 PM
On the other hand, my governor just broke the news that he was involved with a prostitution ring.

Don't worry. Unless it was with pre-pubescent slave girls from Bangladesh, it will be hard to outsleaze the Republicans. At least, he's unlikely to find Jesus and get saved.

bjkeefe
03-10-2008, 04:30 PM
Don't worry. Unless it was with pre-pubescent slave girls from Bangladesh, it will be hard to outsleaze the Republicans. At least, he's unlikely to find Jesus and get saved.

Heh. Actually, my first thought was that he would admit his wrongdoing, and in the same press conference, then announce his conversion to the Republican Party.

StillmanThomas
03-10-2008, 08:09 PM
Brendan,

My original post probably wasn't explicit enough. However, you're straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. OF COURSE the Democratic primary process isn't Democratic, but all you have to say is "super delegates", the old guard party machinery in action. My point was simply that Conn was blaming the Democrats for something the Republicans worked their butts off to create: the Gerrymandered districts.

bjkeefe
03-10-2008, 08:26 PM
Bokonon:

Gerrymandering clarification noted. Good point. And you're right about the superdelegates being another undemocratic aspect, too.

uncle ebeneezer
03-11-2008, 02:39 PM
Don't worry. Unless it was with pre-pubescent slave girls from Bangladesh, it will be hard to outsleaze the Republicans.

Pre-pubescent girls would still probably be ok for the GOP, but BOYS?? well, that would just be wrong.

At least, he's unlikely to find Jesus and get saved.

I dunno, stranger things have happened with politicians trying to save their own necks.