PDA

View Full Version : The Week in Blog: Hillary Postmortem


Bloggingheads
06-06-2008, 04:02 PM

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 05:44 PM
Nice job by both, on the even-handed score -- good mix of partisanship and reasonableness. And welcome, Amanda -- nice to see a new face on TWiB.

One gripe for Conn:

When you criticized (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11660?in=16:57&out=17:09) the section of Obama's speech that centered around the phrasing of "this was the moment," you failed to acknowledge that the speech was not about Obama claiming that he could do this. Rather, he was saying that we could do this.

I'll add that you came off as disingenuous for treating this section of the speech as literally as you did. I'll repeat the James Poulos observation that I posted in another thread, since it seems to apply so well to you:

And it´s also important to recognize that if Obama were a Republican and a conservative he´d be fawned over and slobbered on as the True Second Coming of Reagan.
-- James Poulos (http://americasfuture.org/jamespoulos/2008/06/it%c2%b4s-obama/)

Shall I go on at length, say, to explain how it is not, in fact, "morning in America" for more than a few hours a day and insist that this shows that Reagan was anything but aware of how the world works?

There are plenty of things for you to nitpick that would seem more reasonable; mistaking poetic allusion for concrete prose is lame. Just admit the man can play a crowd like a violin and move on.

Oh, one more thing for Conn:

On an unrelated note, I wish you had elaborated on losing your seat at the table (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11660?in=29:22&out=29:36). Do you think it's because you have said that McCain can't win? Or are there particular criticisms of McCain that you (or Heritage) have published that ticked him off?

graz
06-06-2008, 06:08 PM
Oh, one more thing for Conn:

On an unrelated note, I wish you had elaborated on losing your seat at the table (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11660?in=29:22&out=29:36). Do you think it's because you have said that McCain can't win? Or are there particular criticisms of McCain that you (or Heritage) have published that ticked him off?

Thanks to both participants. If Conn chimes in I would also like him to speak additionally to his dismissal of Gingrich last week. I think Conn is representative of the new wave - the Flake's, Jindal's etc... But is their hope for the old wave (apart from paleo Buchanan) to mingle with the new?

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 06:22 PM
Here's a video summary of the pundits' reaction to McCain's speech, assembled by Veracifier (http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20080604).

Bonus: reaction by the Web's leading reasonable conservative (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-make-sure-you-have-right-change.html).

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 06:33 PM
I was pleased to see that as Conn went on about the leftward tilt of MSNBC that he acknowledged the existence of Fox News. Didn't think it was going to happen, but he did come around to that eventually.

On the question of whether this harms NBC's credibility as a news organization, I would say: No. Anyone tries to make hay out of this is already someone who thinks of NBC as part of the liberal media.

Anyone disagree?

graz
06-06-2008, 07:07 PM
No, can't disagree, but it raises questions about the effectiveness of TV news in general.
Conn seems to be engaging in the "working the refs" scheme when plying that case.
If you have watched MSNBC coverage lately (election related), Matthews and Olbermann have made some reflexive comments about impartiality and perception.
For instance: (non-election coverage) Olbermann's relentless dogging of O'Reilly has made waves. O'Reilly in turn has been calling NBC's credibility into question. Along the same lines that others question Fixed... I mean FOX.

I'm not sure what effect this attempt to smear NBC/MSNBC could have? As a consumer I treat all my sources with skepticism. But what passes for news on the major networks seems to adhere to the same journalistic principles.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 07:21 PM
No, can't disagree, but it raises questions about the effectiveness of TV news in general.
Conn seems to be engaging in the "working the refs" scheme when plying that case.

Yeah, I could see it that way.

If you have watched MSNBC coverage lately, Matthews and Olbermann have made some reflexive comments about impartiality and perception.

I gave up on TV news decades ago, and it's even easier to stay away these days, knowing that anything good will be posted online. I can't, therefore, really comment on MSNBC.

For instance: Olbermann's relentless dogging of O'Reilley has made waves.

If Olbermann never did another thing in his life, he'd still deserve a place in the Hall of Fame for this. An on-air counterweight and watchdog for O'Reilly was badly needed.

O'Reilley has been calling NBC's credibility into question.

The thinness of that man's skin never fails to amaze me.

I'm not sure what effect this attempt to smear NBC/MSNBC could have? As a consumer I treat all my sources with skepticism. But what passes for news on the major networks seems to adhere to the same journalistic principles.

Same principles as what? I think TV news has markedly lower standards than good newspapers do, even leaving aside the choice of Fox and MSNBC to go blatantly partisan. I stopped watching TV news programs because of their preference for the sensational, their refusal to cover stories that don't have catchy video, their superficial and context-lacking treatment of most stories, the amount of time they waste on fluff and gossip, and their attempt to hype the human conflict no matter what the story's topic.

Add to that their willingness to air as gospel PR from the government and big businesses, and their horrible record of disclosure of conflicts of interest inherent in their on-air "experts."

graz
06-06-2008, 07:47 PM
Same principles as what? I think TV news has markedly lower standards than good newspapers do, even leaving aside the choice of Fox and MSNBC to go blatantly partisan. I stopped watching TV news programs because of their preference for the sensational, their refusal to cover stories that don't have catchy video, their superficial and context-lacking treatment of most stories, the amount of time they waste on fluff and gossip, and their attempt to hype the human conflict no matter what the story's topic.

Add to that their willingness to air as gospel PR from the government and big businesses, and their horrible record of disclosure of conflicts of interest inherent in their on-air "experts."

You said it brother, and son to a former journalist, inveterate fact finding and checking blogger and web denizen.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 08:05 PM
Adding to the discussion in this diavlog about media partisanship, Ruth Rosen (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/06/tales_from_inside_the_editoria/) has a medium length piece up on TPMCafe that's well worth a read. It concerns constraints on publishing during the early years of the Bush Administration, even for those writing for the opinion pages of a liberal newspaper.

Rosen's bio, TPM version (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/rrosen), may be of some use for understanding where she's coming from.

Baltimoron
06-06-2008, 09:24 PM
Nice job by both, on the even-handed score -- good mix of partisanship and reasonableness.

I was enjoying this diavlog with my breakfast until Carroll said this, and then I just endured the rest of the diavlog:

Just Process (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11660?in=00:19:03&out=00:19:33)!

To be fair, Terkel pushed back and Carroll acknowledged it. Yet, Cohen v. Ponnuru (1-28-08) (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8388?&in=00:29:47&out=00:39:08) did it much better. The clip seems prescient now. But still, I was looking for a link on the SC primary about how Obama's community organizing was changing Dem politics from the Rove-like methods of push polls and targeted designer appeals. Also, there's last year's campaign finance feint Obama made to limit campaign funds going from the general to the primary. Of course, there's Obama's Internet fund raising. The MSM, Carroll, and Bill Clinton fixate on minor wonk issues, personality, and low blows, but there is no discussion of primary reform, campaign finance reform, or party organizing and rules, unless it wraps itself up into a neat cage match like now in Florida and Michigan. So many people registered and voted (except in FL and MI), and that's the story. American politics is in danger of becoming illegitimate and completely the prey of an Olsonian logic that relegates the average voter to second-class citizenship behind tighter-organized special interests.

Mr. Carroll, you're part of THE PROBLEM: you suck up misery like vampires, create more gore and spectacle, and ultimately, you and your MSM and think tank coven (and before you weasel into your partisan bluster, that counts for Terkel, too), give nothing. Go join Goldfarb spreading misery, or work for Pro Wrestling!

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 10:06 PM
Has anyone tracked the rating for the period of time that this "feud" has been going on. It's a ratings cat fight, all hiss and howl.

johnmarzan
06-07-2008, 07:52 AM
terkel? the surname doesn't sound asian. is she married?

johnmarzan
06-07-2008, 08:31 AM
Here's a video summary of the pundits' reaction to McCain's speech, assembled by Veracifier (http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20080604).

Bonus: reaction by the Web's leading reasonable conservative (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-make-sure-you-have-right-change.html).

john mccain looked like The Joker whenever he smiled...

johnmarzan
06-07-2008, 08:56 AM
without having listened to the entire podcast, here's what i suspect hillary wants.

1) she wants to be VP because she wants to sabotage the obama campaign.
2) she'll say all the right things, but she secretly wants him to lose to mccain.
3) because if mccain wins, she thinks she has an excellent shot in 2012.
4) if obama wins, it has the potential to become a two-term presidency, and she will become irrelevant. plus, bill might divorce her, thus ending their political/business arrangement.

johnmarzan
06-07-2008, 09:29 AM
amanda has been trying to dismiss the significance of the surge. but even andrew sullivan, the biggest obama fan out there, thinks doing what ms. terkel did is the wrong way to go about it.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/obama-and-iraq.html

pod2
06-08-2008, 12:46 AM
I was surprised at Conn's spirited assertions that Obama's web and social networking outreach was not in any way different from McCain's. (Just that more people on the web felt resonance with Obama's candidacy, thus would donate and volunteer more than McCain supporters).

My impression all along, and it may be completely mistaken, is that Obama's internet tools allowed a far greater involvement and autonomy for interested activists or supporters than previous campaigns. For example, that, on primary or caucus dates, volunteers could log into the Obama site and receive actual lists of prospective voters' phone numbers and addresses. Other campaigns tend to dole this info out on their own terms, protecting it as proprietary and not available to net volunteers.

My other impression was that the Obama campaign was using these mass rallies to take down millions of addresses (email and other) with which to draw future support (both financial and phone banking).

My question for all of you, and perhaps Conn as well:

Is McCain doing this? I know that the other Democratic candidates were not. I know that Obama's massive stadium-size events lead directly to these immense donor lists that Alter has been trumpeting in his Newsweek columns. I thought that this somewhat more open source approach and database building set Obama's campaign apart from other campaigns, and are the factors that worry the McCain folks so much in the coming months.

In these tools may be the key to turnout, which Rove tended to emphasize, but also to fund raising and local media coverage, which was not revolutionized by Rove in the same way.

Baltimoron
06-08-2008, 01:24 AM
Carroll, like the other inside-the-Beltway scum, just doesn't think "process" is important. Money is speech, and if not legally, McCain can buy a n election. Why bother with quixotic change?

bjkeefe
06-08-2008, 01:31 AM
pod2:

I was surprised at Conn's spirited assertions that Obama's web and social networking outreach was not in any way different from McCain's.

Well, you're right: he's wrong. McCain's Web presence is much, much better.

For example, nowhere on Barack Obama's site is there anything like this (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/198945.php).

pod2
06-08-2008, 01:34 AM
Carroll, like the other inside-the-Beltway scum, just doesn't think "process" is important. Money is speech, and if not legally, McCain can buy a n election. Why bother with quixotic change?

That may well be true, but I also thought that I heard Conn say that he wasn't aware of even web 'process' differences in how the Obama campaign was using the internet, and that the success of his web outreach was just a function of the broader popularity of his message/candidacy among those who are most net-savvy.

But I take your 'process-only' criticism from the early part of the diavlog, and kind of disagree with Conn's characterization on that point as well. But I'm not sure how much yet.

To a certain extent, process IS important, as you seem to indicate. The location of a candidate's power base is, to a large extent, the product of PROCESS. A candidate who derives his support from the overwhelming popular support of milliions of small contributors has the power to do different things than a President who derives his support exclusively from lobbyists, PACs, and the network pundit class's endorsement of his sensible foreign policy approach. I could go on, but I think you know what I'm talking about.

bjkeefe
06-08-2008, 01:52 AM
I agree. Conn's dismissal -- "that's just process; c'mon give me something else" -- seemed translatable to "I want to claim that Obama ('s campaign) is no better than McCain ('s campaign). Therefore, I will reject every aspect that you bring up where Obama is better as 'unimportant' until, out of fatigue, you will be forced to agree with my claim."

When your side is out of ideas, you focus on argument techniques.

pod2
06-08-2008, 02:06 AM
pod2:



Well, you're right: he's wrong. McCain's Web presence is much, much better.

For example, nowhere on Barack Obama's site is there anything like this (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/198945.php).

I think that Obama is starting to realize that there is a lot of ground to cover when catching up to a net operation like McCain's.

Proof?
I couldn't help but notice that he was doing some much needed catchup in this area during Hillary's concession/endorsement speech. Sure enough, he was seen in Chicago heading out with his own set of golf clubs, hitting the links.

bjkeefe
06-08-2008, 03:36 AM
I think that Obama is starting to realize that there is a lot of ground to cover when catching up to a net operation like McCain's.

Proof?
I couldn't help but notice that he was doing some much needed catchup in this area during Hillary's concession/endorsement speech. Sure enough, he was seen in Chicago heading out with his own set of golf clubs, hitting the links.


This strategy failed miserably. Everybody knows that (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/06/to-coin-phrase.html).

conncarroll
06-08-2008, 08:41 AM
Thanks to both participants. If Conn chimes in I would also like him to speak additionally to his dismissal of Gingrich last week. I think Conn is representative of the new wave - the Flake's, Jindal's etc... But is their hope for the old wave (apart from paleo Buchanan) to mingle with the new?

I come from a family of Democrats, and Newt was definitely one of the conservative voices that brought me to the right (PJ O'Rourke, George Will and Rush Limbaugh being the most prominent others). Always liked him. Still do. I strongly believe the GOP era ended when Gingrich and Armey were replaced by Tom DeLay. The DeLay/Bush era has been disastrous for the GOP and the conservative movement. I cringe every time I see DeLay posting on Townhall or RedState. He refuses to disappear. And don't get me started on Michael Gerson.

Moving on the positive, there is a younger generation of conservative office holders I am very excited about: Hensarling, Flake, Shadegg, Cantor, McCarthy, Ryan, DeMint, Coburn, Jindal ...There is a future for conservatives and the party they choose to act through...and a failed Obama presidency is exactly the jump start it needs.

JIM3CH
06-08-2008, 01:18 PM
I enjoyed Amanda as interlocutor for the left. Hope to see her back again!

graz
06-08-2008, 01:22 PM
Conn:
Thanks for the reply. I know the format doesn't call for it, but I wish you and Bill could have a discussion about first principles of your respective "sides. I would also be interested in your jump or do you think you were always inclined rightward? (maybe have to wait for your autobiography). I too was raised in a Democratic environment. As much as I laugh at P.J. O'Rourke, and find his underlying critiques intriguing, I am an unlikely candidate for conversion.
Hey, was your last sentence a "shot?" Ouch.
But I do "hope" we have a chance to test the theory.

Bloggin' Noggin
06-08-2008, 05:24 PM
I just watched HRC's speech last night on the web. Gracious and eloquent. I wish we had seen more of that Hillary through most of the campaign. I think it was her finest hour.

Wonderment
06-08-2008, 06:32 PM
I just watched HRC's speech last night on the web. Gracious and eloquent. I wish we had seen more of that Hillary through most of the campaign. I think it was her finest hour.

Yes. In part because of this speech, she may emerge as the greatest woman role model and s/hero in the Democratic Party since Rosa Parks.

All the experts thought the campaign weakened her, increased her "negatives" and debilitated her legacy. On the contrary. She is coming out of this process stronger than when she went in, and free at last -- thank God almighty, free at last -- (of her loser husband Bill). She now stands alone, above him, as an American political leader.

Although I never came close to supporting Hillary, I admired her more and more throughout the campaign. Her huge mistake, as far as I''m concerned, was the Iraq war authorization vote. That's just too much of a deal-breaker for anyone as anti-war as I am.

graz
06-08-2008, 08:55 PM
I just watched HRC's speech last night on the web. Gracious and eloquent. I wish we had seen more of that Hillary through most of the campaign. I think it was her finest hour.

She really rose to the occasion. I look forward to her crafting, in whatever role she chooses, the policy or programs to advance her stated goals.

johnmarzan
06-08-2008, 11:20 PM
Although I never came close to supporting Hillary, I admired her more and more throughout the campaign.

same feelings here.

JIM3CH
06-09-2008, 07:12 AM
The speech was fine, but I’m in the too little too late camp. I tend to agree with Anne Applebaum’s post at Slate:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/06/08/let-s-not-get-sentimental-about-hillary-now.aspx