by hilzoy
In a first for me, I find myself agreeing with Mark Steyn:
“The real story of the night, when you look at their rallies and their turn-out numbers, is that the Dems have two strong candidates either of whom could lead a united party to victory. Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn’t bode well for November.
Personally, I think the choice for Democrats is not exactly between Super Duper and merely Super; it’s between Super and Perfectly Acceptable. Nonetheless, it’s a much better choice to be faced with than the one Republicans have. And this is why I don’t agree with Ed Morrissey’s worries about “The Coming Meltdown For The Democrats”:
“What happens if Obama comes to the convention — and Hillary beats him with the superdelegates?
It could create a huge firestorm in Denver that could consume the party’s oxygen for the next several years. The African-American vote would see this as a stolen nomination and could walk away from the Democrats. Rank-and-file voters, especially those who supported Obama’s call for change in politics, would likely see this as smoke-filled-room maneuvering — which is exactly what it would be. The bitterness would extend to the House and Senate members of the superdelegate assembly who backed Clinton over Obama, and it could threaten the Democrats’ down-ticket races as well as their presidential election chances.”
I think that the possibility of a “meltdown” for Democrats is pretty small. Yes, nominating Clinton if Obama came in ahead in terms of non-super-delegates would be “smoke-filled room maneuvering”, but if neither candidate has won enough delegates to take the nomination outright, it’s going to be “smoke-filled room maneuvering” either way. How this maneuvering goes over depends, I think, on two things. The first is what kind of maneuvering it is, and in particular whether it involves either side doing something that is patently unfair. To pick a deliberately implausible example: suppose that one side were to discover some implausible interpretation of the rules that meant that some large chunk of delegates pledged to the other side could not be seated. Suppose further that the person charged with interpreting the rules was a vocal supporter of the side doing the excluding, and that s/he ruled that the implausible interpretation was, in fact, the right one. Finally, suppose that the fact that those delegates were excluded from the convention made the difference: but for this exclusion, the person doing the excluding would not have won the nomination. In that case, there would be bitterness.
If it’s just normal politicking, or if any unfairness is relatively minor, on the other hand, I don’t think anyone would be bitter enough to stay home, or to fracture the party. For better or for worse (I choose “worse”), this is how the system works, and so long as neither side tries to bend the rules too far, I can’t see that supporters of a losing candidate would move past disappointment into the kind of bitterness that keeps large numbers of people away from the polls.
The second factor that determines how “smoke-filled room maneuvering” goes over is how unacceptable the losing side thinks that the winner is. Here is where Mark Steyn’s point becomes relevant: I really don’t see that either Obama’s or Clinton’s supporters dislike the other enough that if their preferred candidate lost, they’d just stay home. (This might be true of some of Obama’s supporters among independents, but not, I think, of his supporters in the Democratic base.) Since Captain Ed focussed on the possibility that Obama supporters might just revolt, I’ll focus on that as well.
Consider the reasons why people tend to support Obama. One is that he’s likely to do better in the general election. Wanting a Democrat to win in the general election is not likely to motivate anyone to sit the general election out. Another is Clinton’s vote on the war. Again, I don’t think that people who are moved by this argument will be inclined to sit out the general on this account: it’s one thing to prefer someone who consistently opposed the war over someone who didn’t, and quite another to sit out an election between someone whose opposition to the war has been equivocal and John McCain, who seems to think that we should put 150% of our available troops into Iraq and stay there forever. A third is that Obama promises change and a new kind of politics. Here again, while this argument might support Obama over Clinton, it also supports any Democrat, Clinton included, over any Republican with the possible exception of Ron Paul.
Basically, almost all of the arguments for preferring Obama to Clinton are also, even more strongly, arguments for preferring Clinton over any Republican who is even remotely likely to win the nomination. There are two exceptions to this. The first is visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton. I do not believe that this is a powerful force among Democrats; if not, it will not split the party apart, though it could well hurt us in the general election.
The second, which Captain Ed mentions, is a sense of betrayal among African-Americans. I suppose this might depress the African-American vote, but I have a hard time seeing large chunks of the African-American electorate just sitting the election out. For one thing, my sense is that the reason Obama is racking up such huge percentages among African-Americans is not that they don’t like the Clintons; they just like Obama, and the thought that an African-American might actually be President, more. For another, I think that Captain Ed is underestimating African-Americans’ commitment to the Democratic Party. I think it would be a mistake for Democrats to take African-American votes for granted, and that it would be tough on African-Americans if the party establishment were believed to have taken the nomination from him. That said, there are reasons why African-Americans disproportionately support Democrats over Republicans, and I do not think those reasons would be lost on African-Americans in the general election, especially given the sheer implausibility of any black candidate getting close enough to the Republican nomination that the party elite had to block him.
Fights get bitter when one or another alternative strikes large groups of people as unacceptable. If Clinton or Obama were running against George Wallace or Rick Santorum in the Democratic primaries, and if the party were to give Wallace or Santorum the nomination, bitterness would ensue. But that’s not the situation we face. Likewise, fights turn bitter when significant numbers of people are sold on the idea that they have to have perfection or nothing at all. But while some Democrats might have bought into this in 2000, most of us have had that ridiculous idea beaten out of us over the last seven years. My sense is that most of us are not about to pick up our marbles and go home. We already know where that kind of thinking leads, and we don’t like it.
The Republicans, of course, are another story entirely. She said, suppressing an evil grin.
Don’t underestimate the anger, even if unstated, about how the HRC campaign treated Obama like the help rather an accomplished man.
We (African-Americans) are trained to withhold much of our anger at the dehumanizing system and culture we live under but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. HRC’s campaign played on that and it angered many people.
I won’t vote for HRC. It’s not that I don’t like her (although after her slimy attempt to grab get the FL amd MI delegates, I don’t). It’s because I think having 2 immediate family members run for the WH is a bad idea.
Why is HRC the establishment candidate after 1 term in the Senate? Because she lived in the WH. Where does most of her experience to make her ready from day 1 come from? She lived in the WH. Why is the most powerful democratic politician stumping for her? He married her. Why are many superdelegates supporting her? They owe her husband for past favors.
That kind of advantage isn’t good for a democracy. To reward it twice in a row will vastly encourage others to try get around the term limits. I won’t vote for McCain (although he scares me least of the republicans), but I won’t vote for HRC either.
Jay: I didn’t mean to downplay it. I mean, it angered me. Do you think it will lead to a large number of people staying home, and/or to a split in the party?
I think that you are basically right. If the decision is percieved as fair, the base will back the candidate.
There will be a significant loss to the party, however, if the choice is Clinton whether the choice is made fairly or not because it is Obama that appeals to new voters and independents. Clinton does not have that appeal and we can expect that those new folks who jumped on the Obama bandwagon will drop off if the choice is Clinton.
I hope that we can finaaly focus on electability. There just isn’t any value in continuing the arguments about how i think this candidate is better because he/she meets my criteria. That’s too ego-centered. We need to focus on the common goal of getting a Deomcrat inot the White House. So the question isn’t “Which one do i like?” The question should be,”Which one is better for all of us because he/she can run a better race against mcCain?”
Of course the answer is Obama so I suppose I could be written off as just another egocentered partisan hiding behind a non-partisan pitch, but i’m not.
I’ve never given a damn about OPbama’s charisma except that it is a good asset for our team.. I’ve never bothered to learn the differences between their health policies because Presidents don’t write legisltion anyway. I forgive Clinton for being a Vichy Dem collaborator. I have been an Obama supportered since the convention of 04 because he can win. Everything that has happened i the primaries supports that contention: he has media support, he has an awesome ground game,he gets the essential independent vote and he won’t turn out the rightwing base. Given that both candidates are somewhere between acceptable and excellent, electability is the only thing that matters, and that means Obama.
Speaking as one who has voted for a Democrat in every presidential election since being enfranchised, I would really have to hold my nose to vote for Sen. Clinton. But it’s true I still would, rather than vote for any of the guys who seem to be competing for the Crazy Clown award on the Republican side.
I think it would split the party if Obama came in ahead in delegates and either the super-delegates chose Clinton or somehow FL & MI were seated.
I think that if HRC gets the nomination the AA vote will be slightly depressed just because of how she played this one. In a 50+1 strategy such as hers (when she can’t pull indies and reps) that could be deadly.
one who has voted for a Democrat in every presidential election since being enfranchised
Me too! And I would be happy to vote for Clinton, though certainly not as happy as I would be to vote for Obama. I saw a poll just today that said approximately, “72% of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton were nominated, 71% of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Obama were nominated”. I don’t see how you get a split in the party out of that.
The searing examples that people concerned about a convention fight probably have in mind are 1968 and 1972.
In the first case, party elites shut out insurgent Democrats, which cemented an already deep distrust of the party among young antiwar voters. Had 18- to 21-year-olds been able to vote in that election, in which the war was a major issue, they might well have stayed home. Certainly antiwar Dem politicians didn’t go out and work their guts out for Humphrey; that convention left scars.
In 1972, the other side of the divison took its ball and went home after the convention. Rule changes that favored the grassroots over the party elite, an attempt to prevent another 1968, resulted in the nomination of McGovern. In that election many of the party elite and leaders of the power bases (particularly unions) sat on their hands.
Both primary-convention-campaigns intensified and hardened splits in the party.
I’m not saying that’s the current situation, but it’s within the living memory of my generation of Democrats (55- to 70-year-olds).
Hilzoy, in my month or so of reading posts here I have been astonished at the depth, detail, and good sense of what you write. I intend to refer as many people as I can to “Actually, I think we can” when the silly notion that Obama is only hype and pretty words, and no substance, comes up. (Or even when it doesn’t. 😉 ) And there have been many others quite as good.
But in this one, I detect perhaps…a little wishful thinking? A little projection of your calm and thoughtful approach onto people who don’t operate that way? I’m not sure.
I wish I could be as hopeful as you, but then I’m one of those people (a lifelong Democrat but not a political junkie by any means, and pretty frustrated with, and mistrustful of, the whole 2-party system) who might well refuse to vote for Hillary. Though I’m not African-American, I too intensely dislike the way the Clintons treated Obama when it became clear that he was a significant threat to Hillary’s march to the nomination. And there are other things….
Besides what I would consider to be principled decisions like the one Jay implies (and I am including righteous anger as a principled stance), there is a lot more sheer cussedness out there than I think you allow for. Think of the stories Gary told last night about how voters make their decisions!
[In the time it took me to write this comment, I got 2 phone calls and various other interruptions and a dozen other comments appeared that I haven’t read yet. Sorry if I’m repeating stuff someone else has said.]
As always, you make concise commenting easy, Hilzoy: I agree.
See, that was simple.
Incidentally, it turns out that the high and exalted and ultra-powerful position I was elected to last night includes, as one of two Precinct Committee Persons, that I’m also now on the Party Central Committee of Boulder County, comrades!
Hail revolutionary solidarity! Raise high the banner of struggle against capitalism! May Glorious Marxism-Leninism triumph over the–
What’s that?
Not that Party?
Oh.
Never mind.
But even in the Democratic Party, beware now the power of my wrath in Boulder County, as I use my awesome new powers to raise minions of the dead to vote for our candidates, and bend them to my will as zombie-master!
Morrissey:
” … and create a huge firestorm in Denver…”
Yeah, it would be fun if Captain Ed and the republicans were in town instead.
After all, this sentence in an article in the Rocky Mountain News from a “businesswoman” who should know:
“It would be a lot better for the sex workers if it was the Republican convention,” she said.
“We get a lot more business. I don’t know if they’re just frustrated because of the family values agenda.”
This puts the entire idea of getting women off the welfare rolls and available for jobs of all sorts of such import for the Republican Party.
Word is they’re putting in extra bathroom stalls at Denver International Airport, too.
Just in case Republican protesters show up from Colorado Springs.
“72% of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton were nominated, 71% of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Obama were nominated”. I don’t see how you get a split in the party out of that.”
How much of a split do you think you need? If only half the black vote splits off the Democratic party (which I suspect is less than 20% of the party–anyone have firm figures?) how much chance do you think Clinton has against McCain?
You don’t need a 50/50 split of the party to have a complete disaster. Heck, anything that seriously threatens the black vote for Democrats in a general way is a big problem. How many more racial jabs from Bill Clinton do you think that will take if Obama wins the delegates and then loses? Are you sure that point hasn’t already been crossed?
I’m not saying that they will vote for McCain. I’m saying that they just might not vote.
If Obama loses in the regular delegate count (barring crazy shennanigans from the Clinton campaign), I’m fairly sure that you can count on regular black turnout. But if it turns on super-delegates, or even worse on the Florida/Michigan disaster-in-waiting I don’t think you can count on that. If even 1/4 of the regular black vote stays home, it is a disaster for Democrats.
And while I don’t have any polls since there isn’t any history, my gut would say that 1 out of 4 wouldn’t be shocking.
Basically I guess I’m saying that you are focusing too much on ‘split’ as if it implied around half the party going to form another party or voting Republican. That isn’t the scenario in question. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t disaster scenarios which are more likely.
Kudos to JanieM.
Not everyone is as calm and rational as Hilzoy. Spoke with a dear friend yesterday who is a former Democratic State Party Chair who said he would vote for McCain if Hillary got the nod. She is simply not electable.
Name ONE STATE that she could plausibly add to the list of those carried by Kerry.
Um, folks, the Obama camp played dirty too (calling her the Senator from Punjab was a particularly classy touch – I can imagine the howls if the roles were reversed on that one).
But then, all politicians do. Yes, even Barack Obama (the man who doesn’t go negative, other than when he does).
Though I would say that, compared to past races, this Dem primary has been pretty tame. Not that you’d know judging by the myriad tempests breaking out in teapots cross the country.
That being said, anyone that would actually stay home and help John McCain take the White House rather than vote for HRC is just…well have you been paying any attention to the past seven years!!!!!
For the love of all that’s decent
(rips remaining clumps of hair from scalp)
“That kind of advantage isn’t good for a democracy.”
femdem, I agree entirely with your reasoning and grounds. Completely.
But in the end, if the choices are McCain or Clinton, I think sitting on one’s hands is the kind of action and reasoning that got George W. Bush elected in 2000. Not for the same reasons, but the same reasoning that because both candidates were imperfect, that this therefore justified not voting for either, since the differences wouldn’t be important enough to outweigh the imperfections of the less-bad candidate.
I hate voting for the lesser of two evils. Who doesn’t? It’s voting for something that’s part-evil, after all.
Still. But. And in the end.
I am a lifelong Democrat and I have participated in every primary since Eugene mcCarthy ran > And I have voted for the party’s candidate no matter how disappointed I was.
But, if Hillary gets this by cheating (seatng Florida and Michigan), I will devote myself exclusively to supporting down ticket races and I will not vote for President. I decided that a couple days ago,
she might be able to win me over, but right now i’m pretty sour on Clinton, for a number of reasons including the ‘dynasty’ issue, the unseated delegate thing, the GOP/media circus she’ll guarantee, her AMUF vote, etc.. and given that i’m in a pretty solid Red state, i could take a pass on voting for her without worrying too much about the consequences (though i’d certainly vote Dem on the Congressional races). she’d be better than McCain in terms of policy, no doubt; it’s the rest of the stuff that bugs me.
i’d for Obama in a second, even if i was in the reddest of the red states.
so, i’m dreading Clinton, and hoping for Obama.
Sigh.
You know that large portions of the Life of Brian were written as a critique of Leftist political movements.
Glad that we agree that our common enemy is…Hillary Rodham Clinton!
Keep this in mind: William Kristol actually preferred McCain to Bush in 2000.
Kristol thought Bush was too soft, and that only McCain truly understood what needed to be done in terms of foreign policy.
But hey, whatevs!
You know that large portions of the Life of Brian were written as a critique of Leftist political movements.
yes, we should learn to unify behind our candidates the way the right has unified behind McCain.
HA!
Well, they’re not perfect, but if you compare track records over the past 30 or so…
Prevention’s easier than healing. So if you’re in one of the upcoming caucus/primary states, talk to your fellow Dems and interested independents (if your process is open to them) about the positives.
Use Hilzoy’s post. Obama’s real work for sunshine/transparency reforms has a particular appeal for independents. For hardcore Dems, emphasize the potential for building the party, by bringing in so many new participants, and what it could mean for the next twenty years of elections. Talk about the impact on down-ticket races of so many new Dem-leaning voters.
If Obama keeps gradually increasing his delegate lead, the superdelegates will go with him. Only a minority of pro-Clinton diehards are willing to risk the ugliness of a fight.
Gary, you have no idea how hard it is to even contemplate not voting for the presidency. I’d definitely go all out to help everyone down ticket- no question about it (because they’ll need all the help they can get). But as Pub says, things don’t change until politicians lose. If this becomes a winning strategy, then I foresee very bad things.
Yeah.
Help McCain win to change…formulas…about what wins?
I mean, after we showed Gore in 2000…uh, something and then something else…
The end.
Any democrat who choses not to vote in the general because of who is nominated is letting themselves, their neighbours and the rest of the world down.
No one can afford another republican administration.
How can that not be crystal clear?
The big thing for me is not the superdelegates, but if they come into the convention more or less tied and Clinton manages to force a seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates and they provide a 50-vote margin or so for her to get the nomination. Under those circumstances, I might very well be sufficiently dismayed and bitter as to rethink my willingness to accept Clinton.
I wouldn’t underrate the bad feelings that a very close vote can leave in any circumstance. Maybe it’s because I’ve drunk the Quaker Kool-Aid after teaching in a Quaker institution for so long, but there’s something to be said for backing up and rethinking a vote when it starts to become clear that it’s almost an even split, at least if it’s an important issue. (And any time it is even, that’s an indication that it’s important to people: an unimportant question tends to be one where many people just ignore it or let it go forward in some form.)
In this case, they don’t have the option of simply backing up and trying to figure out how to build consensus before the vote happens. But I don’t think that either candidate should be too breezy or casual about the possible consequences if the losing group feels they were done in by a cheat or by some kind of conspiracy. This is particularly important in terms of carrying the House and the Senate as well: the Democrats very much need the assertive goodwill of Obama voters, not just their passive and disgruntled assent.
“…in an article in the Rocky Mountain News….”
Over here, John.
Sebastian: “If only half the black vote splits off the Democratic party (which I suspect is less than 20% of the party–anyone have firm figures?) how much chance do you think Clinton has against McCain?”
“If even 1/4 of the regular black vote stays home, it is a disaster for Democrats.”
Sure, and if only three African-American voters ended up voting for Clinton, that would be bad, too.
And equally likely in this particular universe, so it’s really interesting to speculate about.
If Clinton’s the nominee, and there’s more than a 6% drop in African-American turn-out over 2004, I’ll eat my hat.
Eric: “Um, folks, the Obama camp played dirty too (calling her the Senator from Punjab was a particularly classy touch”
That’s a pretty odd definition of “play[ing] dirty,” it seems to me, Eric.
“Playing dirty” is caging voters, jamming phone banks, sabotaging the oppositions cars and phones and infrastructure, spreading outright lies surreptitiously, sending out phony campaign material, using government agencies such as the IRS and FBI against your opponents, break-ins, setting fires, and so on and so on. What Karl Rove did, what Donald Segretti, Dick Tuck, and Chuck Colson did.
It’s not a mid-level campaign worker making a crack in a memo.
Loosely speaking, rhetoric, however dopey, wrong-headed, offensive, malicious, or even false, from a campaign, and “dirty tricks” are separate categories, I’d say.
And Nell’s historical summary is accurate, as one would expect, but I have to say that I don’t see the country as remotely near the level of tensions and violence of 1968 and 1972.
That was a period of endless rioting across the country, cities in flames, students being shot down, tanks on the streets of Washington, endlessly repeated mass demonstrations, violent suppression of demonstrations, killings of black leaders, COINTELPRO, an utter conviction in the White House, as well as among millions of opponents, that the country was on the verge of outright armed revolution, which, to some on both sides justified any means necessary, massive round-ups and arrests, people being held in RFK Stadium because no other site was large enough, and on and on and on.
Strife between Republicans and Democrats today, for all the hot rhetoric, is like a gentle breeze of lilacs, in comparison to 1968, or even 1972.
Wonkie, JanieM., allmaya’s friend, and whomever Sebastian’s been talking to
8( :
I’m absolutely sure Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson are bluffing when they say they’ll vote for Clinton if McCain wins the nomination.
You three, being much higher caliber human beings, probably aren’t bluffing when you say you will vote for McCain or not vote at all if Clinton gets the nod.
I respect that. Now let me light up 22 cigars and fill the room with the noxious smoke of pragmatism.
Or am I going to spend another four years wondering how it is that Republican candidates can be ruthless jerks and win all the time and Democratic candidates lose every time they show any sign of ruthless jerkitude?
Listen, the Clintons are punch-drunk is all. The bell rings and they throw left hooks.
Obama, should he come in second (I’m for him), will explain all of it to you repeatedly this Fall as he lets it go and helps Clinton beat McCain et al.
Rush will come around and therefore you must too.
You simply must. 😉
Eric, I said I was a lifelong Democrat, but that’s a little misleading. “The party” as such is not particularly important to me. I don’t believe in the abstract proposition that what’s good for the Democratic party is good for the country. As for “the left” — I care about that even less “left” than I care about being a Democrat as such. If I could dissect my beliefs about life and government, and had a book-length forum to do it in, the result would be some peculiar mix of “left”, classic conservative, and libertarian. (And the fact that that sentence tells you almost nothing about my mix of beliefs is partly why I don’t deal in any of these labels if it’s left up to me.)
That said, I agree that the last seven years have been a horror. I am just not convinced that a Hillary Clinton presidency is going to be much better. I am with femdem on the dynasty thing. To say I have been underwhelmed by the accomplishments of a Democratic-majority Congress since the 2006 elections would be a vast understatement. I also don’t think Hillary is all that “left.” As I’ve written before in a comment, her possible effect on gay-related issues is a case in point. People keep implying that Hillary will be great for gays. I beg to differ. I think she and Bill use gays the way Rove uses the religious right: cynically. So although in some policy sense I think it would be better to have Hillary than McCain, in other (and mostly longer term and bigger picture) senses I’m not sure it’s a net plus.
I also think she’s temperamentally prone to some of the same faults Bush exhibits: an inability to admit a mistake, for once thing.
Finally (for now), the reason I am so impressed with Obama is stories like the one Hilzoy told about the Illinois legislation requiring taping of interrogations, and how he went about getting it passed. That has nothing to do with his being a “Democrat.” It has to do with the kind of person he is. If there was a reasonably center-oriented Republican who operated like that, I would choose him(/her, ha ha) over a strongly partisan and damn-the-opposition Democrat any day.
No one can afford another republican administration.
Oh come now, those poor shlubs on food stamps and otherwise reliant on government assistance to survive can tough it out for another 8 years if that’s the price that must be paid so that we can all prove our purity as true progressives. Collateral damage.
And Syrians and Iranians can, how does one say, learn to live with the smell of napalm in the morning because, well, HRC ran a nasty campaign and she offended my sensibilities.
Crikey. Real people’s lives will be measurably worse (or cease to exist) under John “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain.
Doesn’t that trump?
I agree with Tim, as usual, as well.
I’d also like to re-emphasize what I said here, which is that Ed Kilgore points out some very real problems with the situation if there isn’t a definite nominee at least a couple or more weeks before the convention.
It’s not like President Bartlett is available to settle who runs the convention, vets the speeches, orders the speakers, and so on. Neither will Howard Dean suddenly acquire magic powers to command the rest of the DNC — superdelegates all — to do his bidding.
This needs highlighting. It’s important.
I think that Clinton can count on a very large majority of Democratic Obama supporters voting for her in the general election. Whether it’s “assertive goodwill” as opposed to “passive and disgruntled assent”, depends, & it will matter a lot for turnout etc.
Sorry, Eric, but everyone knows Jeb is the smarter, saner brother. In 8 years, everyone will remember the recession didn’t start until the primaries and Rush will swear it was fear of a democrat nomination. And David Brooks will avow if only we’d done what George wanted we’d be sending our children to Iraq for summer camp (with ponies).
OTOH, I’ll work my hiny off in Ohio for Obama this month.
Eric, I said I was a lifelong Democrat, but that’s a little misleading. “The party” as such is not particularly important to me. I don’t believe in the abstract proposition that what’s good for the Democratic party is good for the country.
I could care less about “the party.” I’m not a party apparatchik, just a concerned citizen. Screw the party, give me a good candidate.
That said, I agree that the last seven years have been a horror. I am just not convinced that a Hillary Clinton presidency is going to be much better.
Yes, I’m familiar with these arguments. I heard them in 2000 when people were comparing Bush to Gore and explaining why they were voting for Nader. Made about as much sense then.
If you honestly can’t distinguish between McCain and Clinton, I doubt my showing you their respective records and policy positions is going to do much good. As for how “left” she is, she’s pretty close to Obama and pretty far from McCain.
To say I have been underwhelmed by the accomplishments of a Democratic-majority Congress since the 2006 elections would be a vast understatement. I also don’t think Hillary is all that “left.”
Um, where do you think Obama was during that time period. Answer: in the Senate voting in near lockstep with Hillary.
I think you are underestimating the amount of bitterness if Clinton wins in a smoke-filled room. If HRC wins fair and square, I am likely to vote for her in the general. But it wasn’t all that long ago that shenanigans in Florida threw a Presidential election in favor of a candidate with a big family pedigree. I find myself gagging at the thought of allowing it to happen a second time.
Sure femdem.
Or we can keep electing Republicans in hopes that Democratic politicians will grow more emboldened and move farther left. That should work.
Eric, I have disliked Hillary forever, so the snark about Iranians and napalm all because some people got offended by a “nasty campaign” is not to the point. As far as the campaign goes, it isn’t just the nastiness, it’s what the nastiness is in service of. I simply don’t believe it’s in service, at bottom, of values I agree with. But that’s a can of worms I’m not going to open here and now.
John Thullen — cigar smoke gives me a headache, which makes me very crabby and ever more stubborn. You will have to find some other way to approach the question of a change of heart this fall. 😉
“Sure, and if only three African-American voters ended up voting for Clinton, that would be bad, too.
And equally likely in this particular universe, so it’s really interesting to speculate about.”
You have an odd vision of statistics if you think that is equally likely. I would guess that my scenario is in the 30-50% range of possibility. Big error bars, I know. People are wacky, and when they feel betrayed they do wacky things. And Clinton isn’t exactly known for being able to help people get past feeling betrayed (and that included Democrats).
There are non-black people who comment right here on this blog who suggest they will be staying home if Clinton wins through certain tactics. I suspect our Democratic-party inclined commenters here are more committed Democratic voters than the average Democratic voter. So why do you think something that could change their mind isn’t likely to change other people’s minds?
I will be blunt: it is selfish for people to insist that THEIR favorite get the nomination when their favorite is the least electable. It’s the people who insist in the face of all reason that we MUST MUST MUST nominate Clinton that are harming the party.
Obama not only can beat McCain, but he will have coattails. I keep thinking of gary Trauner who drove his station wagon around Wyoming, on an Internet-financed campaign to be Wyoming’s first Democratic Rep in forever. he almost won. He is trying again. If we nominate Obama and he continues to draw independets and new voters to ourside Trauner will likley win (he’s four points ahead right now)
Howefer if the Hillary partisans have their way, the independents won’t voe D at the top, there won’t be an influx on new voters and the rightwing will go out to vote against the lady they hate so much. An we end up losing races like Trauner’s.
Maybe someone who is a Hillary partisan can explain why it is so imperative she gets the nomination, even though the result is likely to be a loss or at very best a very narrow victory with no coattails. Seems to me that the difference between Hillary and Obama would have to be very, very substancial to justify choosing Hillary, given the problems inherent in a Hillary candidacy. I’ve read pleny of pro-Hillary posts and i don’t accept “She’s a woman like me!” or ” I don’t believe in Obama!” or “I like her health plan” as being reasons that are substantive enough to justify losing the election and/or losing the coattails.
Eric, if it were any other politician in the world I’d vote for the democratic candidate. But not Clinton. She’ll make a fantastic Leader of the Senate, but not president of the US. It has nothing to do with not liking her or her policies, but in what kind of precedent we set for the next few decades.
Convince me it’s not bad for the country to allow families to set themselves up to hold onto the WH for decades and I’m willing to listen. But so far I haven’t heard anything telling me why McCain with a dem congress would be worse than the precedent.
And she’s funding this run with money she made from books that were written because she was the ex-president’s wife.
Eric — I didn’t say I couldn’t distinguish between Clinton and McCain on policy. Also, the more snippy and superior you get about how stupid my choices are, the less likely I am to change my mind because of anything you say. John Thullen’s cigars have a better chance.
I don’t want to pile on, and since I made the point in the first place, it should be clear, but for the sake of redundancy, I’ll say that I firmly agree with Eric’s 04:30 PM and 04:37 PM.
The reasons given for not voting for Clinton are good reasons.
But ultimately not good enough, in my view, when we look to what the results would be.
I want a massive first strike on letting the perfect be the enemy of the adequate, or even the less bad.
And I want people horrified by Clinton to ramp up their examination of McCain’s policies like mad.
Or, to put it a touch less demandingly, I urge people to ramp up their examination of McCain’s policies.
🙂
(Sorry; my massively awesome new political powers are going to my head today.)
femdem — thanks for the 4:48 point. I wasn’t able to articulate it, but it relates to me sense of bigger picture and longer term tradeoffs, that go beyond policy for the next 4 years.
Hilzoy – though I think you underestimate the visceral dislike thing and its ability to keep people at home, I think you’re right about the unlikelihood of a serious Democratic fracture. Apparently, superdelegates have never yet changed the “decision” of the pledged delegates. True, they haven’t been around long enough for one to be totally sure, but it’s a good bet that they’ll toe the line.
The big problem is the time that a tight Democratic race is going to buy the Republicans, assuming McCain wraps things up quickly. He’ll have time to court the Dobsons and Limbaughs, and the whole party will have time to adjust, align and organize. In this scenario, the Democrats are going to want Obama’s independent appeal (and his ability to win Southern states given good turnout).
In my completely unscientific research, I have come across several people, democrats and independents, who say they would NOT vote for Hillary Clinton.
I can’t bring myself to go that far, but I certainly won’t go out and campaign for her the way I have been for Obama. I am tired of the Democratic party taking progressives for granted (or whining about spoilers from leftist third parties instead of considering WHY voters might want to leave the Dems in the dust).
“Or, to put it a touch less demandingly, I urge people to ramp up their examination of McCain’s policies.”
But for heaven’s sake, only if you are a Democrat. And do it privately. In public, keep talking about McCain’s views on torture, immigration, and campaign finance reform.
It would be a nightmare if the Rebubs win because admiration for Obama turned into a cult of personality.
Although I once said I would not vote for Clinton and could actuallu see myself voting for McCain, I have since reconsidered and would definitely vote for Clinton. And I think most, although not all Democrats would do the same.
But, unfortunately, a lot of fringe voters who really like Obama, but perceive (improperly, I admit) that McCain is a moderate Republican, will probably vote for McCain over Clinton. I am not saying that would necessarily mean that Clinton would lose, but her victory, if it happened would be by a narrow margin.
Secondly, as was pointed out upthread, I believe that with Obama, we would have a lot more lower ticket victories.
With Clinton, there would be many voting for the Republican candidate for Congress just to have a firewall.
So, although I agree with hilzoy that the party would not come undone, the possible ramifications are considerable.
And keep in mind that, although the media appears to have a love affair with McCain, they have as big if not bigger a love affair with Obama and this would be important during the campaign.
JanieM and FemDem:
I don’t mean to be getting snippy. I apologize.
By all means, back Obama to the nines in the primaries. I’m not a Clinton partisan. I like them both immensely as choices.
But this stuff I’m hearing about backing McCain worries me (or not backing McCain’s opponent be she HRC).
My sister is in the US Army. One of my best friends just got back from his second tour in Iraq. John McCain is one of the, if not the most, militaristic politician in America. Bar none. Consistently.
http://americanfootprints.com/drupal/node/3891
He wants to permanently occupy Iraq, and has indicated that he would like to start a few more wars. If he wins, both my sister and friend have a much better chance of being put in harm’s way. I am not alone in this predicament by any stretch, but it is personal.
Outside of the personal, the people of Iraq will suffer even more, and there’s a good chance that the Iranians and/or Syrians will get a taste of McCain’s warlust. His presidency could easily lead to hundreds of thousands of more deaths by US military action.
On the domestic side, his economic policies are ruthless and would greatly harm the most vulnerable Americans among us. Tax cuts for the wealthiest would continue, wealth disparity expand and the dollar would continue to weaken under the burden of tax-cut/war fueled deficits.
The Supreme Court justices that he would nominate would seriously jeopardize Roe, set back civil rights, the ability of government to regulate industry and other important judicial precedents/issues.
The environment and global warming would get some lip service, and some half measures, but mostly go ignored in favor of big biz.
I just can’t fathom looking at all those distinctions and not voting for Hillary. Even if you haven’t liked her for a very long time.
The one argument that sways me is the potential for dirty tricks with MI and FL delegates – somewhat. Otherwise, the stakes are simply too high to make a quixotic stand. At least for me because I have at least two dogs in this fight.
Actually, two dogs that I want to keep out of the fight.
“I suspect our Democratic-party inclined commenters here are more committed Democratic voters than the average Democratic voter.”
I’m not sure about this. More likely to vote & more liberal, but your average primary voter in a closed primary state may identify with the Democratic party far more than I do. A lot of young liberal activists feel betrayed by & bitter towards the party establishment; it’s a mistake to assume that this is pervasive.
The bitter young liberal activists will, if they remember 2000, vote for the nominee anyway, but if Clinton wins ugly at the Convention they might not volunteer, donate, nag all their friends to register & vote, etc., which would depress turnout somewhat among people who are less likely to vote at all.
This would be bad–it’s especially bad long-term. It is every bit as naive & entitled for the party to expect to suffer no ill consequences for alienating their activist base as it is for activists to stay home or vote for McCain out of spite. But it’s not because we’re representative or more loyal Democrats. Most Democratic primary voters REALLY LIKE Bill & Hillary Clinton, a hell of a lot better than I do.
I can’t really speak to black turnout. Bill Clinton pissed some people off, no doubt, but I’d guess that the main issue is that they’re voting for Obama instead of against Clinton. I’d guess African American turnout will be noticeably lower if Obama loses than if he wins, especially if things get ugly, but I don’t see a real reason for it to drop below 2004 levels. The thing is, we want to do BETTER than 2004 at getting out our votes.
Oh, and to amplify my point about the fringe voters. I have three family members who would definitely vote for Obama but against Clinton.
They will even be open and say that they don’t agree with Obama’s policies to a great degree, but that he represents a better possibility for actually turning this country around.
hilzoy, I can quite literally count on one hand the number of times I disagree with you. But this is one of those times. I really do think the convention is a risk.
If HRC wins out and the perception is that she cheated (let’s say she manages some way of seating the phantom Florida delegates), it will nuke her image for the general election. It will depress turnout. It will demoralize the party. And it will energize Republicans. She’s worked very hard to change her image into something other than cutthroat, and it all came down like a house of cards in South Carolina. Note also that the likelihood that there is a perception that she cheated is probably far greater than the likelihood that really does in fact do something so objectionable as to rightly be called cheating.
If Obama wins in a smoke-filled room (who still smokes?), the story will just be that the upstart cleverly outmaneuvered her, and it may actually help him. If she wins by the same means, there will be howls of anger from all sides. I think you are underestimating the number of Democrats who don’t much like the Clintons but like what they do for them, like the fact that they are on their team, so to speak. Those people will peel (with all the anger and rage characteristic of the betrayed) the moment that Machiavellianism is turned against them.
I think you are also underestimating how much animosity these campaigns and their supporters will grow between now and the convention if it stays close. It might not be there today, but it will be there by August. Obama and HRC might be above it. Their supporters won’t be, and we are talking about their reactions, not the candidates’.
Put it this way. These elections are awfully close. I know I’m voting for HRC over any Republican, and I’m not staying away from the polls come November. But HRC is starting to make me nauseous. Paying for her own campaign. Her defensive and bullying spokespeople. Her self-serving tactics of selective enfranchisement/disenfranchisement. She’s turning my stomach. But I’m still voting for her. For every five people like me who are still voting for her, I bet you there is one who stays home on election day. An ugly convention will make Dems feel exactly what Republicans have felt about her for 15 years now.
The convention I think has a chance of crippling Clinton, less so Obama. It is a double standard, for certain.
Oddly, I find myself agreeing with everyone, even the people who disagree with me. 🙂
Just to be clear: I think that nominating Clinton would be a big, big mistake for us. Supposing for the sake of argument that she gets the nomination in an underhanded way, I will personally be furious, and I do not expect that I will be alone.
On the other hand, I also believe three things: (1) fury or no fury, the differences between Clinton and McCain (or any other plausible Republican candidate) are huge; (2) most of the things that might tempt people to stay home are things where the Republicans are likely to be much, much worse; (3) Democrats have been, um, seasoned by the last seven years to the point where our pragmatism is probably at its apogee, and our tendency to let the perfect be the enemy of the good is at its lowest ebb.
Clinton voted for the AUMF, Kyle-Lieberman and with the Republicans against
any restriction on the usage cluster bombs.
The victims of these weapons are estimated by the IRC to be 98% civilians including a lot of small children just running around the neighbourhood.
And yet, she voted against this rather timidly worded amendment, so she voted for continuing the practice of using weapons that kill indiscriminately and turn whole countries into minefields for years to come.
So, sorry hilzoy: I don’t think she’s “perfectly acceptable”.
I wish it were different, I’m not animated by any irrational Clinton hatred. But one cannot just brush this off, one has to face the facts and conclude what that will mean for her foreign policy – to me that doesn’t look good at all.
Eric — apology happily accepted. I will take what you wrote and put it into the mix when decision-time comes. It’s a long way to November. Maybe Obama will win the nomination and it won’t be a hard decision after all.
I will admit, the support for Obama is stronger than I expected. And it woke my cynical ass up! However, I still believe race is still a factor in American culture…and I suspect there are more people who will not vote for a Black person. Whatever negatives Clinton may have will pale in comparison to the folks who will never feel comfortable telling pollsters that they will vote for a Black person.
I don’t believe folks who tell me they would vote for Obama over McCain, yet will not vote for Clinton over McCain.
The whole Republican Party is corrupt and degenerate…Rove and Bush and the folks who supported them for the last 7 years make Clinton look like a girl scout.
And I am a 37 year old Black Latino who voted for Obama. I don’t agree that Blacks will stay home if it’s a rough and tumble convention. The black communities of the US have experienced worse. Sh!t, Katrina makes an Obama loss look like a picnic.
“Oddly, I find myself agreeing with everyone, even the people who disagree with me. :)”
Which is why everybody loves you so much.
Again, if Clinton were to lose even 5% of the vote of Democrats, I would be surprised. And I don’t think McCain can count on the Republican turnout that Bush received.
So in that sense I agree with you original premise. The problem comes if she is “perceived ” to have stolen the nomination from Obama. That would be used against her in the general, both by the media and the Republican establishment.
It may not totally split the Democrats, which is where Morrisey is wrong, but it would cause major problem with the people who view themselves as Independents.
I think Obama will take the nomination.
But if he doesn’t, unlike a lot of the good people around here, I’ll vote for McCain before Hillary.
Why? She will cement opposition to every positive step that needs to be taken. Without her, the republicans suddenly forget they ever supported torture (who, us?). With her, torture becomes all-American and necessary (for the children) just because Hillary opposes it.
McCain is a frightening moron, but he’ll at least produce a few positive changes. With Hillary, I think we get stuck reliving Bush years but with new faces.
If the national election was run like a caucus, (where Obama seems to do better) I would take back what I wrote; however in the quite and lonely space of a voting booth Black candidates still face white privilege.
Faraz, do you really think the GOP will start backing progressive policies because McCain is president.
?
Also: If Hill has one or both Houses, it won’t matter what the GOP opposes.
Sorry, should have read…
Whatever negatives Clinton may have, THEY will pale in comparison to the folks who will never feel comfortable telling pollsters that they will NEVER vote for a Black person.
hilzoy,
I think you’ve made a very strong case that informed rational democratic voters will hold their noses and turn out for Clinton if she wins through…questionable mechanisms. I want to believe that. My problem is that I don’t think most voters are either informed or rational.
Your analysis seems to presuppose that voters are motivated by candidates stances on issues, but I believe that many voters are essentially ignorant of candidates stances and instead project their own issue preferences onto their preferred candidates. I think this is especially likely to happen to someone like McCain: thanks in part to the press, we can already see that his public image bears little resemblance to his actual positions.
Moreover, I believe that there is some cognitive science or behavioral economics research suggesting that many disaffected democrats would not view staying home on election day as helping McCain. In other words, people tend to distinguish affirmative actions to vote for the bad guy from doing nothing. I’ll have to check for cites later, but basically, I don’t think most people are going to conclude that failing to vote is the same thing as helping McCain to victory (even though it is).
Eric — apology happily accepted.
Thanks for that. I’m not usually so damn snarky.
Contrary to publius, I kind of detest the primary season.
Plus: I’m taller than him.
Faraz, do you really think the GOP will start backing progressive policies because McCain is president.
Not at all. I’m apparently uninformed and irrational but not crazy.
But I do think that more progressive policies will be passed with McCain as president than with Clinton.
For me it’s simple. Obama represents a new type of politics. One that doesn’t appeal to partisan identity politics, one that reaches across the aisle, not for reasons of political maneuvering, but because sometimes the other side of the aisle has some half-decent ideas, one that won’t resort to dumbing down the electorate in order to score points for themselves or they’re party.
Bush just oozes all these qualities whenever he speaks and it disgusts me. Hillary and Bill don’t wear it on their sleeve like Bush, but they keep it in their back-pocket at all times. And it’s the type of politicking that will only beget more and more right-wing hysterics that we saw in the 90’s.
Andrew Sullivan put it best:
Bottom line: I won’t vote for Hillary in the election. I realize that policy-wise, Hillary and Barack are practically identical. But the “change” that Obama brings to the table is completely incompatible with everything the Clintons have come to represent, and I’d rather have 4 years of McCain with a Democratically controlled house and senate, than to affirm a bad choice for an entire generation. I think it’s important to the future of this country that Democrats draw the line in the sand with their own candidates…as it’s painfully obvious that the Republicans aren’t mature enough to take the first step themselves.
Not at all. I’m apparently uninformed and irrational but not crazy.
I never called you any of those.
But I do think that more progressive policies will be passed with McCain as president than with Clinton.
How?
Just let me see if I understand the premise:
McCain gets elected with a Dem controlled House and Senate, and they pass more progressive legislation than would Hillary with a Dem controlled House and Senate.
Why? Why wouldn’t the a Dem White House and Dem Congress work together better than the Dem Congress and McCain?
Or is it that McCain and a GOP controlled House and Senate would be more progressive than Hillary with the same Congress?
Why? Why would a GOP Congress and GOP White House produce more progressive legislation than a split government? Keep in mind, the GOP controlled Congress and the White House through most of Bush’s tenure. Bill Clinton had a split government for most of his.
Do you think the Bush years produced more progressive laws than the Bill Clinton years?
Those are sincere questions. I just want to understand your argument.
Sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me. I’d say it’s possible to avoid a meltdown – via one candidate or the other graciously backing out in a negotiated compromise – but any sort of backroom shenanigans carries a significant risk of a meltdown, particularly if Obama is the one shut out (say goodbye to all those new voters as well as a significant number of blacks, say hello to the Walter Mondale coalition, version 2.0).
“But I do think that more progressive policies will be passed with McCain as president than with Clinton.”
How? Why?
Would this also have worked with Nixon/McGovern, Ford/Carter, Reagan/Carter, Reagan/Mondale, Bush/Dukakis, Bush/Clinton, Dole/Clinton, Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry? We get more progressive policies passed with the Republican than with the Democratic President?
Or is this year or set of candidates special somehow? If so, how?
“Andrew Sullivan put it best”
With all due respect to him, Andrew Sullivan is certifiably insane on the topic of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.
“…and I’d rather have 4 years of McCain with a Democratically controlled house and senate, than to affirm a bad choice for an entire generation.”
“…and I’d rather have 4 years of Bush, than to affirm a bad choice for an entire generation by voting for Gore. We must teach a lesson by voting for Nader. I can’t vote for Gore. It’ll be for the best, you’ll see.”
someotherdude: I don’t believe folks who tell me they would vote for Obama over McCain, yet will not vote for Clinton over McCain.
I understand why you would say that, but look at the demographics Obama has been winning.
As an R who went I for a while now back to an R, I’m leaning towards Obama, but there’s no way I’ll ever vote for Clinton or McCain. If Obama gets the nomination there is a good chance he’ll get one more vote in the general. If Clinton gets it, the best case is that I won’t cancel out hilzoy’s vote.
On domestic policy I don’t see much daylight between Obama and HRC. It’s a given I’m not going to like many of the domestic policies either of them push. Yet I can still see past that to possibly vote for Obama.
My reasons for not voting for McCain are likely much different than most people here. But at least some of the reasons I won’t vote for HRC seem to be shared by others here.
The dynasty bit – and frankly I think that anyone who has structured their entire life around winning the presidency needs to be kept far far away from the Oval Office. I’m not sure what makes people believe that she will roll back executive powers. I’m not sure what makes people think she would never get us into a new war. I think that she and McCain are about even there, and as the first woman president she will be under enormous pressure to prove that she can hack it as CiC, that she is not afraid to use military power where it seems appropriate. Finally I just have a deep visceral dislike of the woman that nothing is going to change. I can’t be scared into it with “McCain will be 4 more years of Bush” because I believe that HRC will be 8 more years of Bush, only more secretive.
In any case the surest way to actually turn out Republicans to vote, and to convince Independents to vote R, is to nominate HRC. As well as the presidency Republicans will get at least one house of Congress back IMO.
I don’t believe folks who tell me they would vote for Obama over McCain, yet will not vote for Clinton over McCain.
You should. I’m one of them, and judging from the exit poll data that shows both McCain and Obama have more appeal to centrists and independents than Clinton, it seems I’m not alone.
Why? Why wouldn’t the a Dem White House and Dem Congress work together better than the Dem Congress and McCain?
Bill Clinton, 1992-94, leaps to mind…
“But I do think that more progressive policies will be passed with McCain as president than with Clinton.
How?”
Because McCain isn’t deeply opposed to all sorts of media-liked progressive things and he is willing to work with the other side on them. (See McCain-Feingold, though that is the kind of thing that makes me want to not vote for him). If you believe that there is a chance for serious health care reform under a narrowly divided Congress plus Clinton (my guess is is a low but non-zero chance) you could probably get it through McCain as well. McCain doesn’t have super-strong views on most domestic policy issues. If Congress passes a good bill, I seriously doubt he’d veto it. And that is how he is with most domestic issues. Unless you believe that Hillary Clinton is going to be harnessing the power of her charisma to get it passed when it wouldn’t pass otherwise (and unless you additionally believe that she would be able to do that from the Presidency but not from the Senate) she isn’t some sort of huge plus from a progressive point of view.
Which may lead you to ask why a historically Republican voter like myself would vote for Obama, when he has most of her policy plus charisma. But that isn’t understanding what motivates my conservatism. It isn’t that I hate poor people and want them to go without health care. I just don’t want to throw away the successes in an attempt to change it all. Obama strikes me as someone who will listen to conservative objections, take them to heart, and when he thinks it is appropriate make modifications. That is what good politics should be.
Clinton isn’t like that at all. She is pig-headed, and her last attempt at health care illustrated that–where her infighting with Democrats who had a slightly different vision than hers was as vicious as it was with Republicans.
I’m willing to take a risk on a politician who disagrees with me but will listen. Hillary is proven to disagree with me, and we know she won’t even try to listen.
“With all due respect to him, Andrew Sullivan is certifiably insane on the topic of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.”
Wow, I’ve never seen Gary do ad hominem. Was the quote certifiably insane? Do you even disagree with it?
“With all due respect to him, Andrew Sullivan is certifiably insane on the topic of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.”
Ok. But what about the substance of what he said? Yes, Sullivan loathes the Clintons, but not without reason, unfortunately. I say unfortunately, because I am one of those liberals who thought he got a completely raw deal in the 90’s, and it was because of this that I was able to overlook many of their antics or chalk it up to Clinton Derangement Syndrome. But I have to acknowledge that on many levels where I have criticized the Republicans, and more specifically the Bush Administration, there are clear parallels with the Clintons. There was Hillary’s healthcare plan dumped on the Democratic Congress without being open for debate (Cheney’s energy bill, anyone?), their cynical use of homosexuals (Bush and the religious right), Bill’s Chinese influence (Bush’s Saudi influence), Sandy Berger’s documents down the pants, and on and on.
Yes, a lot of these and other issues were blown completely out of proportion or were outright lies by the right-wing smear machine. But the Clintons were not entirely innocent, and during this primary campaign, all of their flaws have become painfully obvious to me and many others.
As someone who concentrates more specifically on policy, I can see why you are willing to overlook this in Hillary. But I feel this country is hurting not as much because of specific policies, as much as it is from a dysfunctional, partisan political process. A vote for McCain might drag out this hurting for the next four years before he’s replaced or dies, but a vote for Hillary would not only entrench the dysfunctional political processes, but exalt them as a means to pass through these corrective policies, which will only taint the policies in the long-run.
As for your second point:
“…and I’d rather have 4 years of Bush, than to affirm a bad choice for an entire generation by voting for Gore. We must teach a lesson by voting for Nader. I can’t vote for Gore. It’ll be for the best, you’ll see.”
Enough snark. The state of this country right now is 180 degrees from where we were in 2000. And McCain is 180 degrees from Bush. And our electorate has moved 180 degrees from the right to the left. All of which is to say that we gave the presidency to a complete and utter moron with no concept of how the real world works, then we gave him a congress that would let him do anything, and then to top it all off, after 9/11 the people did the same. McCain for all his faults, at least has some integrity, and more importantly, he will be given very little leeway by either the congress or the people.
But I do think that more progressive policies will be passed with McCain as president than with Clinton.
How?
First, if Hillary is the nominee, I think there’s a good chance that we will lose one or both houses of congress. However, I believe that this holds whether or not that is the case.
Let’s take two concrete examples: health care and global warming.
Health care: the very fact that government intervention in the health market is derided as Hillarycare should give you a good picture of how any policy discussions with Clinton in the white house will go. For republicans or swing district democrats to support reform will require a good deal of political cover only possible with a certain degree of bipartisanship. The pure hatred that many republicans have for Hillary in relation to health care in particular simply makes that impossible.
With McCain in office, there is still enormous pressure for action to be taken, but compromise remains possible. More, he gives inherent cover for moderate republicans since, if he doesn’t veto, he becomes the republican face for the policy, and if he does they pay a far lower cost for working with democrats.
Let’s say, 1% chance of positive change with Hillary, 20% with chance with McCain.
On global warming, McCain has explicitly said that action needs to be taken. This in and of itself changes the nature of the debate on this subject in this country. With McCain’s support, we could potentially peel off half of the republican representatives and more of the senators for direct action on this. Those numbers are important because it’s enough of a margin to leave room for solid policymaking rather than ugly compromises.
With Clinton in office, the Republicans will harden their positions on this just because she supports action. Although it’s difficult to imagine them sticking their heads farther into the sand, I think we’ll see it.
Odds of solid action being taken on this issue under Clinton: 25%, under McCain 75%.
Anyway, you asked for how I was looking at this, and there are two quick examples. Obviously there’s a certain amount of hand waving here as I predict the future, but hopefully it provides a footing for continuing the discussion.
Eric, no apology necessary- I didn’t see you as being snarky at all. And I was serious. I’m willing to be persuaded, but it’s going to take cold, hard logic to get me to believe McCain with a congress of democratic vertebrates would be worse than a 3rd Clinton administration.
“…between Super and Perfectly Acceptable.”
In case we haven’t noticed, the Clintons have cleared $150,000,000 in the past couple months ($130,000,000 for a Uranium deal in an Ex-Soviet Union state and $20,000,000 from a UAE hedge fund deal). The Clintons are the tools of those who are working very hard to gain control of this Country and turn it into a Central America-type economy.
Don’t think for a second that Obama would be any different; he has a history of using his up-to-recently limited political connections to line his pockets.
The wages in Guatemala and Honduras are $3/day. In Belize wages are $9/day. Despite the stated democratic form of government and huge concentrations of wealth in a handful of individuals, there is no income tax, as there would be in a true democratic government. The government uses a sales tax instead. The elections only determine who is selected to cut a deal with the power structure. This is the plan for us, in case we haven’t figured it out.
The Founding Fathers established a system where a smart group of Citizens elected representatives and held them accountable. We’ve turned away from this system for feel-good reasons. The means test used to be lien-free land (12% of the Citizenry). Some argue that by limiting voting to 30 or 40 million, people would be disenfranchised.
I argue that the current system is leading us to the point where 3 or 4 thousand will make the decisions. We don’t want to go there. Any person smart enough to cast an intelligent vote is smart enough to pay off a piece of real estate if he is a hard worker.
Nothing will change, of course, until we go broke. It should be an interesting Century.
For what it’s worth, I have a family member, an ’80 Ted Kennedy and ’88 Jesse Jackson supporter, who really viscerally hates Obama; whether too much to vote for him, I’m not sure. So there’s some of that out there too.
I’m an Obama supporter but I do wonder how much of what we’re seeing here is a net phenomenon. Clinton is the anti-Ron Paul; the Internet hates her more than the country actually does, maybe because blogging America skews younger, whiter, maybe maler and less Latino. In head to head polls against McCain, Hillary currently does worse than Obama but not by a huge margin. Reading this thread you’d expect the difference to be gigantic.
“‘m willing to be persuaded, but it’s going to take cold, hard logic to get me to believe McCain with a congress of democratic vertebrates would be worse than a 3rd Clinton administration.”
Here’s where I take a leaf from Hilzoy, and agree with Hugh Hewitt:
He’s absolutely right. If you want several more Alitos on the bench for the next forty years, and war with Iran, Syria, and god knows who else (North Korea?; China?; Sudan?; more countries harboring terrorists?) so as to teach the Democratic Party, or the U.S. electorate, or whomever, a lesson, I have to suggest you reconsider your sense of priorities.
How many more dead U.S. soldiers and dead civilians around the world is it worth?
How many decades of how many Supreme Court decisions of the Roberts Court with added conservatives, even if an Alito is held off, is it worth?
“For what it’s worth, I have a family member, an ’80 Ted Kennedy and ’88 Jesse Jackson supporter, who really viscerally hates Obama….”
That’s interesting. Why, Matt?
And I’d guess Hispanic turnout and Asian turnout will be noticeably lower if Hillery loses.
Blacks are about 10% of registered voters nationwide. Hispanics will comprise about 9%. I think Asians are about 2% or 3%. Both heavily favor Hillary, and if Obama is defeated, they’ll be content with Hillary, but if Obama’s the candidate, a lot of them may sit out the election.
In the California primary, for example, Hillary won about 70% of the Asian vote and about 60% of the Hispanic vote. Neither of those groups show much enthusiasm for Obama, and I’m guessing it will be much harder for Obama to rejuvenate their enthusiasm for him then it will be for the Clinton’s to recapture the black vote.
I hope I’ll be forgiven for quoting more Hewitt; he’s right:
When he’s right, he’s right. Stopped clocks. He’s talking about McCain, Romney, and the Huck, but it’s exactly as true of Obama and Clinton.
So I guess that means if you had been old enough to vote back in the 1960s, and Bobby Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated, you would have been offended about him running for president too.
And it’s not decades, it’s two terms; and if voters want to elect a father and a son, or two brothers, or a husband and a wife, why shouldn’t they be able to exercise that choice?
“I’m guessing it will be much harder for Obama to rejuvenate their enthusiasm for him then it will be for the Clinton’s to recapture the black vote.”
Guess away — your guesses tend to go in only one direction — but there’s only one candidate who has the history of being a community organizer, rather than taking the opportunity to get rich doing corporate law.
Speaking as if political dynamics are locked in concrete, as if how votes and polls go on one day are destined to go the same a month, or two, or three, months later, is, of course, nonsense.
Political dynamics are dynamic: they change in response to events, and what people learn.
And the more people learn about Obama, the more people like Obama. That’s as true of Asians and Hispanics as anyone else, so far as I know, unless you have proof otherwise.
Meanwhile, Jay, if Clinton does lose — consider the unthinkable — will you work to elect Obama over McCain? If so, might you consider just how far you’re willing to go in your rhetoric?
“And it’s not decades, it’s two terms; and if voters want to elect a father and a son, or two brothers, or a husband and a wife, why shouldn’t they be able to exercise that choice?”
Y’know, in this case I agree with you, but I’m forced to point out that you’re still making a completely fallacious argument.
She didn’t say that people shouldn’t be able to “exercise their choice.” You, you know, made that up.
She said that it wasn’t a good idea, in her opinion, for people to make that choice.
Now, I don’t know if you actually don’t know the difference, or if you think that the rest of us are too stupid to know the difference, but either way, it’s not an argument that reflects well on the maker.
“And it’s not decades, it’s two terms….”
And trivially, eight years in the Nineties, and a hypothetical eight years in the Oughts, are the bulk of two decades.
See above for repeat analysis.
Eric, there’s a lot of Clinton supporters (like me) who believe the Florida delegates should be seated with full voting privileges. Why should they be screwed out of their vote because Howard Dean and other democratic party functionaries had their egos bruised by the Florida legislature? The voters didn’t commit any ‘dirty tricks’ – they voted for who they wanted to see nominated, and they shouldn’t be penalized or excluded from the process.
Now, because those Democratic party functionaries screwed up, it’s going to be a no-win situation at the convention: if the Florida delegates are seated there’ll be an outcry from Obama supporters; if they’re not seated there’ll be an equally loud outcry from Clinton supporters.
So to avoid that kind of squabbling, the democratic party should quickly organize another primary vote in both states, and let both candidates campaign there for a week, and the voters again can exercise their will, and have their delegates seated accordingly.
“I’m guessing it will be much harder for Obama to rejuvenate their enthusiasm for him then [sic] it will be for the Clinton’s [sic] to recapture the black vote”…
Ah yes, “the Clinton’s,” that co-presidential pair.
JFK served for less than three years. It’s not quite the same thing.
There was a gap of 24 years between the 2 Adamses, and even longer gaps between the 2 Harrisons and the 2 Roosevelts, who weren’t all that closely related anyhow.
“Now, because those Democratic party functionaries screwed up, it’s going to be a no-win situation at the convention: if the Florida delegates are seated there’ll be an outcry from Obama supporters; if they’re not seated there’ll be an equally loud outcry from Clinton supporters.”
???
Really? Equally loud outcry? I can see how they’d be pissed about being disenfranchised. But then shouldn’t they be pissed at Hillary as well since she agreed to go along with the idea of disenfranchising them….until she found that she needed those delegates to win???
This argument really stinks. It reminds me of the whole Bush-Kerry military experience thing: “Well, Bush might’ve skipped out on his Nat’l Guard duties, but I’ve also heard suspicious grumblings about Kerry’s three purple hearts…it’s a wash…”
I’d see nothing wrong with restoring their delegates if they were to have another vote before the convention, that way both candidates could campaign there and get their name on the ballots (and I say that knowing that she would win). But changing the rules she agreed to is about as UNDERHANDED AS IT GETS AND HIDING BEHIND A UNIFYING MESSAGE OF ENFRANCHISEMENT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SICKENING! Capitalization for emphasis, because it needs to be very clear how MONUMENTALLY WRONG I think you are on this issue, and I hope the capitalization persuades you.
That’s interesting. Why [does she hate Obama], Matt?
Beyond the usual “naive” characterization, she seems to think Obama’s post-partisan rhetoric indicates willingness to cave to Republicans; she warns me that he’ll appoint lots of Republicans to his cabinet. I think Obama might have made some kind of offhand remark at some point about not excluding the possibility of appointing Republicans.
I’m personally more with Mark Schmitt in regarding the “post-partisan” stance as more a rhetorical tactic than an indication of policy preferences, but I admit I could be wrong.
“and I hope the capitalization persuades you.”
Y’know, I completely agree with you on the larger point, but on this I have to stop and say wtf?
Oh, beg pardon: WTF?
There, now I’m sure I’ve made the difference.
But for the absolute mind-control: wtf?
Also, try increasing the font. The bigger the font, the more people believe you. And the more font sizes you use in the same paragraph, the more awesomely convincing you are.
It’s a scientific fact.
Isn’t that a holdover from the pitbull, scorched earth, destroy-your-enemy style of politics of the past two decades?
And given that Obama was able to ram through some decidedly pro-civil rights legislation past the police departments and other things in Illinois, I don’t think that should be a real fear.
“Beyond the usual ‘naive’ characterization, she seems to think Obama’s post-partisan rhetoric indicates willingness to cave to Republicans”
Thanks, Matt.
I suggest helping her become familiar with the actual facts of Obama’s history, his history as an organizer, his history as an Illinois legislator, and his history as a U.S. Senator, to point out that there is absolutely nothing in his record that would lend that theory the faintest credence.
And I’d point out Bill Clinton’s rhetoric during the 1992 election, for god’s sake. Like, all his praise for Reagan’s transformative powers.
Or, heck, Bill Clinton also said this:
Clearly a traitor to the Democratic Party, eh?
Not to mention that Hillary Clinton worked avidly on the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign.
Yet more horrifically frightening remarks:
I’m sure you know all this stuff. But maybe everyone reading this doesn’t.
Matt, doesn’t the fact that Bill Clinton appointed a Republican secretary of defense make her worry about Hillary? Not only was it appointing a Republican, but it was reinforcing the Republican idea that Democrats can’t be trusted with defense.
Well, obviously that would be mirroring the Bush behavior of appointing a Democrat to the Cabinet. Can’t have that now, can we?
I’d think the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the war, supported the war, didn’t start to engage in rhetoric against the war for two years, that Bill Clinton supported the war, and that Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy advisors supported the war, while Barack Obama stood up in 2002 and made a speech against the “dumb war,” would be more worrisome than… whatever.
Anarch: “Why? Why wouldn’t the a Dem White House and Dem Congress work together better than the Dem Congress and McCain?
Bill Clinton, 1992-94, leaps to mind…”
My take on that Congress was that the people in it were used to being a Congress opposed to the President. For the previous 12 years, the committee chairs had had the power to dictate the Congress’ stance on issues that fell under their committees’ purviews, and had used that power to oppose a President of the other party. The idea that the President was a member of their own party, who had a claim to being its titular head, was novel and unwelcome; and it took a certain amount of getting used to. And, regrettably, they didn’t get used to it until after they had lost the House.
I remember thinking: “oh God, they don’t realize that they are actually part of the party that controls the government” round about the time that David Boren scuttled Clinton’s BTU tax. Not a happy day, but not applicable to Congresses and Presidents of the same party under all circumstances, either.
Jay Jerome: Eric, there’s a lot of Clinton supporters (like me)…
You’re a Clinton supporter? Dang. Learn something new every day.
“Also, try increasing the font. The bigger the font, the more people believe you. And the more font sizes you use in the same paragraph, the more awesomely convincing you are.”
Gary,
Thanks again for the snark.
Perhaps you couldn’t infer from EXTREMELY CRITICAL tone of the words I chose, but in the case above I thought Jay was way, way, way, way, way, way off base (does repeating words work as effectively as capslock? let’s see)…so much so that I compared it to the Swiftboat ads. It had nothing to do with convincing him of my point of view. It had everything to do with the fact that I thought his point of view was completely wrong, hypocritical, and unethical. And given that other people here have referred to it as “The Nuclear Option” I’d say others would have the same characterization.
Besides, if you really felt that way about respectfully convincing others of your opinions, you wouldn’t be such a wiseass. I’ve gotten two reponses from you here and they were both substance-free ad-hominem attacks.
hilzoy: I assumed (in retrospect) that it was a performance art piece inspired by the People’s Front of Judea…
“I’ve gotten two reponses from you here and they were both substance-free ad-hominem attacks.”
As it happens, “ad hominem” has a meaning, and it isn’t “someone made fun of something dumb I said.”
You wrote: “and I hope the capitalization persuades you.”
That’s worth making fun of. If you hadn’t written it, I wouldn’t have responded to it. If you don’t want people to respond to dumb things, don’t write them. It works well; ask Hilzoy.
“And McCain is 180 degrees from Bush.”
Try 45.
What you don’t realize is that if Billary is the Democratic nominee that will hand the Presidential election to the Republican’s because former Republicans, now independents like me, will vote Red before we ever vote for a Clinton. And it is the crossover voter like me that gave the Dems their current majority. Nominate Hillary at the peril of the Dem party.
If it you makes you feel any better, Gary, what Ben wrote is an alternate form of the infamous (and personal favorite) “I’m going to type this really slowly so you can follow…” flourish.
Incidentally, Ben, let me help you with that reading problem; it might save you time.
I wrote: “Y’know, I completely agree with you on the larger point,”
So thanks for spending time trying to persuade me. But if you bothered reading what I wrote, you wouldn’t have had to waste the time. Wouldn’t you rather have been doing something more fun?
“Besides, if you really felt that way about respectfully convincing others of your opinions, you wouldn’t be such a wiseass.”
What way?
Anyway, sure, I’m famously substance-free. Because people can’t be wiseasses, and substantive. I’m living proof. It’s a sacrifice, but I do it for you.
“Anyway, sure, I’m famously substance-free. Because people can’t be wiseasses, and substantive. I’m living proof. It’s a sacrifice, but I do it for you.”
Well, I can’t argue with that one…ummm….thanks?
Doing some thinking. The brilliance of a two-person Presidency is that one spouse would retain the official political power while the other would be legally free to pursue ‘consulting’ contracts.
This couple has made $150 million in the last few months. $150 million. Just wait until she is elected. A $400,000 per year Presidential salary works out to thirty something thousand per month.
The game ends with the failure of the social safety net.
That’s never been legal for any of the public disclosure commissions I’ve ever dealt with.
$6.34M for Obama since the Feb. 5th polls closed and counting. Wow.
I donated just to show up Ron Paul, personally.
$6.38 since I refreshed. Double wow.
I wondered if I could get the impressions of hilzoy and other posters on this take on whether to vote for Clinton. I am truly torn.
I have no doubt McCain would be worse than Clinton on most every issue that matters, especially the war. But I really believe Obama is on to something when he talks about the timing of his run for president. I believe his talk of the “fierce urgency of now” is not ambition, but rather a recognition that something really special could happen for the progressive agenda with the Republicans now at an historical low point. Electing Clinton would squander this opportunity and the animosity that flows toward the Clintons, fairly or unfairly, would poison the atmosphere so that this opportunity would not present itself again for decades. This isn’t so much about Obama, as I thought Edwards could have taken advantage of this moment as well, except that Obama deserves credit for recognizing what the times call for and speaking to it. Surely the numbers showing up to vote in the Democratic versus the Republican primaries indicate that the moment is ripe for a paradigm shift rather than incremental improvements. This shift is desperately needed to move the country away from its rightward track.
McCain is not going to revive the Republicans standing in the country. Four more years in the wilderness might be worth preserving the moment for something bigger than 50 plus one.
NY Times: $130 million to broker ex-Soviet Dictator / Canadian Investor Uranium deal.
WS Journal: $20 million cash-out from UAE trust fund to clear up Hillary’s name ahead of the elections.
God knows what else. Talk about a rogue Presidency before it even starts.
Probably all fully disclosed. But when 25% of the population can’t find the Country on a map, who really cares? Got to give them their due, they are smart.
Bill, for god’s sake, learn to link. You’re not exactly revealing uncovered secrets. HTH. HAND.
Well, he’s revealing he’s part of the 25%, I think…
$6.416M — jesus. OK, going to sleep now.
Triple wow.
Gary;
I’m going to set up a site to settle our squabbles because they don’t belong here. Not tonight, probably tomorrow.
People who care can make judgments, and we’ll have a written record. It might even be fun. How about http://www.billanswersgary.blogspot.com?
All the best;
I envisage the republicans being forced to deny half their own policies (or fail to support them) as part of an attempt to support a guy they don’t want to support (like McCain), and then loosing anyway.
Then after that the Dems, the media and anyone else getting the Cheneys and various other people and hanging them out to dry without the cover of government. Maybe some infighting with moderate Repubs blaming some conservative republicans for not voting and otherwise generally being assholes.
After the election rewriting the history books such that the republican party is crippled for a decade and blamed for the coming troubles for the rest of the USA’s life.
still, maybe that is an election or two in the future…
Obama is building movement-politics. It’s taking on almost cult-like dimensions, and I say this as someone who just donated to him. Clintons negatives among them may not be that high, but if they feel thwarted in a way they feel is unfair– then I think there’s going to be some serious bitterness.
Don’t forget that McCain has cultured an image as being a maverick-friendly independent. If he shifts left in the general, he could recapture some of that and become a much more attractive candidate to disaffected dems. With the base energized by Clinton-hatred, he’ll have the leeway to do that.
I’m not sure if this has dawned on Hillary contributors yet (although the big ones probably realize) but now that the Clintons are *lending* money to their campaign, donations to Hillary 2008 do not increase the amout of advertising, etc. which the campaign can do. That will be determined by how much the Clintons are willing to lend the campaign. At the end of the day, the difference between what they spend and what they raise will determine how much of the loan they get back and how much becomes a contribution.
In effect, a contribution to Hillary 2008 is a gift to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They have a net wealth of $35 million, and the ability to earn much more by trading on their celebrity for directorships, advisory boards, speaches, etc. I can understand giving money to a campaign to make a difference in the election — I’ve done that and will continue to do that. But do you really want to give up your hard earned money so that a very rich couple can get a bigger refund check?
Although I strongly support Obama, I’m starting to feel that I don’t care about the whole “dynasty” argument against Hillary. As far as I know, there’s no sign that Chelsea wants to go into politics, nor that any other relative of Bill and Hillary has any such plans. So any so-called dynasty would come to an end after Hillary’s second term.
The Bush dynasty is different from the Clinton “dynasty.” The Bushes include a father and some sons who have derived enormous benefits all their lives from their father’s power and influence. Bill and Hillary are more like a team than a dynasty — neither of them were born with wealth or influence, but working together they rose to power. I dislike them for other reasons, but the “dynasty” thing doesn’t really work.
My personal estimate is that Hillary Clinton would lose against McCain. Disappointed Obama followers not voting would likely be compensated by evangelicals not voting because they think McCain is is not one of them. I see the main “asset” of McCain in that he could tap the Hillaryphobia of too many “moderates”.
I won’t dare any bets should McCain choose Huckabee as running mate though.
The silver lining would be in my view that the “newcomer” Obama would have a real second chance in 2012. To have been this successful with “no experience” and against the party establishment proves his potential. Edwards (or Kerry) on the other hand are truly “burned” now as presidential candidates.
In short, the Clinton-Obama factor lies in my view more on the GOP/Independent side than on any split on the Dem side.
—
Bets can be taken now on when the “Madrassa Veterans for Truth”, the “Hawaiian Peoples Party”* and the “Black and White Purebreds united against the Mongrel” will make their first official stage appearance.
*a fake pro-Obama group that praises his commie credentials
Gary, I understand your personal passion for wanting to get out of Iraq. Every time I get an email that starts “The Commander Sends” my heart is in my throat wondering if I’m about to hear about a friend or coworker. I’ve found myself checking caller ID to make sure it’s nobody’s mother when I answer the phone. I grew up in the military, I work for the army and I’ve lost friends to the war. So don’t try to pull the “how many dead soldiers are you willing to take” stuff with me. It might sway me if I thought for an instant HRC would do a better job of using the military well, but her record shows me she won’t. At least John McCain knows you don’t triangulate with soldiers.
Eric, you have a very good point about the supreme court, but isn’t it congress’s job to stop the Alito’s?
Dean to save the day!
Dean said Democrats would look to “get the candidates together to make some kind of an arrangement” before the party meets in Denver this August to officially select its nominee.
Any suggestions on how to interpret this other than deciding which one gets to run for president while the other one runs for VP? Offer Obama the party’s full support in 2015 if he folds and goes back to the Senate?
“Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention,” he said. “That would not be good news for either party.”
Huh? That would be great for Republicans.
isn’t it congress’s job to stop the Alito’s?
If McCain’s the next President, you might not have to worry about stopping the Alito’s.
femdem, but the current Congress hasn’t exactly stopped any of those nominations has it? And what about all the Federal Circuit Court judicial appointments, both District and Appeals, which I would argue are equally important? Do you really want McCain to have four, or eight, years to fill all those future vacancies?
“There was Hillary’s healthcare plan dumped on the Democratic Congress without being open for debate (Cheney’s energy bill, anyone?), their cynical use of homosexuals (Bush and the religious right), Bill’s Chinese influence (Bush’s Saudi influence), Sandy Berger’s documents down the pants, and on and on.”
Ben, how exactly do you equate “Bill’s Chinese influence” with the Bush family’s arguably much more lengthy and intimate involvement with the Saudi royal family?
And why does Berger’s extremely poor judgment, to be charitable, with regard to archived documents well after Clinton left office count against the latter.
The Senate cannot vote down every Supreme Court appointment the president makes for four years. It wouldn’t be politically sustainable even if there were enough senators willing to do it. Once you’ve lost the presidency, you’ve lost the Supreme Court. People should have learned that by now.
It’s because I think having 2 immediate family members run for the WH is a bad idea.
Would you rule out other members of political families like Al Gore, Mitt Romney, or John McCain (2 generations of 4-star admirals ought to count as political)? Should Bobby Kennedy have been barred from the presidency? How about FDR? Was the election of John Quincy Adams the fatal turning point in American history?
Why is HRC the establishment candidate after 1 term in the Senate?
She’s in her second term, but who’s counting?
The first is what kind of maneuvering it is, and in particular whether it involves either side doing something that is patently unfair. To pick a deliberately implausible example: suppose that one side were to discover some implausible interpretation of the rules that meant that some large chunk of delegates pledged to the other side could not be seated. Suppose further that the person charged with interpreting the rules was a vocal supporter of the side doing the excluding, and that s/he ruled that the implausible interpretation was, in fact, the right one. Finally, suppose that the fact that those delegates were excluded from the convention made the difference: but for this exclusion, the person doing the excluding would not have won the nomination. In that case, there would be bitterness.
Indeed. I’m struck by the parallels between the situation you describe and Florida 2000…
Voting for Clinton means dynasty, but only as president (Senators being family seems to be no problem). Yet you don’t have to vote for her since the house and the senate will decide on policies (appoint judged, implement healthcare plans).
Claiming 35 years of experience is ridiculed, yet everybody seems more than happy to blame her for every wrong decision by Bill Clinton – even those she opposed. And all previous comments and posts about how the USA faired much better under a democratic president are strictly ascribed to Bill Clinton.
She can’t work together with Republicans, unless as a senator (her approval in NY seems fine).
Her ambition is scary (“anyone who has structured their entire life around winning the presidency needs to be kept far far away from the Oval Office”) but the fact that Barack Obama always wanted to be in politics is no problem.
She “didn’t start to engage in rhetoric against the war for two years,” yet in her October 2002 speech she said:
Is that really very different from Barack’s speech that month?:
Dutch, all the points you make are try of one person or another, but superimposing those views creates a bit of a Frankenstein monster of sewed together parts, implacable in its hatred of Hillary. I think that two people who may not want Hillary as president may have internally consistent views, yet when they are superimposed on each other, they give the effect of someone being hypocritical.
With Hillary, I think of an observation by Shelby Foote, who wrote a multivolume overview of the Civil War. He observed that there were military leaders who performed at one level with distinction and creativity, but when promoted to a higher position, fell to pieces. I am left with the vague feeling that we have something similar here.
since that last paragraph was not supposed to be part of the quote I assume I made a typo in the html (didn’t preview, had to run to get the kids from school). I hope that’s fixed now.
‘true of one person or another’
my fingers hate me…
dutchmarbel, a couple points, not to create an argument but to clarify.
At no time has Obama said he would “bomb Pakistan”, adn definitely not in the article you linked to.
BTW, I was somewhat surprised that noby discussed the fact that when we took out the latest number 3 al Qaeda leader, according to news sources he was in Pakistan at the time. Hmmm.
Anyway, Obama also did not say he was unsure how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate. He stated that bsaed on the information he had at the time, he would still have voted against it, with the caveat that he did not have access to the intelligence reports that the Senate had. Of course, Clinton has already admitted not reading that information.
And regards Clinton’s wonderful speech in 2002, why didn’t she vote for the Levin amendment?
dutchmarbel, a couple points, not to create an argument but to clarify.
At no time has Obama said he would “bomb Pakistan”, adn definitely not in the article you linked to.
BTW, I was somewhat surprised that noby discussed the fact that when we took out the latest number 3 al Qaeda leader, according to news sources he was in Pakistan at the time. Hmmm.
Anyway, Obama also did not say he was unsure how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate. He stated that bsaed on the information he had at the time, he would still have voted against it, with the caveat that he did not have access to the intelligence reports that the Senate had. Of course, Clinton has already admitted not reading that information.
And regards Clinton’s wonderful speech in 2002, why didn’t she vote for the Levin amendment?
I have no idea how that happened. I only hit post once and did the squiggly thing once.
I’m not sure how many are still reading this thread, but I’d just like to point out that thankfully Firedoglake has taken up the issue of HRC voting against any restrictions on the use of CLUSTER BOMBS, so maybe this will finally get some traction.
Sorry for being a nuisance, but we talk about torture a lot (which is good), but this issue affects the physical inviolability of millions of people.
I am left with the vague feeling that we have something similar here.
Ah, gut feeling aka visceral reaction. Can I juxtaposition that with my gut feeling that a lot of those ‘gut feelings’ sound awfully familiar? Especially when it concerns women in high positions?
Sexism seems te be less popular than racisms, but Hillary has broken through more ceilings (“first woman who”) than Barack has. I would hardly call myself a diehard feminist (their attitude towards SAHM’s who take their husbands name is often less welcoming) but the fact that it is hardly recognized bothers me.
I think there are plenty of good reasons to vote for Obama. Both candidates have things I agree with and things I disagree with, things I admire and things I dislike. But I really prefer honest comparisons.
Due to the role of the USA in world politics (and the foreign politics of my own country) whom you vote for will have a big impact on me, yet I have to stand by the sideline seeing intelligent and well informed people reduce themselves to squibling kids and one-sided maniacs.
You can do better, I’ve séén you do better and I wish that for these important current elections the level of discussion would be raised to the normal ObWi level again.
I might as well throw in my three cents:
1. Six months from now the economy is going to be so bad that I can’t see any Repub getting elected no matter how much the Dems rumble.
2. The above will insure that whoever gets elected will be a one-termer, probably thought of as a failure (unless there’s a closet FDR out there).
3. The sucky economy will probably insure that absolutely nothing remotely progressive will get done, no matter who’s there. On the good side, it may force us to leave Iraq totally when the money runs out.
Will Obama turn into another political whore, if he supports Clinton wholeheartedly against McCain?
What kind of self-righteous Post-Racial/Political (whatever!) stance could Obama supporters take then? If the Savior of American Politics is supporting Clinton and his supporters are backing McCain, it really seems the whole logic of his campaign was a fluke.
I think there’s something very different at play this time around compared with 2004. I voted for Edwards in the primary, and then was content to vote for Kerry in the general. It had nothing to do with Edwards being on the ticket either. Instead, I had calmly chosen Edward because he was the best of the available choices during the Primary. And then I did the same in the General. My only passion was anti-Bush.
This time around, though, many folks are incredibly enthusiastic about their candidate (record turnouts suggest this). I think it might be a mistake to translate all of that into anti-Republican sentiment. We have two historic firsts and the women and blacks I talk to are clear that they are incredibly enthusiastic about the very real opportunity to see their own in the Oval Office.
I voted for Obama in New York, and when Hillary won our state I have to admit I felt something akin to a resentment so strong I considered not voting in the general. Part of this was the rationale I had used to vote for Obama in the first place (i.e., Hillary isn’t trustworthy, she represents extreme partisanship, there will be more of the same divisiveness under her, etc.), but part of it was the notion that there is only a marginal difference between Hillary and McCain.
I calm down when I realize, if one steps back that far, then there’s actually only a marginal difference between Obama and McCain on many issues, but …. my initial dislike for how Billary treated Obama after New Hampshire does lead me to feel another Clinton administration will be unbearable by about day 4 of her administration.
I feel that thinking like this does stand a chance of dividing the party. Of course, I’m sure the first time Hillary or Barack go up against McCain in a debate, and he calls for 100 more years of occupation in Iraq, that may instantly melt away.
Someotherdude, what reason do you have to posit that “his supporters [will be] backing McCain”? A few blog comments from the most heated part of the primary? And many of even those few people may very well feel differently in a few months.
I’ve seen plenty of blog comments from Clinton supporters saying they’ll stay home or vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, but I certainly wouldn’t claim “her supporters” would be backing McCain.
Anybody know off-hand, what happens with Edwards’ delegates? If he endorses Clinton or Obama, do the delegates pledged to him flip over? Are they up for grabs, free to vote as they choose once he withdraws? It’s not a lot of votes but could make a difference in a really tight race.
Marbel: Ah, gut feeling aka visceral reaction. Can I juxtaposition that with my gut feeling that a lot of those ‘gut feelings’ sound awfully familiar? Especially when it concerns women in high positions?
Aside from your nasty little snideness about “diehard feminists”, which I suppose was inevitable – women get enough bashing for identifying with feminist positions without actually sticking their heads over the parapet and admitting to being a feminist and getting really shot at – I actually agree wholeheartedly with everything you’ve said in this thread.
But, I remember the interpartisan debates about who was to be the nominee back four years ago – and I decided a long time ago that I was going to do my damnedest to stay out of USian arguments about who should be the nominee.
Obviously, whoever the Democratic Party picks, I hope they both win the election in November and get to be President next January. And while it’s annoying to see people being sexist about Clinton as a candidate who wouldn’t be racist about Obama as a candidate, in fairness, that’s the state of political discourse: misogyny is more acceptable than racism.
McCain let Bush and Rove use sandpaper condoms on him and his family. Bush and Rove talked racist smack against his daughter and wife. The man is so desperate to be President he allowed degenerates to degrade his family. McCain wanted to be President so bad he allowed the Republican base to do all sorts of things to his character, yet Clinton is the one who wants power so desperately.
Posted by: KCinDC | February 07, 2008 at 10:11 AM
You got me there.
At no time has Obama said he would “bomb Pakistan”, adn definitely not in the article you linked to.
It’s either bomb or invade, isn’t it?
BTW, I was somewhat surprised that noby discussed the fact that when we took out the latest number 3 al Qaeda leader, according to news sources he was in Pakistan at the time. Hmmm.
I can only speak for myself, but you’ve taken out soooo many number threes (twos, fours) that it doesn’t have much impact anymore. I guess Al Quaida has a realy flat organisation. And the fact that it is Pakistan means that it is at least CLOSE to the war and in all likelyhood an operation that is sanctioned by the (dicatorial) government of the country.
Anyway, Obama also did not say he was unsure how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate. He stated that bsaed on the information he had at the time, he would still have voted against it, with the caveat that he did not have access to the intelligence reports that the Senate had. Of course, Clinton has already admitted not reading that information.
Yeah, her not reading it was dumb. But I thought he had said that he didn’t know how he would have voted in 2004. Can’t find a link quickly, have to search a bit longer.
About the Levin amendment: voting to make the USA wait for UN permission? Would that have made her stance more ‘electable’? I thought she voted for an amendment that said that Bush needed Congress permission every year, but that Bush sidetracked that by claiming the ‘it is for national security and thus I decide’ option. Have to look up specific conformation though… I read and read, but don’t keep proper track of what I read where.
Dutch, I don’t think that is a fair reading of what I wrote. I am left with the impression not that a woman is unable to do the job of president, it is that HRC has demonstrated enough missteps and mistakes that I don’t think that the presidency will make use of her strengths but will spotlight her weaknesses. The phrase ‘vague feelings’ could be taken as what you suggest, but is actually is shorthand for ‘I don’t want to dig up everything that I have read that gives me that feeling, but the weight of all of it gives me that impression’, not only because of the time it would take to assemble all the links, but the hyperactive spam filter here. But here is one view, from Brad DeLong back in 2003
My two cents’ worth–and I think it is the two cents’ worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn’t smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.
So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation’s health-care system…
Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch–the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001600.html
Now DeLong has modified those views recently, but to me, that point made back in 2003 is telling. I think that you have tendencies that are part of you, and short of a brain transplant, people fall back on their tendencies. That I choose to take particular information as evidence of tendencies could be taken as unthinking sexism, but the alternative is to dismiss the information, which I think is worse.
To make an analogy, two people could say that they dislike Chinese food and present convincing reasons why that do not overlap whatsoever and may contradict each other. But if they are internally consistent, I don’t think you have the right to cry anti-Chinese-foodism because one person’s reasons don’t correspond to another person’s. Because one person chooses to focus on certain things (not taking difficult stands despite/because of increased visibility, the way the campaign has been conducted, the people she has hired to work that campaign) and someone may not like HRC for reasons that contradict those, I don’t think you can try and accuse the first person of hypocrisy/sexism because there is contradiction in the full range of presented reasons.
I’m an independent turned democrat this cycle. On my instant messenger list and in the few offices around where I have an idea of how people will vote this is what I see:
11/20 buddies are pro-Obama. 7/10 coworkers are pro-Obama. But I think only 3 or 4 would vote for Clinton in a general election.
Most of those people tend towards conservatives (I’ve voted for Perot and Nader in the past).
Whatever that’s worth, it seems to me that Obama will pick up huge swaths of new Democratic voters (my entire family would be voting for a Dem ticket for the first time, spread over Jersey, Virginia, Colorado and Florida).
If it’s not Obama, I’d guess most would go to McCain / Huckabee (if that ends up the ticket) a few to Clinton and I’d hope Bloomberg entered the race.
lj, I get the feeling, and I may be wrong, that you don’t think people can learn from their mistakes.
I think Clinton has learned a lot from the health care debacle and would approach it differently. (See, even an Obama backer can defend Clinton.)
Personality may be more hard-wired so to speak, and I do think that Clinton tends to be a little too arrogant, but I think her understanding of how politics is played have matured.
That being said, I do think Obama has honed those skills to a much greater degree than Clinton and would be better dealing with potential and real opposition to his plans.
Now DeLong has modified those views recently, but to me, that point made back in 2003 is telling.
From the comments of that post:
and:
About the sexism: In my experience most people have internalized values and judgements without being aware of it. If sexism was restricted to the people who actively felt men were better than woman there would be a lot less of it. But a lot of it is well intended caring for, or is not being aware that qualities are judged differently between the genders. For me “my boss is a woman and I have no problem at all with it” sounds a lot like “but some of my best friends are…”.
Jane at Firedoglake had an example last month of a video where a lot of people didn’t see anything sexist – but for me it rings too many warning bells. But I also don’t like sexy girls in bikini’s or tight, miniscule clothing advertising the qualities of their product, no matter wether it is a truck or a politician.
Dutch: the comment about how Obama would have voted is here:
He has said that he was trying not to criticize Kerry and Edwards so soon before the 2004 election, and that quote, in context, reads to me as though that was, in fact, exactly what he was doing: saying that as far as he could tell, w/o having read the intelligence reports available to Senators, he wouldn’t have voted for it, since the case had not been made, but also leaving some wiggle room for Kerry and Edwards by saying: of course, who can say what was in those reports, and how it might have changed my mind.
I don’t think we knew then that Clinton hadn’t read the reports either.
The bootstrap problem
Which delegates get seated in the event of a challenge is decided, not by some expert, but by the delegates themselves.
Worse, the idea that it would take an implausible interpretation of the rules to challenge even large chunks of delegates is unfortunately incorrect.
For one thing, delegate selection is governed by three different sets of rules (state election law, 51 different state party rules, and national party rules) which are often not in synch. This is how the MI and FL dilemma arose.
Even worse, the process of selecting delegates is very complex and ill-understood, with several stages, different in different states. I’m on a county Democratic Committee here in VA, and I could better explain the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation than I could exactly how folks get to be delegates from VA to the Democratic convention.
But worst of all is the simple fact that this bewildering and ever-changing set of conflicting rules has not had its discrepencies and kinks worked out in practical “case law”. We haven’t had a contested convention in 50 years. It hasn’t mattered in 50 years who gets seated. There are no objective experts who can sit in judgment and apply interpretations of how to make it all work hammered out in previous, precedent-setting seating contests.
Instead, seating challenges will have to be settled by the delegates themselves, delegates who themselves could have their seating very plausibly challenged. Seating challenges will snowball if who is seated will decide who wins, because almost all the pledged delegates will be plausibly challengable, and will have to be challenged to prevent the other side from prevailing in the seating votes.
lj, I get the feeling, and I may be wrong, that you don’t think people can learn from their mistakes.
Not at all. But I do think that, as was pointed out by someone else, that there are an enormous number of people who feel their political bread is buttered by a restoration of the Clinton administration. And people don’t learn from their mistakes if they are surrounded by people who seem more concerned about how they come out versus how the country comes out. Perhaps it is unfair to hold HRC accountable for the sins of Mark Penn, but that clip of Joe Trippi eviscerating Mark Penn still leaves a strong impression on me. This is not some local campaign flak who is going off on their own, this is part of the inner circle. And there are any number of old Democratic guard who have demonstrated serial incompentency in the past. And even those who are competent generally reflect former mindsets. Ari Berman might have a been in his bonnet about HRC, but I’d be interested in what points he has wrong here and here. From the second
These names suggest that Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.
Hillary Clinton’s camp, meanwhile, is filled with familiar faces from her husband’s administration, like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Unlike Obama’s advisers, the top Clintonites overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq. From the march to war onward, Clinton and her advisers have dominated foreign policy discussions inside the Democratic Party. After largely supporting the war, they resisted calls for an exit strategy until 2005, when the situation had become unmanageably bleak. After turning against the war the Clintonites argued retroactively that Senator Clinton had voted, in Holbrooke’s words, “to empower the President to avoid war.”
I have to admit, I admire Richard Holbrooke, and had he been in charge of foreign policy in the run up to the war in Iraq, things would have probably been way better. But our Iraq intervention makes it seem, at least to me, that we can’t go back to a time when American intentions were suitably camouflaged and do what Holbrooke did in Bosnia.
The self-interest of refusing trying to triangulate support for the Iraq war suggests to me there has not really been a learning moment for HRC, at least in regards to Iraq. Certainly nothing like Edward’s acknowledgement that he made a mistake. So it’s not that I don’t think she is incapable of learning from her mistakes, just that she hasn’t done so yet.
Dutch, I tend not to read thru comments on other websites because it is difficult to know where people are coming from. But when the first comment says
although Hillarycare had been a political failure it had been a policy success
I really don’t think we can afford to have any more political failures, no matter how much of a policy success they are.
As for the rest, I can’t see what kind of reasoning against HRC would not be dismissed by your argument. If I haven’t made myself clear, I think sexism is a pretty big problem, and we need to take steps to deal with it. But I also think racism (and its hidden sibling, classism) are equally problematic and perhaps are more pressing for the US. That Hillary has broken more ceilings could suggest that we are making more progress in fighting sexism than we are racism. Or it could reflect the fact that HRC has had 14 more years to break ceilings than BHO. I don’t think anyone can present the ‘truth’ in regards to that and to other points that are raised. Perhaps in response to your comment, I should have simply written what Hilzoy wrote instead of identifying what I thought was a weakness in your comment, but that assumes a pretty big jump in my level of insight. I was simply responding to your comment that seemed to take every reason that people had stated to be against HRC and stitch them all together to suggest that they were contradictory. If you feel that reveals a level of sexism that is unstated and unconscious, all I can say is we disagree on that.
Well possibly another era reflecting the Victorian ethos will descend upon us (these things seem to be cyclic) and once again society will insist on covering women from head to toe in shapeless clothing, with only a flash of teeth visible to allure the sexist instincts of the male population into buying autos and beer and shoes (oh, wait – that’s Iran and Saudi Arabia right now – minus the beer).
By the by, do you think it’s less sexist if the sexy girls in minuscule clothing are matched up with half-naked guys with rippling muscles selling coke–?
God, I wish I had words to express how much I hate the kind of sexist stupidity that sees no alternatives but either “Women are sexy properties to be put on display in bikinis or tight, minuscule clothing and used to sell beer, trucks and politicians” or “Women are sexy properties to be kept out of sight in shapeless clothing, with only a flash of teeth visible”.
FWIW, in my experience, men who think nothing of having female sexy properties on display in the office, loathe having the exact reverse turned on them: loathe it enough that if they’re faced with many pics of sexy, semi-naked men looking alluring and available, they will voluntarily get rid of the similiar pics of women they were previously arguing were harmless and unnoticeable.
There’s a machiavellian aspect to Obama supporters sitting on their hands with a Hillary nomination:
If McCain gets elected he will be old, facing a relatively hostile Congress, and without a strong electoral base (his voters will be Republicans who hate Hillary more and independents who don’t realize his real positions). The next president is also likely to inherit a problematic economy and McCain certainly won’t fix that. He’ll also be a warmongerer in a nation already tired of war.
In 2012 Obama would be unstoppable for the Dem nomination. Seriously, who would run against him? He would have access to his enormous volunteer organization, more money than any candidate ever had, and tremendous support from the party regulars. McCain will be weak, and on top of Obama’s organizational advantage for four years he and McCain will have been tussling over issues, with American popular opinion almost always on Obama’s side. The whole scenario would be a mirror image of Reagan 76-80 except even better for Obama in that Obama wouldn’t have the “fringe” image Reagan had to overcome and would have the advantage of a split between Congress and President.
OTOH, with President Hillary, Obama probably won’t run for the nomination in 2012. He could run in 2016, but that will be after 8 years of probably disappointing Dem rule and it’s less likely to be as favorable as an anti-McCain 2012 run.
So while Hillary over McCain is better for the country, McCain over Hillary is better for Obama getting the presidency later. A lot of Obama supporters will realize this and be tempted to let McCain win. The big drawback is Roe v Wade, which is almost certainly doomed if McCain wins. BUT, African-Americans and many independent-leaning Dems are relatively conservative on social issues. Even young people are significantly more anti-abortion than the population as a whole. So for many Obama supporters McCain wiping out abortion rights is a plus.
So for a lot of fervent Obama supporters, there will be rational reasons not to support Hillary in the general. This will synergize with any bad feelings from the campaign. If she wins by methods that seem even mildly nasty I think she will have a nearly insurmountable turnout problem.
Curt: I don’t think those are very rational reasons. It’s pretty hard to predict the shape of a Presidential race four years out. Plus, four more years of the Republicans?
If something underhanded happens, I predict anger, which I will share. But part of the reason for my optimism about party fractures, etc., is that I have somewhat dim memories of ’68-’72, and I don’t think we’re anywhere near that point.
Plus, 2000 is still too vivid for most of us, I think. We know what sitting on our hands can lead to. And it’s worth remembering that it would have been pretty hard to predict what Bush would do on the basis of the campaign he ran in 2000.
I am a life-long Democrat (and a professional political scientist), and even I find the prospect of the “necessity” of voting for HRC profoundly unsettling (read: unmotivating).
Given that having HRC in the lead on the Democratic ticket would have the exact opposite effect on Republicans (if you don’t believe this, you obviously don’t spend enough time in “fly over country”), she strikes me as one of the weakest candidates we could run for national office.
That’s not to say that she’s not a competent politician – I believe she is very capable – it’s just an acknowledgement that a large proportion of the American electorate have very strong negative feelings towards her. Not to mention concerns about Bill’s role and the 22nd amendment…
If you still believe a black politician can beat a tough white straight-talkin’ maverick then you obviously don’t spend enough time in “fly over country” as well.
LJ, dutchmarbel: I don’t presume to speak for anyone else but I think, for me, it’s important to note two distinct things:
1) I don’t much like Hillary Clinton’s policies and I am increasingly uncomfortable with her political tactics. This nothing to do with her being a woman; I’d feel exactly the same about Bill were he doing the same — and my sense is that he would/is, which diminishes my respect for him, fwiw — or Obama, or whoever. This is particularly unfortunate because I was a staunch supporter of hers during her Senate run.
2) Hillary’s been on the receiving end of some of the most obvious, hateful misogynism I’ve ever seen in the US. My guess is that because it’s socially acceptable to hate on Hillary — and why that is, I don’t really know (and I reject any simplistic explanation like “she’s a woman” out of hand, ftr) — a lot of inner ugliness is proudly being thrust to the fore, especially now, all the uglier because those lashing out at her seemingly feel that because it’s socially acceptable it must be ok. It’s not. It’s despicable.
But
3) While I think Hillary is getting screwed by the media, and while I think those responsible should be forced to apologize (or cast out on their assses), the sympathy I feel for her as a person doesn’t extend to support for her as a politician. They’re different spheres for me. Should she win the nomination I’ll probably vote for her in November — I’d’ve said certainly, but it frankly depends on what shenanigans she pulls with Michigan and Florida — but I’m not going to be happy about it, and it’s questionable whether I’ll help campaign for her.
Again, this has nothing to do with her being a woman. My local Congresswoman is awesome and I’d totally support her in the White House if only they’d let leftist lesbians in there. It has to do with what Hillary did and didn’t vote for when she was in the Senate, her campaign since, her choice of advisors and advocates, and so forth. If she wants my support, she has to change those — not her gender.
Dutchmarbel, you’ve gotten so much misinformation and falsehoods from the Clinton campaign, it would take quite a long comment to sort it all out.
“Anybody know off-hand, what happens with Edwards’ delegates? If he endorses Clinton or Obama, do the delegates pledged to him flip over? Are they up for grabs, free to vote as they choose once he withdraws? It’s not a lot of votes but could make a difference in a really tight race.”
It’s complicated, because of the different types of delegates.
Generally and loosely speaking, skipping over a lot of technical quibbles, most of the delegates would be pledged to support him in the first ballot at the convention, but free or semifree to switch afterwards, and then it depends on how bound they are to their own state delegation, or other loyalties. PLEOS are freer than bound delegates, but… it’s a bit complicated.
Short answer: on a first ballot, most will do what the Edwards campaign tells them; after that, it’s less sure.
“Even worse, the process of selecting delegates is very complex and ill-understood, with several stages, different in different states. I’m on a county Democratic Committee here in VA, and I could better explain the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation than I could exactly how folks get to be delegates from VA to the Democratic convention.”
Maybe Virginia should switch to simple caucuses. I can explain how it works in a sentence, setting aside the PLEOs: you get elected delegate from your precinct to the County Convention, which elects delegates to the State Convention, which elects them to the National Convention.
Setting aside the PLEOs, it’s very simple. If primaries are so complicated to understand, and too complicated to explain, in how they translate into delegates, why not switch, then?
“Instead, seating challenges will have to be settled by the delegates themselves, delegates who themselves could have their seating very plausibly challenged”
To clarify, the delegates who are challenged, will not, in fact, be themselves settling questions and deciding whether or not to seat themselves. The Credentials Committee of the DNC, and any other relevant committees, would rule.
Relevant links here.
I’m so happy to learn that I have health coverage now. Who knew?
Apparently I’ve had it for decades, and so have millions of other people. And all those other millions of people in danger of losing their health coverage don’t exist!
Yay, success!
(This is like what Johnson should have done with Vietnam in ’64, right?)
“FWIW, in my experience, men who think nothing”
For the record, I’m fine with co-workers putting up sexy pictures of men, women, gerbils, fish, cephalopods, cats, whatever. I’m not fine with it if it offends co-workers, but if you want to put up nudie male pictures, it won’t bother me in the slightest.
Please not Fred Thompson, is all I ask.
Posted by: someotherdude “… a tough white straight-talkin’ maverick …”
I’m sorry, I was referring to Senator Hillary Clinton. Which candidate are you talking about?
By the way, noticed this little nugget over at Raw Story:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Limbaugh_wants_to_raise_cash_for_0207.html
The only thing HRC will unify is the Republican base.
I don’t think there’s much difference in the complication of how a primary or a caucus translates into delegates. The main complication is about how the percentages are translated into delegate distributions for the small numbers of delegates you have at the level of district (or other subdivisions), and those percentage cutoffs and viability rules are pretty much the same whether it’s a primary or a caucus. The complication has to do with the unpledged delegates, which exist whether a state uses a primary or a caucus.
Also, PLEOs are not the same as unpledged delegates. Most of the unpledged delegates are PLEOs, and most of the PLEOs are unpledged, but there are also unpledged add-on delegates (which are supposed to help with balancing the representation of various groups) and pledged PLEOs. We have two of each of those groups in DC, and we’d have those even if we were having a caucus.
How Not To Have A Dead, Non-Working, Broken, Link, But An ACTUAL LINK:
Here is a handy guide to HTML tags.
You can use “find” to go to “link something.”
Or read this.
There’s no reason anyone should ever post a broken dead link. Especially if they want anyone to read what’s there.
“The complication has to do with the unpledged delegates, which exist whether a state uses a primary or a caucus.”
Oh, I know. I’ve posted lengthy explanations several time, with links to the full explanations, including yesterday.
But the fellow said it was way too complicated to explain. It would be rude not to take him at his word, if delegate selection via primaries is so dreadfully excessively impossible to explain.
Naturally, if someone tells me primaries have such terrible problems, I’ll talk about the virtues of caucuses, which I prefer. I wouldn’t want to be rude and argumentative about claims that primaries complicate things excessively.
I don’t think it’s difficult to predict that 4 years of McCain is likely to leave the Republicans in a very weak position for the Presidential race in 2012. It’s not certain, but nothing ever is. McCain is likely to get a more conservative approach for the country than Hillary, but aside from judges, it can mostly be rolled back. For people in Obama’s coalition who find repealing Roe v. Wade acceptable, it could well be worthwhile.
Well, there is that judge thing to consider….
I wouldn’t necessarily put them on the same level of severity, but they are nonetheless similarities. With regard to Berger, I wasn’t charitable when it came to any of excuses of the Plame Affair, and had any of the Bush Administration been caught removing and/or destroying documents from the National Archives just before testifying before the 9/11 Commission, I would have been livid. And with regard to China, one could make the case that China was trying to influence it’s way into the WTO, which depending on your perspective, might be the key to toppling the Chinese regime from the bottom up by virtue of a modern economy, or completely undercut any noble legitimacy the WTO might have had, or was supposed to have (I am still hoping for the former).
These both pale in comparison to the “excesses” of the Bush Administration, especially when you consider how the Saudi relations and the outing of Plame (and her cover organization, Brewster & Jennings) are in complete contradiction with the stated goals in the war on terror. The former case, them being the #1 terrorist producing nation in the world, and in the latter case, sabotaging a CIA organization designed to investigate rogue nuclear proliferation.
The Andrew Sullivan post I quoted above recognizes that the tactics (and implications of those tactics) of the Clintons, were minor compared to that of the Republicans in the 90’s, and that rings especially true in light of the past eight years of the Bush Administration, but they must be at least be acknowledged by those of us on the left.
In watching the Bush Administration at work over the last eight years, I have come to the conclusion that their tactics more than anything have ripped this country apart. The bottom line is that their tactics fooled a lot of this country to pursue policies that they never would have supported had they been fully informed. And their rhetoric continues to prod their base and their opponents into opposite corners. I’m now seeing the same tactics and rhetoric used against Obama to the same effect, in an effort to confuse the electorate enough to come out ahead, and I’m not going to take this shit anymore.
I think this is the core reason why there are so many people who like both Obama and Ron Paul, despite the fact that they have nearly complete opposite platforms.
Yes, this is the point I’ve been feebly groping toward. Well put.
I wrote:
Illinois exit polls: Latino men, at 8% of the total vote, went 38% for Clinton, 1% for Edwards, 60% for Obama.
Latino women, at 9% of the vote, went 58% for Clinton, 1% for Edwards, and 42% for Obama.
White women, at 34% of the vote, went 43% for Clinton, 1% for Edwards, and 56% for Obama.
So you can make a case, if you like, that Obama still has a problem, in a race with Clinton, with Hispanic women, but on the point that when Hispanic men, and pale women, get to know Obama, they still prefer him over Clinton, I rest my case.
Maybe there’s something unusual about Illinois, to be sure.
If anyone is wondering, but too lazy to click the link, the size of the Asian vote in Illinois was too small to be measured, at only 1% of the vote, curiously enough.
I say “curiously enough,” although I know it makes sense, because I grew up and have lived most of my life in NYC, with the major exception being eight years in Seattle, so the idea of so few Asian-Americans is totally outside my experience.
And given that Boulder is the primary university town of Colorado, and my only other long-term living situations were a year in Boston, and half a year in East Lansing, MI, it remains so.
What about various statutory regulatory bodies, whose members serve for fixed terms? And what of the thousands of administrative decisions the federal government makes every year, buried in the back pages of the Federal Register, that affect everything from product safety to the environment? The consequences of such decisions, clearcut forests for example, frequently can’t be reversed easily, it at all.
And what about the big decisions, the sort that make the front pages of the NYT? An attack on Iran can’t be rolled back.
Nor should you, but what if Clinton wins anyway? In my view, the country can’t afford another four years of GOP governance, four years that could very easily become eight years. I voted for Obama, but the choice between Clinton and McCain would be clear cut to me. Others upthread evidently think otherwise.
Well, there is that judge thing to consider….
Considered in the sentence after you ended your quote. An important aspect of the Obama coalition is that it reaches beyond the core Democratic voters, and thus includes people who don’t agree with all the standard Dem positions. Many of these people are going to be quite content with Roberts and Alito. The wide reach of Obama’s coalition is one of the reasons I find him an exciting candidate, because I think he markedly ups the chance of a genuine realignment. The flip side, though, is that many Obama supporters are less tied to the Dems. Indeed, many are the swing voters that Clinton tries to reach with her triangulation strategies. If Obama gets a raw deal, they will be upset, and the very people Hillary’s strategy depends on reaching will be much more hostile to her.
And what about the big decisions, the sort that make the front pages of the NYT? An attack on Iran can’t be rolled back.
Yes, that would be a big issue. At present, though, I don’t see any evidence that people beyond Dem partisans are concerned about this. So the swing voters in Obama’s coalition will not consider this a reason to support Hillary, and are still highly susceptible to supporting McCain. If McCain, as many here fear, then goes to war with Iran we will be seriously s*****d. But he’ll still be president.
I was a little less crude in my language when I explained to my mom my reasons for why I wouldn’t vote for Clinton. But I would rather have 4 years of McCain, and bring in Obama in ’12, than to vote for Clinton and affirm a bad choice for a generation. In McCain, the people will be expecting a decent rollback of a lot of Bush’s policies, tactics, and excesses, and more importantly, he will be at the whim of a Democratically controlled congress. But if we go with Hillary after Bush, I feel we are pissing away the message and movement that Obama has brought forth. And it’s a message and movement that won’t have nearly the same effect after Clinton 50+1’s her way through another 8 years. By then it might take a Republican version of Obama to turn things around. Actually if we have eight more years of this animosity, it might lead to enough people being fed up with the Federal Government altogether, meaning…
Paul in 2016!
Your argument for voting for McCain (or not voting for Clinton) seems to rest on his inevitably losing in 2012. Unseating a sitting president historically hasn’t proved that easy; do you really want to risk 8 years of continued GOP governance?
The “people” may be expecting lots of things from McCain, but is it likely, in your view, that he’ll roll back “a lot” of Bush’s policies, tactics, and excesses? He certainly won’t in Iraq, and if he goes after Iran he’d be exceeding one of Bush’s most egregious excesses.
As for McCain being at the whim of a Democratically-controlled Congress, it would appear that you expect wholesale changes from the current all too often supine legislature. Were McCain elected, I personally won’t hold my breath.
Last, do you expect that an Obama presidency would end the animosity? Will the right wing GOP just go quietly into the good night after he takes the oath of office? Based on past experience, it seems more likely that either Democratic candidate would reap a whirlwind of political fury from the losing side. Keep in mind that a good number of GOP political operatives fully expect to lose this year, but they don’t want eight years of either Clinton or Obama.
So, in that event, aside from the attack on Iran (in addition to keeping our troops in Iraq), a McCain presidency would be otherwise preferable over a Clinton presidency?
Yes, Gary, you need to rest something, but I’m not sure what it is.
Illinois is Obama’s home state, and not representative of the Hispanic vote nationwide, male or female, or the ‘pale’ female vote either.
Overall, in the Super Tuesday primary states which took exit poles, she kicked his ass among Hispanic voters 63% to 35%.
In California, she KOed him 67% to 32%. This despite the endorsement of La Opinion, Ted and Caroline Kennedy, and Maria Shriver, or the Spanish-language radio ads he ran to promote his support for issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants – which went over like a lead tortilla.
Here’s some other California demographics from Super Tuesday which reflect lopsided preference for Hillary:
Asians (71% Hillary; 25% Obama)
Women (59% Hillary: 36% Obama)
Gays (63% Hillary: 29% Obama)
The only demographic Obama won with significant percentages was the Black vote (78% to 18%). In the overall Male vote, he barely beat her (48% to 45%). And he slightly edged her out in the ‘elitist’ demographics: More-than-college-educated (48% to 46%); Income-above-$75,000 (49% to 47%).
And he slightly edged her out in the ‘elitist’ demographics:
Could you please not adopt that particular frame? At worst, they’re the “elite” demographics (in a classist sense); “elitists” are something else entirely.
“Illinois is Obama’s home state, and not representative of the Hispanic vote nationwide, male or female, or the ‘pale’ female vote either.”
Yes. It was the state that has had a chance to get to know him. Thanks for completely missing an entirely simple point. Enjoy being a broken record: it’s the best way to get people to listen to you.
I have an emotional reaction against arguments about how it might be good in the long run to let the Republicans have it in 2008, and rather than try to dress it up as a reasoned position, I’m just going to try to be honest about it.
Two years ago my father died, and just recently our community here (as well as his family and others) lost Major Olmsted. My mother’s in her late 70s, and will be past 80 if she makes it to 2012, and I sort of don’t expect her to. And it’s reasonably likely, given the demographics, that we’re going to lose at least one valued regular from here before 2012.
I think all those people deserve to see the world improving rather than worsening.
I don’t feel that I can sit down and tell Mom, “Listen, Mom, you came through the Great Depression, World War II, the McCarthy era, the Sixties, and everything since then, raised us four boys as best you and Dad could, had a lot of grief from illness and accidents among us, suffered and did your part to make the country better, and have lived to see your hopes for a decent politics betrayed by people claiming to act in your name. I’m just saying that you should be willing to face the end of your life never knowing if the tide’s begun to turn because it might make for better strategizing in a few years. Suck it up for the country, Mom.” Nor do I think anyone else is entitled to say that to her. And what goes for my mother goes for every other American who may be asked to face natural death or otherwise in the years to come.
They all deserve to know that we’re moving back into the community of civilized nations, rather than letting the moral barbarians run rampant some more while the allegedly wise among us jockey for position later.
Too many people have suffered too much under this kind of regime already. Enough. The lives of our fellow citizens – and of everyone who’ll suffer and die if the Republicans get another term in the White House – are not tokens to be maneuvered so bloodlessly.
(I will stop using “the Republicans” in this sense and add more adjectives when I see a viable challenger who takes basics of the rule of law seriously. McCain doesn’t.)
If you’re worried about the rule of law, Clinton is clearly not your candidate. Her games in Nevada, Florida and Michigan all suggest that she doesn’t put rules and procedures in front of her aims.
I would say that it’s my hope, not my plan. My main argument would be from my previous posts above in regards to my belief that underhanded politics are splitting the country apart. The choice between Hillary and McCain is one between infusing this type of politics into our society for another generation and as someone here put it, letting us wander lost in the woods for another 4 years. And I really think that if McCain beats Hillary in ’08, Barack will almost assuredly grab the nomination in ’12 and, barring some Christ-like maneuvers by McCain, will be elected.
I don’t see McCain pursuing such a narrow-minded conservative ideology, nor do I see him utilizing such extreme Rovean tactics, and while I’ve abhorred his SurrenderCrats rhetoric, I do have to admit that at times he can sound very conciliatory and magnanimous. Speaking of which, did you hear him pleading to the pro-torture, how-dare-you-critize-daddy-Bush Republican establishment today? He was trying so hard kiss and make up. Although, I don’t think they accepted his apologia.
I do expect wholesale changes in the balance of Democrats and Republicans. The Senate should see a large shift as the post-9/11 ’02 Republican electees continue to get the boot like in ’06.
From what I’ve seen from normal Republican people, they won’t buy it, and it will backfire on them if they try to go down that path, just like it did for Hillary. The key is that Obama has made his denunciation of this type of politics the core of his message, so that cheap tactics just play right into his theme and only add to his appeal. Yes there will always be the bullshit right-wing echo chamber. But I guarantee you that if O’Reilly or Rush go Clinton-apeshit over Obama they will lose a lot of their audience.
Sebastian, the best that I can say for Hillary is that she’s been a toady rather than an instigator of most of the vileness in recent years. Which is why I’m supporting Obama in the Washington caucus.
Those of us who are arguing against a vote for Clinton are not doing so for the mere sake of “strategizing” for the next election. These decisions have huge ramifications for generations. With all due respect to your mother, and my grandmother for that matter, we cannot afford, as a country, to continue making expedient decisions in the short run, at the expense of our long-term well-being.
Ben, what I’m saying is I think the burden of proof is very damn high when we want to tell people that they should skip present hope of relief, and this argument is nowhere close to it (IMHO).
In 2000, the public at large didn’t foresee anything like the WTC bombing or the use the administration would make of it. In 2004, very few observers foresaw the total collapse of Democratic leadership immediately after receiving a huge mandate for resistance. Show me the kind of prophet who can anticipate such things reliably and then maybe I’ll think about telling Mom to suck it up. In the meantime, no – nobody’s showing anything like enough insight into what can and will happen in four years.
So, in that event, aside from the attack on Iran (in addition to keeping our troops in Iraq), a McCain presidency would be otherwise preferable over a Clinton presidency?
Not to me. But the swing voters Obama appeals to, and Hillary’s strategy is built on appealing to, don’t think that’s going to happen. She already polls significantly worse than Obama (4% in a averaging I saw yesterday) and is behind McCain. Add in a conciliatory VP for McCain, like Lieberman and some convention smacking of Obama and I don’t think her 50% + 1 strategy will have a chance, barring some catastrophe for the Republicans.
I think the following propositions can be supported in a somewhat plausible fashion:
[1]The country is primed right now for an electoral re-alignment
[2]Such an electoral re-alignment would serve the country well, and missing the opportunity could be catastrophic (in that we could fail to arrest our downward spiraling momentum as a country)
[3]Barack Obama presents a chance at driving such a re-alignment
[4]Hillary Clinton does not
However, even if you buy all those propositions, I think it’s hard to argue for 5:
[5]If Hillary is the nominee and John McCain wins the Presidency, the necessary conditions for re-alignment will still exist in 2012
And you need 5 to argue that in the absence of an Obama victory in the Dem race, a McCain Presidency is preferable for the long-term health of the country. I don’t know if I buy it.
I can, say, though…I sure as hell won’t be volunteering for nor donating money to the DNC or Hillary if she wins the nomination, even it its through legit means. I might even re-register as an Indie. If she wins by underhanded means? Well, I’m definitely re-registering, and she’d have to work really damn hard to win back my vote…and I’m not sure she could. I might just go vote on local issues and races and leave it at that.
I am young, but voted for Gore, Kerry, volunteered for Kerry’s GOTV efforts in New Hampshire, voted in the mid-terms in 06 straight-Democrat, and have always kinda envisioned myself as part of the next generation of Democrats.
But after the Dems’ pathetic performance on Iraq in 02-03, Harry Reid going after Dodd on FISA, and hypothetically rewarding Clinton for getting-it-wrong at the start on Iraq and race-baiting and vote-suppression/intimidation in the primaries…I think it’d be quite easy to say that the Dems do not represent my interests nor values in the least.
James Fallows made the case in the Atlantic a couple years back that the country might be primed for a 3rd party President in 2012…a Dem inherits Bush’s mess and basically does a terrible job or just can’t do the impossible or whatever, and sours the country so much on both parties that they’re ready to vote in someone else.
I was always a little dubious of that, but I could see it now, just a little bit. One pathway would certainly be to circumvent the popular will of the Dem rank-and-file by giving the nomination to Clinton over Obama in some under-handed way, I think.
I remember hippies back in the 60’s who voted for Reagan for Governor because it would bring the revolution faster. They got a revolution all right, but it wasn’t the one they expected.
As the man said, in the long run we’re all dead. All politics is local and all politics is short term.
Take what’s on the table now–don’t let it ride, because the wheel may be fixed.
Anarch (and others): sorry for responding late. My timezone is different and real life frequently interfers.
In actual fact I try to stay out of the primaries threads. They are your elections after all. But sometimes I forget to sit on my fingers and have to share my more distant viewpoint 😉
I get a lot of info via ObWi and I highly respect most regulars. That is why it is unsettling to see all that erudite objectivity disappear. There has been frequent amazement at how ‘uninformed’ and ‘biased’ some of the more rightwing groups are about subjects, yet I now suddenly see the same thing happening here.
Of course you should vote for whom you think is the best candidate and of course you can decide to disagree with policies or actions of candidates. But it would imho be much better if that would happen evenhandedly. I see the weirdest remarks about Hillary, I even see people thinking that she and McCain are more or less interchangeable or that voting for her would mean voting for the GOP agenda.
Debating the issues, their policies and their choices in an evenhanded manner, with the same standards applied to both, could be enlightning for everybody. If I could vote I really wouldn’t know whom to vote for (but I’d dig deeper of course).
Saying that Hillary was for the war in view of her vote in 2002 would not be accurate for instance. I remember that I thought it was good at the time that the USA could apply so much more pressure at Saddam to make sure the inspections went through. But I was naieve too, I thought that a civilized partner like the US would only invade if the inspections wouldn’t work.
Attacking her for her vote on the Kyle-Lieberman amendment is also unfair, because Barack just skipped the vote. If he felt it was that important he should have voted against it (if I was attacking him I might make a joke about ‘voting at least present’ here – and if he becomes the candidate those remarks will come).
Het vote against banning clusterbombs would be much more of an issue for me. Barack did the right thing, she did the wrong thing and clusterbombs *are* an issue with me.
But there are more issues. Appeareantly Hillary is more eco-friendly than Barack. That is less of an issue for me, but healthcare would be an issue and I like her healthplan better – I live quite happily with the socialist fule of forced solidarity.
Instead of vague accusations like ‘she is bought by the corporations’ I’d like to really objectively compare the ties they both have with companies. Both in what they say, what they strive for and what they do in practise.
If all Hillary bashing goes unanswered people start to believe the memes – as is repeatedly proven here. Should she become the candidate people should still be proud to vote for her, be proud of her candidacy. Not because she is perfect, but because she is pretty good. Don’t drag each other into a pit of despair about her candidacy.
This post at Digby’s is what I’d like to see more of.
Same goes for Barack, but than the other way around. See him for what he is, not for what you’d like him to be. There are plenty of good things to be said about him but he has flaws too. If there are skeletons in the cupboard it is much better to examine them now. I don’t think that whole Renzo story is as damaging as some of the Obama haters want it to be, but if he becomes the candidate it might well be used for some swiftboating. So look at it now.
At this stage a proper SWOT is much more appropriate than a commercial flyer. Unfortunately ObWi tends to go for the latter at the moment.
Frankly, if the delegates are so closely split that the non-seated delegates from Michican and Florida become crucial it makes perfect sense to try to have them count when you are in the lead. I was pretty angry with Kerry’s decision to concede so early in 2004, however gentlemanly that may have been – and I am not even a voter.
I do hope they will find a nice acceptable solution beforehand though. I also sincerely hope that they won’t have more caucusses (caucuci?) because that way of voting feels utterly undemocratic to ‘one person one vote’ me. But that is just a personal opinion; I think that most of your voting system… eh… has lots of room for improvement.
You didn’t have a point, Gary, you had a blur.
Your reference, in case you forgot, was related to Obama’s electability in a race with Clinton in the primaries. You said “when Hispanic men, and pale women, get to know Obama, they still prefer him over Clinton…” But that was a limited preference, in Illinois, where he got the traditional home-state bump. And guess what? Hillary got a similar home-state bump in New York, where she trounced him with Hispanics and women.
Therefore the same assertion can be made about Hillary that you made about Obama: when Hispanics and pale women get to know her, they prefer her over him.
Unfortunately for Obama, his likability in Illinois didn’t translate to any significant voter support among Hispanics or women in the other Super Tuesday primaries, where he went down in a puff of smoke.
Which indicates the only point you made with your likability pronouncement was that you confused the traditional localized home state advantage with the larger primary landscape in the ‘to know him is to like him’ sweepstakes. Meaning you had no point to begin with.
Of course it’s possible those demographic groups, and others, may get to know and like him if he’s elected president and does a decent job of it; and if that happens he’ll have high approval ratings at the end of his term of office, like Bill Clinton did at 65% and Ronald Reagan at 64%. But if he turns out to be the same kind of well-meaning idealistic populist wimp as 34% Jimmy Carter, then people will have come to know him and despise him for his leadership ineptitude. But I’m certain that couldn’t happen to Barak. After all, he was a community organizer for a couple of years, which is certainly as effective a training ground and an indicator of future success in the oval office as peanut-farming: two sure-fire credentials for executive success.
In addition to the overt hostility expressed towards her and her husband, and the attendant unrelenting nit-picking accompanying it, there’s hardly any Clinton supporters posting here. Half the Democrats in the country favor Hillary for president (including liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats). Therefore you’d think there’d be a representative number of Clinton supporters expressing those views on ObWi – but that’s not happening.
It may simply be that birds of a feather blog together: the feathers in this case reflecting people of similar age, education, literacy, income, etc. Those posting here in favor of Obama appear to mostly be under 40 years of age, have college degrees, earn better than average incomes, and as far as Democrats go, are tilted more to the left then to the center or right, where more Hillary supporters reside.
Most important of these shared blog demographics, though, is the age factor: they identify with Obama because he’s closer to their generation than Hillary. As you and others have pointed out, there’s not a lot of policy difference between the two; and although the Obama supporters here try to frame the arguments against both Clintons on what they characterize as ethical deficiencies – I think what’s really going on is a generational battle, literally reflecting an out with the old, and in with a younger president wish: they dont want their mommies and daddies president — they want their own.
“Those posting here in favor of Obama appear to mostly be under 40 years of age, have college degrees, earn better than average incomes,”
Spot on. I’m 49, have only 3 months of college, and essentially no income.
Explains me completely. And why I got my first AARP mailing a couple of weeks ago.
But other than that, it’s uncanny.
I’m 60, my wife is about to be (and she’s also a white woman), we barely fall into the lower middle class, we are educated (which is highly irrelevant for a reason I will get to later) and we both are strong Obama supporters.
My brother is 65, his wife is 64 and Asian. They are a little higher up on the income scale and education.
They are both strong Obama supporters and live in CA.
So, like Gary, I suppose we fall into your category.
BTW, back to the education aspect. Are you really happy, Jay, that those who, in general, have a lower education level are for Clinto and those with a higher education level are for Obama? Seems to me that one of the characteristics of Republican voters that has been criticized by Dems of all stripes has been that generally they are less educated and that may be why they are able to be seduced by Republican rhetoric.
Finally, it is interesting that (and I am not going to say you specifically Jay) some Clinton supporters who lambasted Obama for using Republican talking points which meant he really wasn’t liberal enough are now using the argument that he’s too liberal and Clinton is more centrist. Can someone explain that to me?
there’s hardly any Clinton supporters posting here. Half the Democrats in the country favor Hillary for president (including liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats). Therefore you’d think there’d be a representative number of Clinton supporters expressing those views on ObWi – but that’s not happening.
My guess — and its only a guess — is that the OW commentariot is skewed to people who 1. know more about foreign affairs than the average democrat and 2. know more about to what extent Iraq has been screwed up than the average democrat.
People like that are going to be more likely to go with Obama in part because Hillary hasn’t distanced herself from her war vote and in part because she didn’t read the NIE before placing her vote and in part because of Lieberman-Kyl. For many people, a million corpses is sufficiently horrible so as to compensate for a number of weaknesses in a candidate’s platform. I could be wrong here, but when I talk to democrats in meatspace, they’re often less informed about Iraq than many commenters here.
Jay,
Also, for another anecdote, I convinced four people to vote for Obama on super tuesday. Their ages were 35, 45, 58, and 68. All had master’s degrees. For all of them, the deciding factor came down to the war, although that might reflect who was doing the convincing. They were all either planning on voting for Hillary or leaning strongly in that direction.
Yet another person in her late 40s for Obama 🙂
And here’s one in her late 50’s. 😉
I went to a seminar last night (not related to politics) and met 3 other women in their 50’s or 60’s who were not just favoring Obama but working actively for his campaign.
I think some pundits are taking the racial differences a bit too much to heart. For two people who are, and APPEAR, to be very similar, then race or gender is a fourth order criterion to make a decision on. In other words, move on, not much to see here…
Alternately, most of the Asian population is first generation, immigrant. Ethnic and gender differences are more salient; in second and third generation (and later), the bonds are more intellectual and rely less on shared experiences–because the shared experience is also shared with other ethnic groups and genders (and, in fact, multicultural solidarity is emphasized more for 2nd and later generations)(and you’ll see more younger Asians pulling for Obama).
I can only speak for myself. Given how few Hillary supporters are on OW, I don’t feel comfortable here, even though I have been a regular reader for years. I don’t have the time or energy to debate most of you. I am 62, have two master’s degrees, and scrape by economically. Feminist issues are very important to me, and I don’t find OW a very hospitable place to discuss misogynistic attacks on Clinton. OW can feel like a very lonely, inhospitable place for a Clinton supporter.
While Jay might be wrong about the demographics of this blog, he might be on to something regarding the generational battle. Somebody had a similar idea in the Inky today. I had no idea that there are more Millennials were than Boomers, by the way. They’re such nice quiet kids….
(I’m a Gen-Xer for Obama myself. I may have to turn in my Gen-X card, though, as I think we’re legally required to not care about anything.)
I don’t find OW a very hospitable place to discuss misogynistic attacks on Clinton.
Redstocking,
Have people on OW been making misogynistic attacks against Clinton? Or are you saying that they’ve failed to condemn enough attacks made in other places?
Hey, I allready knew that Jay had the demographics wrong 😉
And I don’t mind that people in majority want to vote for Barack. Voting is good and Barack is a good candidate. I just don’t like how unbalanced it feels.
Hillary is a good candidate too, with different strengths and different flaws. I’d like people to stay enthousiastic about her if she wins, just as I’d like the fervent Hillary fans to be enthousiastic if Obama wins.
Oh, and I’m 45 with what would probabely be a bachelor degree in Anglosaxia.
dutchmarbel,
I’d like people to stay enthousiastic about her if she wins, just as I’d like the fervent Hillary fans to be enthousiastic if Obama wins.
I’ll have trouble being enthusiastic for Clinton if she wins the nomination, but I’ll gladly vote for her over McCain. For me, the lack of enthusiasm comes from the war. The fact that Clinton didn’t read the NIE is a problem for me. I don’t care if she thought the AUMF was a cute parliamentary trick to push Saddam to disarm: no leader should ever authorize military force without doing their homework, and in this case that means taking a few hours to read the NIE.
That’s the whole point about military force: you might have all sorts of grand plans for how things will go, but you’re not in control of the situation, especially when you’re a senator. Clinton is not responsible for Iraq and almost all the other democratic senators screwed up in the same way that she did. But Obama didn’t. And to the extent that Clinton’s negligence has lead to the deaths of over a million civilians, I have trouble showing enthusiasm for her. Maybe if you can bring those civilians back to life I can warm up to her.
Also, to the extent that we’re supposed to credit her with the foreign policy acumen of her husband, I thought Bill’s Iraq policy throughout the 90s was terminally stupid. It reflected the classic ignorant American policy of fixating on individual personalities rather than focusing on incentives and broader national commitments. I suspect that’s part of the reason why Hillary made poor choices regarding Iraq early on: she agreed with her husband that the cornerstone of our Iraq policy was the elimination of Saddam and not disarmament or any other depersonalized goal. International relations is challenging enough without making every issue personal.
dutchmargle: “Hillary is a good candidate too, with different strengths and different flaws. I’d like people to stay enthousiastic about her if she wins, just as I’d like the fervent Hillary fans to be enthousiastic if Obama wins.”
You’re the first breath of fresh air for Hillary posting here in a long time… And to mix metaphors, maybe the tide is turning…
John, I didn’t claim ALL the posters here fit the profile, I said they ‘mostly’ seem to possess the demographic characteristics I mentioned, which are the ones reflected in most of the primary exit polls supporting the candidates. Take a poll of everyone who posts here, and I’ll bet dollars to donuts a large majority of them fit the profile I delineated.
I was simply tying to explain why there’s a lack of Clinton supporters on this blog. There’s large enough statistical margins in even the most lopsided demographic categories (the 20% of Blacks who are for Hillary, for examples) to expect some of those exceptions to the rule would be posting here in her favor – so where are they?
If you’re asking if I think people with college degrees are better at picking candidates for office then those without them, I’d rely on the judgment of the latter with a much greater degree of confidence. It’s been my experience in life that when it comes to figuring out what’s right and wrong, a plumber with a high school diploma is better at it then a political scientist with a doctorate degree.
I’m with Thomas Jefferson in this belief. He said: “I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”
By education he didn’t mean smart-assed post graduate degrees in Library Science or Business Administration. He expected the common citizen (the laboring class) to be able to read and write, to calculate numbers, and to know their rights so they could thereby act with candor and judgment to chose those who would govern them.
If you think a lawyer has a better chance of exercising candor and judgment then a barber, we’re too far apart in our bedrock beliefs about how the world works to make much more headway on this topic.
As far back as the 1930s when the ‘rabble’ elected FDR, the Republican mantra was that Democrats were uneducated riff-raff, and Republicans were the party of smart, successful businessmen and professionals. Guess the elitist tide has turned Democratic-
Gary, I was thinking of including a disclaimer at the head of the list mentioning you specifically, as an exception to the rule, but I didn’t want to embarrass you by pointing out any of your deficiencies. Also, I don’t really think of you as a typical ObWi poster, but more as an annoying buzzing summer fly, like the kind who pester you at fourth of July picnics, and then end up floating on their backs in the lemonade…
But you are spot on when it comes to annoying pedantry, snottily offering spelling corrections and grammar corrections to those whose opinions contradict yours, especially when you have nothing prescient to add to the discourse. Keep up the good work.
You’re the first breath of fresh air for Hillary posting here in a long time… And to mix metaphors, maybe the tide is turning…
What nonsense. You’re one of a very small minority of posters here who’ve been consistently slanted toward one candidate, Hillary or Obama. The “either would be fine, but I prefer x” position is the vast consensus here.
Here’s some more nice ocean metaphors:
Or:
“…especially when you have nothing prescient to add to the discourse….”
I bow to the frequency of prescience you bring to conversation, Jay.
And to your sense of courtesy and deep concern for your fellow commenters.
Of course, for politics threads, nothing could be more appropriate than this particular sea metaphor:
Time:
“…especially when you have nothing prescient to add to the discourse….”
— Jay: do you think everyone here should be trying to forecast the future, or is it just Gary?
Gary, I was thinking of including a disclaimer at the head of the list mentioning you specifically, as an exception to the rule, but I didn’t want to embarrass you by pointing out any of your deficiencies. Also, I don’t really think of you as a typical ObWi poster, but more as an annoying buzzing summer fly, like the kind who pester you at fourth of July picnics, and then end up floating on their backs in the lemonade…
But you are spot on when it comes to annoying pedantry, snottily offering spelling corrections and grammar corrections to those whose opinions contradict yours, especially when you have nothing prescient to add to the discourse. Keep up the good work.
1. I specifically and strenuously object to the use of the word “deficiencies” in the first paragraph, as it is vile and insulting, and moreso because it betrays Jay’s forked-tonguedness here: If he truly believes that the “rabble” and “riff-raff” are the ones best equipped to choose our government, than he can hardly view Gary’s personal circumstances as “deficiencies.” If anything, they should be characterized as assets, Jay, n’est-ce pas?
2. In any case, this — vilifying another poster for no reason — is a clear violation of the posting rules and I believe it deserves a warning.
Jay: Your rhetoric would not convince me that Clinton was better than Obama to be honest. You’re better of staying factual and you’re definately better of staying away from personal attacks.
Gary: you show me polling results, I point to New Hampshire… or to the polls in the past were Clinton was in the lead but lost that lead in the months after the polls. I thought being too poll-driven was one of the points of critique for current politics?
Turbulence: yeah, she should have read the NIE I think. But you say I suspect that’s part of the reason why Hillary made poor choices regarding Iraq early on: she agreed with her husband that the cornerstone of our Iraq policy was the elimination of Saddam and not disarmament or any other depersonalized goal..
I quoted her speech in 2002:
Are you supposed to credit her with the foreign policies of Bill? I’d rather try to judge her by her own policies and goals at the time – and by what she learned from them.
One of the pro-Hillary posts that made a big impression on me was this one on the leftcoaster. I counterbalance those with the pro-Obama posts Hilzoy has put up and that seem to be as well researched. As I said, I like factual comparisons.
Anarch: you said It has to do with what Hillary did and didn’t vote for when she was in the Senate, her campaign since, her choice of advisors and advocates, and so forth. If she wants my support, she has to change those — not her gender.
I wish ObWi would be were I (or rather where all YOU) could properly compare those things. Where are her votes different from his votes? How do their strategies/policies/statements about those issues differ? Is her campaing really much nastier than his campaign – or are the hillary supporters right in a lot of their countercritisism? You mentioned her choice of advisers – and today I read:
.
The fact that I might seem to be more pro-Hillary does not mean that I *am* more pro-Hillary btw. I just like balance and prefer facts to rethoric. I also think that *if* Barack (*) becomes the candidate people might be very disappointed if he suddenly would have flaws too (voting present, voting wrong 5 times, accepting money from lobbyists & corporations, etc.).
It might be better to have the discussions now, so that there can be an united front against the attacks later and so that their are realistic expectations. IMHO of course.
(*) I read that the GOP tries to avoid using their first names since it makes them too likable so I’m inclined to go in the opposite direction 😉
Red: OW can feel like a very lonely, inhospitable place for a Clinton supporter.
You’re kidding right? Try being a low tax small government Gore/Kerry bashing Lieberman supporting global warming denying conservative for a while and then get back to me…
Jay: It may simply be that birds of a feather blog together: the feathers in this case reflecting people of similar age, education, literacy, income, etc. Those posting here in favor of Obama appear to mostly be under 40 years of age, have college degrees, earn better than average incomes, and as far as Democrats go, are tilted more to the left then to the center or right, where more Hillary supporters reside.
You got me pegged too. Well, except for the under 40 part. And the low tax small government Gore/Kerry bashing Lieberman supporting global warming denying conservative part. Other than that, spot on.
Phil: In any case, this — vilifying another poster for no reason — is a clear violation of the posting rules and I believe it deserves a warning.
Seconded.
“You’re kidding right? Try being a low tax small government Gore/Kerry bashing Lieberman supporting global warming denying conservative for a while and then get back to me…”
But Steve, you have a sense of humor 🙂
Redstocking is obviously a quite intelligent woman and has done an excellent job raising her daughter. I have gone to her blog and find it quite interesting.
However, I sometimes sense a high level of defensiveness. What I am about to say may be taken the wrong way but as someone who ia approximately the same age as redstocking (w/i 2 yrs) I think my observations have some merit.
I find that the early feminists of the 60’s and early 70’s tend to be more defensive and sensitive than later feminists. They tend to see sexism in more places than later feminists. This is not a criticism but rather a personal observation, and considering the society in which they developed their feminism it is not totally unwarranted.
Jay can be quite annoying at times and fact deficient, but this is the first time he has stooped to personal attacks. I suppose he is actually hoping to get banned just to go to other blogs and complain how OW won’t allow Clinton supporters to comment.
Fortunately for Jay, “dollars to donuts” isn’t what it used to be. I’m another regular ObWi commenter and Obama supporter who doesn’t fit the profile, because of my age (and lately because of my income). Apparently Jay is still buying into the myth that the blogs are inhabited by just a bunch of kids.
Jay: I agree with others about what you said about Gary. Vilifying another poster is a violation of the posting rules. Don’t do it. Disagree with Gary’s argument, but don’t say the kinds of things you said about him.
Dutch,
It would be lovely if we could decide our president on the basis of factual questions, but, to go back to my comment that seemed to set you off, we can’t. To move the discussion away from parochial issues like our Civil War, you see the same thing with footballers. One cannot pick a great team by simply inputting a series of facts, one has to account for their personalities and how they would interact with each other. To take these things into account may result in players getting put in boxes that they can’t get out of, but you weigh these things because you want the team to win, not because you want to defend a footballer’s right to prove themselves. The stakes are really too high.
(which is not to say that I am going to refuse to support HRC if she gets the nomination. But it is to say that I don’t think the US will be able to effectively put away the structural problems that led to this administration.)
You suggest that Obama has surrounded himself with Clinton advisors, but the ones that have gravitated to him are ones that have been more vocal in their criticism to Iraq and the War on Terror, Zbigniew Brzezinski most prominently.
A rigid emphasis on the ‘facts’ ends up being simple headcounting (she has 5 ex clinton advisors, he has 4, so it must be a wash) which is intimately related to one of the reasons things suck so badly and that is a mistaken emphasis on ‘balance’.
An Obama supporter who’s 43 with two years of college, cancelled due to disability, here.
I agree with the earlier comment that we are as a community better informed and more concerned about foreign policy than the public at large. We’re also, at least on the Democratic side, significantly less inclined toward war as ever being a good solution, intensified at the moment by some shared mourning. I think that the latter as a matter of temperament is independent of the former, and may well precede and drive it.
Dunno if anyone else is familiar with Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena, but a lot of my formative views on feminism come from interactions with people there. I am, to be honest, probably in some ways harsher on Clinton for her persistent warmongering ways than I would be on Generic Guy, because I’m inclined to see peace as an integral part of feminist social reform. This isn’t entirely fair, I know, which is why I’m acknowledging it here as a weakness rather than as a bit of wisdom.
“Gary: you show me polling results”
?
I posted a link here. It was addressed to no one, and made no argument.
People do a tremendous amount of projection here. Even something that has not a single word by me in it, but is 100% a quote, addressed at no one, making no point but “here’s some new information,” gets that kind of reaction.
It’s impossible to write something that someone can’t take the wrong way.
It’s tiresome.
When I’m responding to something, I’ll quote it.
If I’m not quoting something someone wrote, I’m not responding to them.
Turbulence: yeah, she should have read the NIE I think. But you say I suspect that’s part of the reason why Hillary made poor choices regarding Iraq early on: she agreed with her husband that the cornerstone of our Iraq policy was the elimination of Saddam and not disarmament or any other depersonalized goal..
I quoted her speech in 2002
dutchmarbel,
Not reading the NIE is not a small problem for me: it means she didn’t care about human life to an appalling degree. As long as there’s a sane electable candidate in the race, that’s a dealbreaker for me. Honestly, Americans are already so very good at making dead Iraqis invisible, it seems that the least I can do is avoid rewarding Clinton for her incredibly bad decisions that have killed lots of people.
I think your quote reaffirms my original point: Clinton is reiterating that the ultimate goal of our Iraq policy must be the removal of Saddam. She differed from Bush in that she didn’t want a unilateral invasion, but her policy was exactly like Bill’s in the 90s: completely oriented around the removal of this one individual and willing to sacrifice as many innocent Iraqis as it took to eliminate Saddam. My beef with the Clintons is the idea that US foreign policy should be oriented around putting into power or removing from power individual leaders as opposed to depersonalized objectives like, for example, disarmament, an independent judiciary, etc. Both Clintons and Bush have repeated over and over that there is nothing Saddam could do that would satisfy the US; the only acceptable outcome was the removal of Saddam. Clinton made Iraq his Cuba but Bush ruined everything by getting impatient.
I’m curious, Jay: what’s your age, educational level, and professional background?
And why you think that people without college degrees are inherently more commonsensical and better equipped to understand, say, foreign policy than those with degrees. It’s been my experience, from a pretty damn extensive viewing of the socioeconomic strata in this country, that moronicism is orthogonal to demographic. Can I ask what experience you have in this regard?
dutchmarbel: Where are her votes different from his votes? How do their strategies/policies/statements about those issues differ? Is her campaing really much nastier than his campaign – or are the hillary supporters right in a lot of their countercritisism?
I’d say hilzoy‘s previous posts on the subject have covered most of what I’d say in this regard. They’re pretty similar on a lot of issues, I’ll grant you, but on the particular issues I really care about — particularly Iraq and the broader whatever-the-heck-the-appropriate-name-for-the-so-called-War-On-Terror-is — I strongly, strongly disapprove of her positions and have no trust in her ability to pick what I consider to be a wise course. Even so, I’ll probably vote for her; the one (realistic) exception I can think of is if she underhandedly tries to shove Michigan and Florida’s delegates into the convention. That absolutely will not fly. OTOH, if the candidates agree to have new primaries/caucuses in the two states and she wins them fair and square, well, more power to her.
Also, as an addendum to my previous post, I want to walk back “a pretty damn extensive viewing of the socioeconomic strata”; on reflection, that’s a serious overstatement. I’ve had a pretty damn broad exposure to various economic strata, and a moderate exposure to various social milieus. My apologies for any wisdom imputed incorrectly.
Obama supporter? Undecided. I support Obama over Clinton, without any reservations.
Under 40? Nope.
Better than average income? Check. Shockingly, there are a great many people who make over average income. But I didn’t do it on purpose, I swear.
My tilt is decidedly right-ish. But I’ll take an honest, reasonale, unabashed lefty over a scheming, opportunistic lefty,if that’s a choice I have to make.
b
There. Don’t use it all in one place.
Danged laptop keyboard.
“And why you think that people without college degrees are inherently more commonsensical and better equipped to understand, say, foreign policy than those with degrees.”
I forget: which side am I supposed to be taking here? My deficiencies get in the way.
According to Jay, “if you’re asking if I think people with college degrees are better at picking candidates for office then those without them, I’d rely on the judgment of the latter with a much greater degree of confidence. It’s been my experience in life that when it comes to figuring out what’s right and wrong, [someone with only] a high school diploma is better at it then a political scientist with a doctorate degree.”
So I should be better at “picking candidates for office” than somone with a college degree, and Jay will “rely on [my] judgment of the latter with a much greater degree of confidence” than he will of someone with a college degree. Which is so nice of him to say.
But, also, this is a “deficiency,” which is curious. Perhaps if I had a college degree, I could understand.
That lack of degree must be what causes me to find Jay Jerome’s history of positions a bit confusing.
He started off commenting here on Obama with:
Criticism of Hillary was, in Jay’s eyes, verboten.
He followed up immediately with more of the same:
Jay recently claimed to observe: “Those posting here in favor of Obama appear to mostly be under 40 years of age, have college degrees, earn better than average incomes, and as far as Democrats go, are tilted more to the left then to the center or right, where more Hillary supporters reside.”
Setting aside any evaluation of the accuracy of this, this is from the same Jay Jerome who wrote about liberals, and illegal immigration, that:
And that he is no liberal:
Of course, his epiphany was based on the fact that the Village Voice employed a gossip columnist. (That it also has had pages of hooker ads sustaining it might have been even more shocking, if he’d ever noticed.)
Jay, as it happens, isn’t even a Democrat, let alone one of those “latte liberals” he so despises:
Jay isn’t big on Democrats, as well as “latte-liberals”:
But by January, Jay is attacking Obama supporters for being far younger than “first and second generation Yuppies”:
“Never trust anyone under 40” seems to be Jay’s preferred slogan.
In a particularly charming moment, Jay makes the Nazi comparison.
By a couple of hours later, Jay has donned the mantle of Defender of The Democrats from The Evil Reagan-Praising Obama:
Who knows which party Jay will be claiming to speak for next? He’s not a Democrat. But he claims to speak for them. When he does, he announces that it’s forbidden to criticize one candidate. He posts endless ad hominem after ad hominem against that candidate. When that fails to sway anyone, he commences ad hominems on those he disagrees with. He accuses the opponent of the candidate he allegedly supports of being a “Republican mole.”
It’s enough to make one wonder about false representations, and moles, and trolls, in general, and even cui bono? from Jay’s changing stances, isn’t it?
Oh, sure; well and good coming from a stalker.
Joking, in case the funniness didn’t come blazing through, there.
Slartibartfast: but wbhy don’bt byou supbport Clbinton?
Anarch, did you swipe my laptop?
Given your recent keyboard problems: swipe or swab?
@LJ: It wasn’t your post that set me going, it was the trend I noticed with most posters. I would be very suprised if footballplayers weren’t picked on their results and their strength/weaknesses instead of on their character. And I didn’t suggest Obama has surrounded himself with Clinton advisors. I said that Anarch pointed out that her choice of advisors was one of the things he didn’t like and coincidently I read a piece the next day which said that Obama had Clinton advisors too. I have no idea how many each candidate has and how many have a history. Brzezinski is named in the article as fervently against the Iraq war but a strong supporter of bombing yougoslavia and I have no idea what his actual positions on the WoT are.
Sometimes facts are easy. If she had 5 Ca’s and he had 4 that would be different from her having 25 and him having 4, wouldn’t it? And indeed, some of them are heavier than others, but it would give a bit more info than ‘she has the wrong advisors. I only know two of them, but those are really bad’. I can’t weight them; I don’t know them. But if I read the latter I recognize that it might be based in fact but might also be based in rumours, assumptions and smears.
@Gary: “Gary: you show me polling results”
?
I posted a link here. It was addressed to no one, and made no argument.
That’s silly. You post it here, so you show it to all readers and you know that I am one of them. I didn’t say that you showed them only to me, or that you showed them in particular to me.
@Turbulence: Not reading the NIE is not a small problem for me: it means she didn’t care about human life to an appalling degree. As long as there’s a sane electable candidate in the race, that’s a dealbreaker for me. Honestly, Americans are already so very good at making dead Iraqis invisible, it seems that the least I can do is avoid rewarding Clinton for her incredibly bad decisions that have killed lots of people.
I said that not reading the NIE was dumb, it would be a point for me, but she voted for putting pressure on Saddam to allow unconditional inspections. She specifically said that invading was wrong and should happen only when those things wouldn’t happen. I really thought it was a good idea at the time, even though I thought there wouldn`t be significant amounts of WMD’s, because I wanted those inspections. Putting all Iraqi deaths on her vote (without adding blame to Obama for voting the same ever since he became a senator) is so unbalanced that it makes it hard to take your points serious since you seem to care more for the score than the truth. Maybe you should add Benazir to the list of Clinton victims.
Blix in his book “Disarming Iraq”:
Obama had a similar reasoning about him supporting the Patriot Act.
anarch: Hilzoy is one of the most fair and balanced persons I know. Her posts have been most informative, but one-sided. I do take her info seriously, but feel in need of either balancing the info with some of the equally one-sided pro-Hillary sites or skipping much of the info. I think that is a shame because, as I said, I think you should be proud of both candidates. America has done a lot worse in the past. I also think that it is better to have an as complete as possible picture of both candidates. I’ve heard plenty about all perceived or real flaws of Hillary here, but have not seen Barack’s flaws discussed, have not seen the things that bug me about him adressed (I would not like the ‘present’ voting, how he regularly missed important or controversial votes or how he appearantly voted wrong 5 times – is that normal? Or just him? I have no idea, but it bugs me). I don’t think those things make him a bad candidate, but they will come up in the elections and should be properly addressed.
Brzezinski is named in the article as fervently against the Iraq war but a strong supporter of bombing yougoslavia and I have no idea what his actual positions on the WoT are
Well, this op-ed is recent, but I think it gives you an idea of what his opinion may have looked like a couple of years ago.
Yes, but in English, if that’s what you meant, you should write “You show us.” Plural.
Instead, you wrote that I was personally addressing just you. Singular. Which I wasn’t, no offense. Thus my confusion. If you’d written “you show us,” I’d have known what you meant, rather than what you wrote.
No problem; your English is 10,000 times better than my Dutch. (Though I find when using Google’s translation program that a fair amount of Dutch is pretty explicable.)
I’m one of those directed here by links to the “Actually, I think we can” post, and I’ve been enjoying the blog since.
A lifelong independent, I’d love to get rid of Bush. Of course, he’s not running, so I get that regardless. If the best the democrats can offer the country in an election that seems to go all their way is “Let’s build a bridge back to the nineties!” that betrays an incredible lack of vision. And it doesn’t run well against McCain’s view that we should relive Reagan, instead. At least no one in his family has actually been president (and Reagan so far has not risen in zombie form), so it’d be a little more of a break with the past.
If a) the MI and FL delegates stay at 0, b) Clinton otherwise wins on pledged delegates, c) there’s not too much blood on the floor at the convention, then I could see the party uniting behind her, albeit with a lot of grudging votes rather than enthusiastic ones.
Even I would hold my nose and vote for her if God intervenes to give Huckabee the nomination. He’s more likeable, but I don’t actually care about that in a president, as opposed to a next-door neighbor. But after the way she ran her campaign in January, I really don’t want to. As suggested in comments above, it’s not just people Obama won, it’s the people Clinton lost.
Here’s a good and detailed look at Clinton and Obama’s foreign policy advisors.
Personally, I don’t think counting people who served under Bill Clinton is all that informative. As the Democratic President, he employed the basic Dem. foreign policy establishment, so it stands to reason that unless one candidate got all the good people (which isn’t the case), both would have a whole lot of ex-Bill Clinton people.
I voted for Obama for the reasons outlined in the link hilzoy gave right above me (12:32 post), but in the interests of fair play, what do the enthusiastic Obama supporters here (which leaves me out, btw) think about the claim that Clinton’s position on health care is better than Obama’s? That seems to be Krugman’s position, for instance.
I’ll vote for Clinton even if she steals the nomination with Michigan and Florida votes. Or I think I will. I live in a safe state for Clinton and could indulge in a third party vote if I wanted, but probably won’t. I voted for Nader in 2000, but have since become a firm convert to lesser of two evilism. Though, incidentally, the motives attributed to many of us Nader voters are often wrong. I did it in part because I thought leftist desertion was a way of pressuring the Democrats to stop their rightward drift and not so much out of moral purity, though that made it feel good and that’s what we’re generally accused of. Those of you who won’t vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination in a sleazy fashion would be acting the way we Nader voters were accused of acting. Bad as Clinton might be, McCain is more likely to start new wars.
“…but in the interests of fair play, what do the enthusiastic Obama supporters here (which leaves me out, btw) think about the claim that Clinton’s position on health care is better than Obama’s?”
The argument over the individual mandate is actually the only argument I think Clinton has going for her.
My estimation, which may be quite wrong, is that Obama made the calculation that an individual was too easy for the Republicans to savage, for obvious reasons: endless attacks and simple slogans against it are possible: “The Democrats want to take your health insurance away from you!” “The Democrats want to force you to buy what you don’t want to!,” and so on and so forth.
The arguments for the mandate, which while I think they’re sound reasoning, are complicated, and politically difficult.
The argument over whether to stand or fall on it, politically, is therefore one that it seems to me that reasonable people can differ over. I think there are fair arguments on both sides, myself.
So while I actually agree that an individual mandate is better policy, and this is the sole issue I really agree Clinton has an arguably better position, I’m uncertain enough about the politics, and otherwise impressed enough with Obama, that this isn’t close to a make-or-break issue with me. It’s merely one where I agree Clinton has a fair argument.
Other than possibility environmental positions, where I haven’t looked closely at either candidate, though, it’s the only issue so far that I, at least, give Clinton any points for.
“My estimation, which may be quite wrong, is that Obama made the calculation that an individual was too easy for the Republicans to savage”
An “individual mandate,” that is.
Basically: I think an individual mandate is better in principle. Otoh, it is, as Gary said, easy to turn into a whole lot of political trouble, since the whole idea is to compel people to do something, and the political problem with national health insurance is the idea that people will be herded willy-nilly into some evil incompetently run government program.
It’s one of the few areas where I think Clinton is better on policy than Obama. I don’t think it’s as big a deal as other people seem to, basically for two reasons.
(1) Neither candidate’s plan will be passed as is. So I can’t see that it’s worth sweating the details, unless those details show one candidate to be incompetent or appalling or something, which isn’t the case here.
(2) The mandate itself doesn’t seem to me to be the really significant bit. A mandate is just: telling people they have to do X. It doesn’t do much absent, say, penalties for not doing X. A lot of the work of a mandate can be done by things like opt-out systems (you are enrolled by default but have to opt out). Likewise, a system without a mandate can have penalties for late registration (so that if, say, you don’t get health insurance until you get sick, you are penalized.) When you think of all the things that might help get people to sign up for insurance — opt-out, penalties for late signup, making it affordable, etc. — and then say: if we had all this stuff in place, how much difference would it make to add the statement: everybody has to sign up?
My sense is: some, but not a lot.
Now: the effect of this last point is to shift concern from one thing (mandates) to another set of things, not to make the concerns go away. And there seem to be differences of opinion on whether Obama has these other things. (The plan on his website doesn’t get into that level of detail.) I can’t find it now, but iirc Ezra thought he didn’t have opt-out, whereas some other health economist thought he did. I think that’s much more important, personally.
Donald: That seems to be Krugman’s position, for instance.
In my experience, going 180 from Krugman is pretty safe. 😉 OK – snark off…
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s going to happen, so now I’m more interested in the how. I don’t believe that any kind of mandate will pass. In fact it will doom the plan it’s attached to.
“(1) Neither candidate’s plan will be passed as is. So I can’t see that it’s worth sweating the details, unless those details show one candidate to be incompetent or appalling or something, which isn’t the case here.”
I took this as an absolute given, but Hilzoy’s right to make it explicit, and I was wrong not to, since not everyone will automatically realize this.
Of course, it was a key part of my reasoning: policy statements in campaign really don’t mean all that much, other than insofar as they give one insight in to the candidate’s reasoning, assumptions, who they’ll draw advice from, their preferences, and so on.
As regards actual translation into policy, anyone who thinks there’s much more than vague correlation, at best, between what’s said in a campaign about policy, and what the elected President ends up doing when faced with new information, input from government departments, changing events, the reality of Congress, and a vast web of other constraints, pressures, and inputs, has little familiarity with history.
Franklin Roosevelt ran in 1932 on a platform of cutting government expenditures, and balancing the budget, for god’s sake.
Time:
George W. Bush ran on a platform of not doing nation building, and a “humble foreign policy.”
Ronald Reagan didn’t campaign on a platform of offering to eliminate all nuclear weapons along with the Russians.
Nixon didn’t campaign on reversing his demonization as a “traitor” of anyone who wanted to talk to Red China.
JFK campaigned neither to get us entrenched in Vietnam, nor to make sure we didn’t.
Etc., and so on. So I’m not fanatically concerned about campaign policy positions literally necessarily becoming policy, although I don’t dismiss what’s said in the campaign as having no significant effect, either, because it can and often does; it simply doesn’t remotely control, however.
tnxs LJ, I read it, but it seems to be what all the democrats are saying (and what I totally agree with). It was an example anyway – I allready put more time in the US primaries than I inteded too 😉
Personally, I don’t think counting people who served under Bill Clinton is all that informative. As the Democratic President, he employed the basic Dem. foreign policy establishment, so it stands to reason that unless one candidate got all the good people (which isn’t the case), both would have a whole lot of ex-Bill Clinton people.
But Anarch said that he was uneasy about her advisors and I’ve seen other people claim that she would just ‘bring back the 90s with all the bad folk and policies’ so appearantly it has meaning for some.
I looked at your link, don’t have time to do extensive research. However, just reading through it: Do you really claim that is a neutral comparison?
I compare Hillary’s and Barack’s piece in Foreign Affairs and do not see what he points out.
I said that not reading the NIE was dumb, it would be a point for me, but she voted for putting pressure on Saddam to allow unconditional inspections.
dutchmarbel,
Thanks for your response. I’ll be blunt. I didn’t care about weapons inspectors in 2002 and I didn’t think that the US Senate should have cared either. Everyone with a brain, including the NIE authors, had concluded the Iraq had no nuclear weapons. So the only possible debate could have been chemical and bio weapons. In 1998, UNSCOM had concluded that 90-95% of Iraq’s WMD had been destroyed. I really didn’t think that 100% verified destruction was ever even possible, so that was good enough for me. Saddam didn’t force inspectors out of the country: they left, on order of the US government because the US was going to launch the Desert Fox attack no matter what. This was widely lied about in the press at the time and by Bush in his Axis of Evil speech.
I knew that there was a small probability that Iraq might still have chemical weapons and I still didn’t care. Why? Because chemical weapons are not as militarily useful as their cheaper conventional counterparts. They’re more difficult to acquire, they’re more likely to leak and injure your own soldiers, they’re more fragile, and they’re more expensive. Chemical weapons are the things a nation buys if it is not being rational or if it wants to scare someone else. Yes, I know that Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people. But the technique doesn’t matter; what matters is using the military to annihilate tens of thousands of people. If Saddam didn’t have chemical weapons in the 1980s, he could have killed those people just as effectively with conventional ordnance. In fact, using conventional weapons would have been cheaper.
As for bio weapons, no one in recent history has successfully used them. They’re difficult to make and incredibly difficult to deploy without endangering your own soldiers. For that matter, serious attempts to develop them risked infecting the general population.
Look, I’ll be very blunt: I thought the whole sanctions regime was a way to strangle the Iraqi people until they submitted to our will and kicked out Saddam. And to me, that sounded like terrorism (“the systemic use of violence to coerce a civilian population into adopting policies that they otherwise would not tolerate”). When I heard the US or UN talk about eliminating Iraq’s CAPACITY to develop weapons of mass destruction, I was enraged. Any third rate chemist can make chemical weapons in their kitchen. My roommate made chemical weapons precursors everyday because he was working in a pharmaceutical lab. You can’t have a modern industrial society in which it is impossible to make chemical weapons: they’re far too easy to make. And ensuring that Iraq can’t make bio weapons is even worse: that boils down to a decree that Iraq can’t have medical technology less than 50 years old.
So yes, I thought “putting pressure on Saddam” was stupid and possibly immoral and I thought a US Senator should have been expected to know that.
She specifically said that invading was wrong and should happen only when those things wouldn’t happen.
Hillary said a lot of things to different people at different times regarding Iraq. Talking about what should happen is pointless: she empowered George Bush to decide when there would be a war. I mean, let’s be realistic here: Bush’s administration was stocked full of the same Project for a New American Century lunatics that had been advocating for war with Iraq since Clinton’s presidency.
I really thought it was a good idea at the time, even though I thought there wouldn`t be significant amounts of WMD’s, because I wanted those inspections.
I don’t understand. Can you explain to me why you wanted inspections if you didn’t think there were significant amounts of WMD? Was it because you thought there was a small possibility that there might be lots of WMD?
Putting all Iraqi deaths on her vote (without adding blame to Obama for voting the same ever since he became a senator) is so unbalanced that it makes it hard to take your points serious since you seem to care more for the score than the truth. Maybe you should add Benazir to the list of Clinton victims.
I’m sorry you don’t take me seriously. In my assessment, once we went into Iraq with George Bush as President, there was very little the Senate Democrats could do that would materially affect the course of the war. Senate Democrats are constrained, and while I disagree with Obama on some of his votes, I don’t think those votes would have made much difference in the total death toll.
Once you go to war, the political calculus changes: people throw their support behind the executive in the name of supporting the troops. That means that you should be extremely careful about going to war since you effectively lose some ability to procure good policy after soldiers deploy.
In addition, once we toppled Saddam’s regime and screwed up the first year, I think that the eventual death toll was mostly set. I honestly don’t know what the US could have done after the first year that would have significantly reduced the death toll. I mean, I have ideas, but they’re not things that the Senate can effect. Once the nation goes to war, the executive is in control.
dutchmarbel,
Regarding foreign policy, I think Clinton’s plans for the Israel-Palestinian conflict are…bad. She put out a position paper recently where she committed herself to the position that Jerusalem must be under complete Israeli control as the Israeli capital.
That position is to the right of Bill Clinton’s policy as President. It is to the right of George W Bush’s policy as President. It is to the right of Ehud Olmert’s policy as Prime Minister of Israel. I don’t see how anyone can look at that and even pretend that America is a neutral broker: in writing that statement, Clinton just hung every Palestinian moderate out to dry.
Turbulence:
I totally agree with you about the WMD’s and have said so repeatedly at the time. I usually link to Robin Cooks speech to express my PoV.
I also totally agree with what you say about the sanctions against Iraq. I recommend this piece in Harpers Magazine, which made quite an impression on my at the time.
Which is actually also why it scares me slightly if Barack seems to imply that he is in favour of sanctions against Iran as part of the ‘toolkit’.
But those inspections weren’t for MY convenience. I felt they were needed to establish with certainty (for everybody) that there was no danger, so that policies could be adapted. I also felt that it was important to have a good example for other countries, to show them that it is better to comply with inspections – and a little ‘or else’ can be helpfull.
And I also agree with the fact that Clintons idea’s for Israel are less than admirable. I don’t know why you think her position on Jerusalem is new though: she allready held it in 1999.
I had hoped that Obama’s position was more enlightened, but his current statements and speeches don’t indicate that.
You do realize that I’m only an innocent bystander though? I’ll have to make do with whomever you elect. For the sake of the ObWi readership I hope your guy wins, everybody seems to be terribly dissapointed if that doesn’t happen. I just expressed my suprise at the Hillary-bashing and the Obama-bias. It is toe-curling when people you hold in high regard disappoint like that.
I’m not wedded to Hillary either and will freely admit to the things I don’t like about her. I just thing that both candidates have flaws and both have things that worry me slightly. But both are good candidates and I am amazed that the bias in a lot of people is so strong that they cannot perceive that. I don’t think that is good for the Democratic party either – and I prefer Democrats to Republicans in the USA.
I can also tell you that the more I learn about the electoral system in the USA, the more I appreciate our own system, with flaws and all.
But those inspections weren’t for MY convenience. I felt they were needed to establish with certainty (for everybody) that there was no danger, so that policies could be adapted.
This make no sense to me. Everyone who was paying attention already knew that Iraq posed no threat. Furthermore, everyone also knew that the US government’s stated policy in Iraq was regime-change. That was true for both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The disarmament was done for all practical purposes by 1998; talk of disarmament after 98 was a sham, a figleaf to cover American aggression. Who else needed convincing? Who would have benefited from more inspections? And if you believe that inspectors were done by 98, why would you think that inspections were being honestly managed after 98?
There have been credible reports that UN inspectors were being used by American intelligence. If the process really had been corrupted to such a degree, why on Earth would we continue it?
I also felt that it was important to have a good example for other countries, to show them that it is better to comply with inspections – and a little ‘or else’ can be helpfull.
I don’t understand this at all. There is no generic requirement for countries to submit to inspections; the only reason Iraq was forced to was because they lost a war. What other countries are you thinking of? And given that everyone knew or at least suspected that the UNSCOM process was being rigged to satisfy the American obsession with ousting Saddam at all costs, why would you think this was a good example?
And I also agree with the fact that Clintons idea’s for Israel are less than admirable. I don’t know why you think her position on Jerusalem is new though: she allready held it in 1999.
Less than admirable? Um, she’s made it impossible for a Clinton administration to act as an honest broker.
I never said this was a new policy, but it was written down in a policy paper that her campaign put out recently.
I just expressed my suprise at the Hillary-bashing and the Obama-bias. It is toe-curling when people you hold in high regard disappoint like that.
I’m not wedded to Hillary either and will freely admit to the things I don’t like about her. I just thing that both candidates have flaws and both have things that worry me slightly.
Obviously both candidates have flaws. I think everyone understands that.
I’m sorry but I don’t see this bias you talk about. Your explanations for why I don’t like Clinton’s candidacy doesn’t really make sense to me. I can’t agree to the proposition that I’m demonstrating an irrational bias until you can do a better job convincing me that my reasons for disliking Clinton’s candidacy are irrational…
Everyone who was paying attention already knew that Iraq posed no threat.
Lebanon.
Everyone paying attention usually is a small minority. Lot’s of people were scared, lots of countries felt that he could be a threat at that time and there was a general feeling that the inspections were important.
At the time I was the person giving all the arguments you give, but it was a minority position in a lot of places.
And given that everyone knew or at least suspected that the UNSCOM process was being rigged to satisfy the American obsession with ousting Saddam at all costs, why would you think this was a good example?
Maybe because hardly anybody I talked to agreed that they were rigged for the US? Lots of people thought Scott Ritter was a lying scoundrel.
Less than admirable? Um, she’s made it impossible for a Clinton administration to act as an honest broker.
America has not been (or been seen as) an honest broker in a long time. I had hoped that Obama would be more inclined to be fair to the Palestinians, but so far all he has said and written the last few years show that he is not. So whilst I agree with you that Clintons position is bad, I don’t think Obama is better so it would not be a point in favour of one of the candidates.
I’m sorry but I don’t see this bias you talk about. Your explanations for why I don’t like Clinton’s candidacy doesn’t really make sense to me. I can’t agree to the proposition that I’m demonstrating an irrational bias until you can do a better job convincing me that my reasons for disliking Clinton’s candidacy are irrational…
I spoke in general, not about you in particular. I would never dare to explain to you why you like or don’t like things since I hardly know you and definately don’t know what goes on in your mind. I have not said that your reasons for disliking Clintons candidacy are irrational, I’ve said that (in general) I see a bias where the good things about candidate B are given a lot of attantion and the bad things about candidate H are given a lot of attention. That does not make any of the points untrue but that creates a bias.
When you say that Hillary is a bad candidate because she supports X without mentioning that Barack does more or less the same thing, you create a bias.
As I said earlier: I’m not going to dig into all the points and policies of both candidates. I just balance ObWi with strong pro-Hillary sites to get more or less an idea of what really goes on. It’s just a rather new experience for me to have to include another blog to feel properly informed, at least about the ‘leftist’ views (I do scan through other sites for a more rightwing viewpoint).
dutchmarbel,
Thanks for continuing the discussion. I do appreciate your arguments.
Everyone paying attention usually is a small minority. Lot’s of people were scared, lots of countries felt that he could be a threat at that time and there was a general feeling that the inspections were important.
I don’t find this persuasive. While lots of Americans and maybe Europeans might have been scared, I haven’t seen any evidence that other governments were scared. And while random citizen may not have been paying attention, I assure you that defense and foreign ministries around the world were paying close attention.
At the time I believe Iraq’s neighbors were not at all thrilled at the prospect of an invasion. And while some countries did claim to be concerned that Iraq was a threat, there was substantial pressure imposed by the US government on nations around the world to express concern. Before the Bush administration entered office, I didn’t hear lots of countries besides the UK and US worrying overmuch about Iraq.
I really don’t think “a general feeling that inspections were important” is sufficient basis for conducting inspections. Also, I don’t know how you can quantify a general feeling or even what that means.
Maybe because hardly anybody I talked to agreed that they were rigged for the US? Lots of people thought Scott Ritter was a lying scoundrel.
Bill Clinton has said that the only acceptable outcome in Iraq was Saddam losing power. There were plenty of other reasons to believe that the inspections process was being manipulated besides trusting Ritter.
I don’t think that IAEA inspections were the issue. Were they? In any event, the IAEA can only conduct inspections in countries that have signed on to the non proliferation treaty and such countries can withdraw at any time, so IAEA inspections are not binding.
America has not been (or been seen as) an honest broker in a long time. I had hoped that Obama would be more inclined to be fair to the Palestinians, but so far all he has said and written the last few years show that he is not. So whilst I agree with you that Clintons position is bad, I don’t think Obama is better so it would not be a point in favour of one of the candidates.
Um, do you have any cites for how awful Obama’s Israel-Palestine policy is? Or, even without cites, can you just describe what it is that is so problematic?
While he counts Dennis Ross among his advisers, he also counts Robert Malley and his other advisers seem to have very sane ideas. Look, the truth is that no candidate for President in the US is going to be able to have only advisers that have sane I-P views. But Obama’s advisers appear better than Hillary’s on that score…
Regardless of whether America is seen as an honest broker, America is seen as necessary for reaching a final agreement. It bothers me that Clinton has managed to make the US look significantly less trustworthy in negotiations than George Bush. I didn’t even think that was possible.
When you say that Hillary is a bad candidate because she supports X without mentioning that Barack does more or less the same thing, you create a bias.
I just don’t see how Obama is the same as Clinton on the issues we’ve discussed. Your insistence that they are looks like bias to me.
Thanks for continuing the discussion. I do appreciate your arguments.
Well, I’m gonna stop now. I’ve decided to follow Jes’ example and stay out of the election threads. These are not my elections, it takes too much time and I’m not gonna show you what you do not want to see anyway. I’ll reply to your post, but I’m not going to dedicate a lot of my precious time to these discussions.
You say you don’t think anybody saw Saddam as a threat in those days. I remember being there and being utterly frustrated because I felt that way – and so many people didn’t. To keep it close at home (and because it is easy to find and most of my resources of those days are in Dutch) I’ll give you Garys opinion at the time. Does Gary strike you as an uninformed a-political person?
I don’t think that IAEA inspections were the issue. Were they? In any event, the IAEA can only conduct inspections in countries that have signed on to the non proliferation treaty and such countries can withdraw at any time, so IAEA inspections are not binding.
well, jolly gosh, why on earth are we having problems with places like North-Korea and Iran?
Um, do you have any cites for how awful Obama’s Israel-Palestine policy is? Or, even without cites, can you just describe what it is that is so problematic?
I thought this was were you were supposed to come with some facts and policies to show me I was completely wrong?
His AIPAC speech was a disappointment for me. The foreign affairs piece I linked to earlier was much the same: