publius

by publius

I caught most of tonight’s schizophrenic Mortal Kombat/Kumbaya debate. I know you’ll be shocked, but I came away irritated with the Clinton campaign – more precisely, with certain tactics that I dare call Bush-esque. Hear me out.

To back up, and to echo Josh Marshall, HRC had actually been growing on me lately. The new wave of sympathy hit me one day as I listened to her talk confidently – and with such clear mastery – of some random policy point. I thought, “God, wouldn’t it be nice to have someone that smart and that wonky in the White House.” Her policy mastery didn’t so much win me to her side, as it cooled my opposition. It made me step back, get some perspective, and realize that an HRC administration would be a welcome relief – and would actually be cool in some wonkerrific respects.

But then I listened to the debate. And, ugh. What bothered me was not any of the silly things you usually hear about her personally. What bothered me was her tactics – and in particular, her misrepresentations. They were a particular type of misrepresentation that rang disturbingly familiar.

Josh Marshall got me thinking about all this when I read his scattered reactions to the debate:

I still think Hillary is just intentionally misrepresenting what Obama said about Reagan. It makes me cringe. As much I like her, it makes me cringe.
…

Just when I’m seeing Hillary’s side of things, she comes back with crap like this ‘present’ stuff. Anybody who’s looked into this knows the whole ‘present’ thing is garbage. It’s a standard thing in the Illinois legislature.

Both of these attacks – i.e., Reagan and the “present” voting – are clearly factually false. And everyone who pays attention to the news knows it. And Clinton knows it too. Obama’s invocation of Reagan had nothing to do with praising Republican ideas, and the “present” thing has already been debunked too.

But still, she and her campaign keep harping on this — dishonestly. What’s so infuriating is that, in doing so, they assume their audience is too ignorant to learn the truth. It’s not so much that they’re attacking Obama – after all, that’s politics. It’s that Clinton’s attacks illustrate a deep contempt for voters. Call it “the rube strategy” – we’ll say what we want and most people will be too ignorant to ever figure out the difference.

Read more

by publius

As an Obama guy, I’m obviously disappointed. But given how insanely unpredictable things have been, I’ll pass tonight on predicting what it all means. My first thought was that it’s a body blow for Obama given that Clinton is the establishment candidate. But that’s probably premature – as several commenters in the last thread have reminded me.

Instead, I want to focus on the gender backlash theory that’s gaining traction as the explanation for Clinton’s win. The nickel version is that women went overwhelmingly (and seemingly suddenly) for Clinton in response to the excessive HRC-bashing following Iowa, and more specifically, following the tears. These specific events, in turn, took place against the larger backdrop of frustration that many women have felt about Clinton’s media treatment throughout the election. The theory may be rubbish, but I’m assuming the theory is correct for purposes of this post (and, frankly, I think it is correct).

With that disclaimer, one positive result of Clinton’s victory is that it will force the media (and me) to pay more attention to women’s grievances about the election coverage. For this very reason, I’ve been reflecting tonight on why exactly I oppose Clinton in the primary. Frankly, I wanted to make sure I opposed her for the right reasons, and that I wasn’t holding her to unfair standards. And for reasons I’ll explain, I sincerely believe that I am doing it for the right reasons.

I fully concede that sexism (perhaps subconsciously) is playing a role in her wretched media coverage. This many women this angry can’t all be wrong. There’s definitely some there there – some “there” that I wasn’t seeing (or perhaps ignoring).

But that said, I personally find that a lot of my opposition to Clinton has less to do with her than with an emotional attachment to Obama. Against my better judgment perhaps, I truly believe that Obama could be a game-changer. Ezra Klein caught some crap for it, but I understand the emotions that led him to write those words.

Coming of political age in the Gingrich/late Clinton era, I’ve never really been inspired by any politician. It’s been a mix of outrage and ironic detachment from ’94 on. So you should forgive Ezra – and our generation more generally – if we use some flowing rhetoric from time to time. It’s a newfangled thing for us – and we’re not that good at it. It’s like getting drunk for the first time. You may utter some stupid stuff, but it’s still fun, so you don’t really care.

When the primary fumes pass, we’ll all come around to Clinton, especially compared to the GOP monstrosities. But with Clinton, my perception is that none of this inspired future is possible. Hers will be a competent, moderate, K Street-friendly administration. But I want more – and I think the nation could get more. Thus, my frustration with Clinton’s victory probably has less to do with her personally, than with the fact that I see a very different sort of future slipping away if she wins (or if Edwards wins for that matter). Sure, I’m probably overestimating Obama’s potential energy, but so what. I think it’s just as possible that people are underestimating it. I’m with Andrew Sullivan on that point.

But even putting Obama aside, I want to emphasize that my opposition to Clinton herself is policy-based rather than personality-based.* The problem is that the specific types of policy disagreements I have with Clinton are ones that generate strong emotions. Thus, it’s easy to mistake emotional-yet-ultimately-policy-based critiques with unfair sexism (though I’m not denying that sexism plays a role for many opponents). Here then is a brief rundown of those policy disagreements.

Read more

by publius

Random Iowa observations below the fold – and I tried to limit myself to non-obvious points that everyone and their brother hasn’t already made. This post is also a bit stream of consciousness (with the added obstacle of simultaneously watching TV), so pardon the lack of polish.

Read more

by publius

I’ve been torn on whether – and how – to respond to Bruce Bartlett’s op-ed, which previews his book on racism and the Democratic Party. Some of his sentences are so blatantly disingenuous that it’s clear he’s fishing for outrage. (See, e.g., “[I]f a single mention of states’ rights 27 years ago is sufficient to damn the Republican Party for racism ever afterwards . . .”). What’s maddening is that he – Coulter-esquely – wants me to be outraged so that he can sell more books.

Maybe I’m playing the fool, but his argument requires a response because it’s outrageous and deeply, callously offensive. Smiling at those words, eh Brucey? It’s actually offensive on two levels – one obvious way and one way that is less obvious but more insidious.

First, to the extent that Bartlett is attempting to make a logical argument (personally, I don’t think logic is the goal) Yglesias pretty much rips the argument to shreds here and here. As Bartlett surely knows, the American political parties – while keeping the same labels – have shifted dramatically over the past 200 years. As every seventh-grade American history student knows, the white supremacist coalition (largely but by no means exclusively Southern) voted Democratic until the civil rights era when it moved to the GOP with helpful nudges from Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan.

It would be great of course if Bartlett were sincerely concerned about America’s historical racial legacy. But he’s not. That’s not the point of his book. The point is to win modern political points for the GOP and smear the Democrats. If he can get the question aired, he largely wins. (Chris Matthews: Tonight’s panel will discuss if the Democrats are racist. Joining us are …”

The first level of outrage here is that he’s smearing the modern Democratic Party for the actions of the same racist white supremacists that the party institutionally repudiated in the civil rights era (at great political cost). During this same time period, Bartlett’s own party – whose rank-and-file are largely non-racist – institutionally adopted this grotesque bloc of Bull Connor voters. Since then, at the institutional level, the GOP has intentionally fanned racial flames through opposition and/or indifference to civil rights legislation, through inflammatory code words, and through turning a blind eye to institutional actions by the GOP in southern states (e.g., Georgia Confederate flag controversy).

Admittedly, the Democratic Party is guilty of taking the black vote for granted. And they are also guilty of not pushing as hard as they could for fear of white backlash. But that said, they’ve been the only ones who have even been trying for the past 40 years. The Democrats are the ones fighting for the programs and laws that disproportionately help poor and urban African-Americans. The Democrats are the ones fighting against race-based voter disenfranchisement efforts (e.g., “voter ID”). The Democrats the ones fighting against judges who are hostile to civil rights achievements.

The parties’ record on race over the past 40 years illustrates all too clearly just how dishonest Bartlett is being. That’s bad, but it’s not the worst part. The more outrageous part of Bartlett’s argument is not the dishonesty, but the callous indifference to historical discrimination. He treats the whole thing like a chess pawn in a silly DC talk show game.

Read more