Posts filed under 'Clinton'

That’ll Do, Pigs. That’ll Do.

So the DLC is finally dead.  In much the same way the facehugger “died” in Alien – it completed its mission of implanting corporate conservatism deep inside the body of the Democratic Party.  The DLC is no longer “needed” to pull the Democratic Party to the right, because that’s now exactly where they are.

February 8th, 2011 at 07:53am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Corruption/Cronyism,Democrats,Obama,Politics,Wankers

More Fierce Advocacy

Robert Naiman questions the Obama administration’s sincerity on Egypt:

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Clinton urged the Egyptian government not to crack down on peaceful protests and not to disrupt social networking sites.

As of 5 a.m. this morning Cairo time, we had some preliminary data on the Egyptian government’s response to Secretary Clinton’s urgings.

Egypt: Internet down, police counterterror unit up,” the AP reported.

(…)

Will the US government now say, “Well, what do you want from us? We asked them not to do that.”

Is anyone going to be convinced by that? Will anyone say, “well, the U.S. did all it could?”

As the world knows, the U.S. government has two ways of asking governments that receive U.S. military and economic assistance to do things, or not to do them.

Sometimes the U.S. asks these governments to do things.

And sometimes the U.S. asks these governments to do things, and specifies possible consequences if the ask is not met.

And when Secretary of State Clinton asked the Egyptian government not to crack down on protests and not to disrupt social networking sites, it appeared to be the first case. No possible consequence was suggested if the U.S.-backed, U.S.-armed, and U.S.-supplied Egyptian government cracked down on the protesters and blocked social networking sites.

Perhaps, you might think, the U.S. was showing respect for Egyptian sovereignty.

But that doesn’t pass the laugh test. Because we have seen, over and over, that when the U.S. really wants something, it suggests that there will be consequences if the ask is not met. And then, if the ask is not met, the willingness of the U.S. to carry out threats is demonstrated.

(…)

This is what the U.S. does when it really wants something. It suggests consequences.

Egypt is the second-biggest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. But judging from press reports, no U.S. official has even so much as whispered that a single penny of that aid might be conditioned on whether the Egyptian government allows peaceful protests. Nor has any U.S. official so much as whispered that a cancellation of a visa might be in the offing.

In other words, Obama opposes a crackdown in Egypt in much the same way that he opposes cuts to Social Security, or in much the same way that he supported the public option.  Very inspiring.

January 28th, 2011 at 08:02am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Democrats,Foreign Policy,Obama,Politics,Wankers

Seriously, What The Hell???

I’m sure I’m not the only one who pictured Bill Clinton enclosed in a big glass box with a sign reading “EMERGENCY PRESIDENT: In Case Of Messaging Crisis, Break Glass”, right?

December 11th, 2010 at 03:33pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Obama,Politics

The Passion Of The Bachmann

Michele Bachmann has managed to lower the bar for martyrdom under the floor:

Representative Bachmann called our democratically elected president and mostly representative congress a “gangster government,” conjuring images of a violent coup. (It’s part of the fringe Conservative obsession with “thugs” and “thuggish behavior” and Obama’s “thugocracy”—nothing racially charged about that language!)

And that led to this fairly mild quote from former president Clinton:

“They are not gangsters,” Mr. Clinton said. “They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”

And here’s Bachmann’s response:

“I’m in my second term as a Congresswoman and the former president of the United States decides I’m important enough to take me out!”

Um.  I checked out the NYT story to see if there was a “I pledge myself to kill Michele Bachmann and feast upon her entrails, and I encourage everyone reading this to do the same” quote that was being overlooked, but the best I could come up with was this:

In advance of a symposium on Friday about the attack on the Oklahoma City federal building and its current relevance, Mr. Clinton, who was in his first term at the time of the bombing, warned that attempts to incite opposition by demonizing the government can provoke responses beyond what political figures intend.

“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”

(…)

“Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before,” said Mr. Clinton, who said political messages are now able to reach those who are both “serious and seriously disturbed.”….

Mr. Clinton pointed to remarks like those made Thursday by Representative Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota Republican, who when speaking at a Tea Party rally in Washington characterized the Obama administration and Democratic Congress as “the gangster government.”

Ooo, threatening.  The gauntlet is totally down!

(h/t WT)

April 20th, 2010 at 07:21am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Politics,Republicans,Wankers

Netroots Nation Forgotten Big Dog Photoblogging

I was in such a rush to start posting El Medico Dean photos, I forgot that I still had some Clinton ones left in the hopper:

Clinton 35

Expansive Clinton is expansive!

Clinton 38

…And we have lip-biting.

Clinton 41

My glasses haz a flavor.

Clinton 43

Ask not what your glasses can do for you – ask what you can do for your glasses!

August 25th, 2009 at 09:28pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Netroots Nation,People,Photoblogging

More Netroots Nation Clinton Photoblogging

Love him or hate him, the man is photography gold.

Clinton 17

Clinton 18

Clinton 19

Clinton 20

Clinton 24

August 21st, 2009 at 07:30am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Netroots Nation,People,Photoblogging,Rabid Lambs

Netroots Nation Clinton Photoblogging

I got some pretty good pictures of the Big Dog at the NN keynote, although I’ll probably have to redo the processing when I have some more free time – Picasa on a netbook just isn’t good enough, but it’s all I can do for now.

Clinton 1

Clinton 3

Clinton 7

Clinton 11

Clinton 2 BW

3 comments August 14th, 2009 at 07:23am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Netroots Nation,People,Photoblogging,Rabid Lambs

Profiles In Courage

Mark Sanford:

Sanford said he spoke with close spiritual and political associates who advised him to fight to restore the public’s — and his family’s — trust in him.

“Resigning would be the easiest thing to do,” he said

Because only a coward would give up the power of a governorship and the ability to go on screwing over the people of South Carolina, apparently.

I wonder if the governor applauded Bill Clinton’s courage in not taking the easy way out when Sanford and his pals were calling for him to resign.

June 28th, 2009 at 05:27pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Corruption/Cronyism,Republicans,Wankers

Hillary Vs. Sarah

Well, it’s good to see confirmation that women aren’t buying Sarah Palin’s I’m-just-like-you schtick:

A new poll of 600 female voters found that most view Hillary Clinton as a better mom, role model and leader than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the first woman to be named to a Republican ticket.

(…)

The random telephone survey of 600 female voters – conducted for Shezoom.com, a new website devoted to topics of interest to women – included both personal and political questions about Palin and Clinton.

Clinton – whose popularity seems to have only risen since she ended her own White House bid – beat Palin in every category.

If somehow Palin and Clinton end up at the top of their party’s tickets in 2012, for instance, the former First Lady would make moose-meat out of the Alaska governor, 61% to 27%

Nearly three times as many women think Clinton would do a better job dealing with the economy and with foreign leaders, and women are twice as likely to say they trust Clinton than Palin.

Clinton even beats Palin, a mother of five, in the parenting department – 35% think Clinton has been a better mother, compared to 24% who picked Palin.

“I think there is probably a Chelsea factor there,” said Shezoom.com CEO Stacey Artandi, noting that many voters see the Clinton’s 28-year-old daughter as a poised young woman “who is very much a reflection of Hillary.”

Beyond that, women say Clinton has struck a better “work/life balance” by a 44%-to-32% margin.

And 53% believe Clinton is a better role model for women, compared to 33% who choose Palin.

I’m not sure how credible this poll is, but those results sure are lopsided.

Also worth noting that when I looked, the NY Daily News online reader poll was running 78-22 in favor of Hillary on the presidential question, and trustworthy sources tell me that the News is a pretty Republican paper.

1 comment October 6th, 2008 at 11:22pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Palin,Politics,Polls

Sarah Palin Vs. Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin on the Bridge To Nowhere, 2006:

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

Sarah Palin on the Bridge To Nowhere, 2007:

Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.

Sarah Palin on the Bridge To Nowhere, 2008:

…I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress — I told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves.

Yes, she was for it before she was against it.

Sarah Palin on Hillary Clinton, 2007:

She said she felt kind of bad she couldn’t support a woman, but she didn’t like Clinton’s whining.

Sarah Palin on Hillary Clinton, 2008:

I can’t begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro, back in 1984, and, of course, Senator Hillary Clinton who did show determination and grace in her presidential campaign.

I think Governor Palin will fit right in.

August 30th, 2008 at 07:52pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Corruption/Cronyism,Elections,Palin,Politics,Quotes,Republicans

Wanker Of The Day

Ron Fournier.

Yep, he’s at it again.  News flash for Ron: Primary opponents say negative stuff about each other because they’re competing for the nomination.

I have this sneaking suspicion that if Romney and/or Huckabee delivers a unity speech at the Republican National Convention, Phonier Fournier will rave about how he healed the party and brought everyone together.

Prove me wrong, Ron.  Show us that you’re not the mindlessly pro-Republican hack you appear to be.  Besides, maybe a little honest political analysis would convince some newspapers to keep paying for your sorry ass.

August 27th, 2008 at 07:12am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Elections,McCain,Media,Politics,Republicans,Wankers

Wanker Of The Week

Okay, so he’s not nearly as bad as Michael “Autistic kids are whiny brats” Savage, but Ron Fournier is still pretty heinous:

Last week, we learned that while investigators for the House Oversight Committee were looking into the 2004 death of Cpl. Pat Tillman… they discovered that top political aide Karl Rove had exchanged emails with the Associated Press’ Ron Fournier on the day the news of Tillman’s death broke.

In one email, Rove asked, “How does our country continue to produce men and women like this?” Fournier responded: “The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight.

(…)

Fournier, now the wire service’s D.C. bureau chief, shrugged off the embarrassing revelation, conceding only: “I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence.”

Of course, Fournier wasn’t simply being breezy. “Have a great weekend” — that’s “breezy.”

(…)

The Fournier revelation came as no surprise to anyone who has read his recent campaign work, which has routinely been caustic and dismissive of Democratic contenders. In two “Analysis” pieces and a column, Fournier questioned whether John Edwards was a “phony,” announced the Clintons suffered from “utter self-absorption,” and claimed that Barack Obama was “bordering on arrogance.” That’s the right of a pundit. But at the same time, Fournier avoided raising any doubts about Sen. John McCain, and in fact rushed to his aid in print during the senator’s time of campaign need.

(…)

Just in case this isn’t perfectly obvious, just in case people might be wondering if it’s common for objective political reporters to email partisan operatives off the record and behind the scenes, urging them to “keep up the fight,” the answer is a resounding no. Because it violates the basic journalistic guideline of maintaining neutrality. Especially at the AP, that kind of correspondence should be considered breathtakingly inappropriate.

Think about it: That year, Rove was engineering the president’s re-election — a campaign Fournier was covering as an AP reporter — and Fournier urged Rove to “keep up the fight”? Even if that phrase was not written in connection with the campaign, that kind of communication is just wrong. If Fournier could produce emails from 2004 in which he urged top Democratic strategists to “keep up the fight,” it would certainly remove doubts about his relationship with Rove, but I suspect Fournier cannot.

(…)

But let’s dig a little deeper: In his attempt to dismiss the Rove correspondence, Fournier said that the exchange came “in the course of following an important and compelling story” while he was an AP political reporter. Meaning Fournier was just doing his job.

Yet according to a search of Nexis, Fournier didn’t write any bylined articles about Pat Tillman’s death in April 2004. Or ever, for that matter. That means Fournier wasn’t reaching out as a reporter to Rove for information, quotes, or context about the sad Tillman story. Fournier didn’t need Rove to be a “source” for the Tillman story because Fournier wasn’t covering the Tillman story.

Instead, Fournier seemed to be using the Tillman story as an opportunity to initiate contact with Rove and let him know that Fournier was on his side, and to urge Rove to “keep up the fight.”

But wait, there’s more!  This is what separates a Wanker Of The Week from a mere Wanker Of The Day:

Warning Clinton during the primaries about the dangers of having a candidate’s character questioned by the press, Fournier noted that Al Gore got unfairly tagged during the 2000 presidential campaign for having claimed to have invented the Internet. Fournier patiently set the record straight, noting that Gore “never said he invented the Internet,” that “his mistake was to place himself more centrally than warranted at the creation of the technology,” and that “such nuance was lost on people who voted against him in 2000.”

Silly voters. But how on earth did they come to the false conclusion that Gore ever claimed to have invented the Internet? Answer: By reading Ron Fournier.

  • “He [Gore] claimed credit for inventing the Internet, and comics had a punch line for months.” [November 13, 1999]
  • “Gore, who once claimed to have invented the Internet, e-mailed Bush and said Democrats won’t air TV ads purchased with unlimited, unregulated donations called ‘soft money’ unless Republicans do so first.” [March 15, 2000]

Awesome.  Ron Phonier is a wanker on so many levels.

July 22nd, 2008 at 09:22pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Edwards,Elections,McCain,Media,Politics,Republicans,Rove,Wankers

Thanks, I Needed That.

Pessimist that I am, I have a tendency to imagine the worst-case scenario, and then get myself all worked up and furious about my own dark imaginings.  Fortunately, Barry Crimmins was there to reel me in this time:

Lots of people voted for Hillary Clinton this year for lots of reasons. Few believed they were doing anything but expressing their preference concerning the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination. The vast majority of these people will vote for Barack Obama this fall. A deluded minority think that they remain in a cohesive unit with all of Senator Clinton’s other primary and caucus supporters and hold great sway by doing so.

Good luck to them. Primary season voters chose Clinton for myriad reasons, including:

[Insert myriad reasons here]

…and so on and so forth. The point is, these people have not been alloyed into some sort of political super element.

Today, Mrs. Clinton will formally encourage her supporters to join the Obama camp. This gesture is as much for her as it is for Senator Obama because she will be suggesting that people do what would have done anyway. Despite this, some Clinton dead-enders will continue to threaten to break with Democrats while talking as if they represent that mythical super-alloyed bloc of 18 million voters.

But most of those millions didn’t intend to hand their perpetual political proxy to Mrs. Clinton when they cast a ballot or walked to her side of a caucus. They simply weighed in on which candidate they most supported in the Democratic field. Prior to making their decision, had Mrs. Clinton’s supporters known anyone would suggest that their vote would represent an eternal splinter affiliation, it’s likely many would have chosen Mr. Obama instead.

Most Clinton voters chose her as their first preference in a campaign during which they plan to vote for anyone who will end an eight-year nightmare of Republican rule. A few tough months on the campaign trail hardly trumps eight years getting ground under the boot-heels of Bush, Cheney and their operatives. This nation is involved in protracted, foolhardy war. The economy is in petroleum-fueled flames. The environment is on the verge of epochal ruin. On the other hand, a few bumps and bruises were incurred on the campaign trail. Boo-hoo!

I think Crimmins is probably right – it’s just hard to remember sometimes, because the dead-enders are the ones doing all the shouting.  But being loud doesn’t make them representative.  And hopefully not influential either.

(h/t bdr)

June 9th, 2008 at 11:05pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Blogosphere,Clinton,Democrats,Elections,McCain,Obama,Politics

Post-Primary Vocab

Two words to keep in mind:

Rival, n.

  1. One who attempts to equal or surpass another, or who pursues the same object as another; a competitor.
  2. One that equals or almost equals another in a particular respect.
  3. Obsolete A companion or an associate in a particular duty.

Enemy, n.

  1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
    1. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
    2. A member or unit of such a force.
  2. A group of foes or hostile forces.
  3. Something destructive or injurious in its effects: “Art hath an enemy called Ignorance” (Ben Jonson).

Please try to remember the difference.

2 comments June 9th, 2008 at 07:36pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Blogosphere,Clinton,Democrats,Elections,McCain,Obama,Politics

Finally!

MSNBC calls the nomination for Obama.

Can we all focus on taking down John McCain now?  Please?

June 3rd, 2008 at 09:48pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Democrats,Elections,McCain,Obama,Politics

Hillarywankery

Yeah, I know she has to make her case, but this is just bogus:

Adding a new mathematical twist to her case for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that she had not only won more popular votes than Senator Barack Obama, she had won states totaling far more electoral votes.

“The states that I’ve won total 300 electoral votes,” she told about 300 people in a high school gymnasium in Maysville, the birthplace of the actor George Clooney. “The question is who can win 270 electoral votes? My opponent has won states totaling 217 electoral votes.”

So, in other words, it is apparently impossible for a candidate to win a state in the general election if they did not carry it in the primaries.  Fascinating.

But wait, it gets better:

The Clinton campaign, in an email message from spokesman Phil Singer, offered as evidence for their electoral college argument a memo from Karl Rove obtained by ABC News, which provides an estimate of electoral votes based on public opinion polls.

Mrs. Clinton cited the memo in an appearance in Prestonsburg, Ky., saying, “I believe I am the stronger candidate and just today I found some curious support for that position when one of the TV networks released an analysis by, of all people, Karl Rove, saying I was the stronger candidate. And there it is.”

She’s using Karl Rove as backup now, because he’s such a fair and reliable source whose math is never wrong.  Awesome.

2 comments May 19th, 2008 at 09:43pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Democrats,Elections,Politics,Wankers

Rahm Wants Hill To Chill

Sounds like the Democratic establishment is starting to get a wee bit antsy about Hillary continuing to bash Obama, especially now that it’s obvious to everyone but her that she’s lost the primary:

“What Hillary does in the next month is important,” Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a one-time senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton, warned last week in Manhattan.

(…)

[T]he man known affectionately by his colleagues as “Rahmbo” for his electoral prowess is clearly worried about an unbound Clinton, who so far has shown little desire to turn down the volume on Obama.

“If she spends her time contrasting with Sen. McCain, drawing distinctions that help the Democratic Party, that’s productive,” he said. “If it’s done in another way, that’s not productive.”

Translation: Clinton can help bring the party together, or she can drive deeper the wedge that is dividing the Clinton and Obama camps.

It’s not just about votes. It’s about money.

The Democrats have run laps around Republicans in the money race. At the end of March, Obama had $51 million in cash on hand, compared with $11.6 million for McCain.

But while McCain has been saving his pennies, Obama has continued to pour money into costly primary contests.

At the same time, the Republican National Committee has raked in the dough – it reported $31 million in cash on hand at the end of March. And last week, the committee raised $7million in its best night ever, thanks to a joint account established with McCain.

By contrast, the Democratic National Committee reported only $5 million in cash on hand in March, and it has no joint fund-raising account because Obama and Clinton are still focused on beating each other.

The situation is serious enough that Clinton has summoned her top fund-raisers to a meeting at her Washington home on Wednesday to talk about the road ahead.

At least one invitee says he hopes to serve up a heaping portion of reality.

Richard Schiffrin, a national finance co-chairman for Clinton, told the Los Angeles Times last week that he plans to tell her, “Let’s look at the situation as it exists and think about whether there’s a credible path to the nomination, and if there isn’t, what’s Plan B?”

What is Plan B, indeed.  Plan B should be to very publicly and sincerely endorse Obama as the nominee, and to campaign for him and against McCain without reservation.  Anything less will signal to her followers that Obama is as unworthy and unelectable as she’s been saying throughout the primaries, and to everyone else that she’s hoping for a disastrous one-term McCain presidency so she can run again in 2012.

I’m hoping Hillary will do the right thing, and stand by what she said at the ABC debate:

…[O]nce [the nomination] is resolved, I think it is absolutely imperative that our entire party close ranks. That we become unified. I will do everything to make sure that the people who supported me support our nominee. I will go anywhere in the country to make the case.

And I know that Barack feels the same way because both of us have spent 15 months traveling our country. I have seen the damage of the Bush years. I’ve seen the extraordinary pain that people have suffered from because of the failed policies. You know, those who have held my hands who’ve lost sons or daughters in Iraq. And those who have lost sons or daughters because they didn’t have health insurance.

And so, regardless of the differences there may be between us, and there are differences, they pale in comparison to the differences between us and Senator McCain. So, we will certainly do whatever is necessary to make sure that a Democrat is in the White House next January.

Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about.

May 12th, 2008 at 11:25am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Democrats,Elections,Politics

This Is Not Your Father’s Presidential Election

Frank Rich has an interesting perspective on this year’s election, and why it looks promising for Obama:

This is not 1968, when the country was so divided over race and war that cities and campuses exploded in violence….

This is not 1988, when a Democratic liberal from Massachusetts of modest political skills could be easily clobbered by racist ads and an incumbent vice president running for the Gipper’s third term. This is not the 1998 midterms, when the Teflon Clintons triumphed over impeachment. This is not 2004, when another Democrat from Massachusetts did for windsurfing what the previous model did for tanks.

Almost every wrong prediction about this election cycle has come from those trying to force the round peg of this year’s campaign into the square holes of past political wars. That’s why race keeps being portrayed as dooming Mr. Obama — surely Jeremiah Wright = Willie Horton! — no matter what the voters say to the contrary. It’s why the Beltway took on faith the Clinton machine’s strategic, organization and fund-raising invincibility. It’s why some prognosticators still imagine that John McCain can spin the Iraq fiasco to his political advantage as Richard Nixon miraculously did Vietnam.

The year 2008 is far more complex — and exhilarating — than the old templates would have us believe. Of course we’re in pain. More voters think the country is on the wrong track (81 percent) than at any time in the history of New York Times/CBS News polling on that question. George W. Bush is the most unpopular president that any living American has known.

And yet, paradoxically, there is a heartening undertow: we know the page will turn. For all the anger and angst over the war and the economy, for all the campaign’s acrimony, the anticipation of ending the Bush era is palpable, countering the defeatist mood. The repressed sliver of joy beneath the national gloom can be seen in the record registration numbers of new voters and the over-the-top turnout in Democratic primaries.

Mr. Obama hardly created this moment, with its potent brew of Bush loathing and sweeping generational change. He simply had the vision to tap into it. Running in 2008 rather than waiting four more years was the single smartest political decision he’s made (and, yes, he’s made dumb ones too). The second smartest was to understand and emphasize that subterranean, nearly universal anticipation of change rather than settle for the narrower band of partisan, dyspeptic Bush-bashing. We don’t know yet if he’s the man who can make the moment — and won’t know unless he gets to the White House — but there’s no question that the moment has helped make the man.

For five years boomers have been asking, “Why are the kids not in the streets screaming about the war the way we were?” The simple answer: no draft. But as Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais show in “Millennial Makeover,” their book about the post-1982 American generation, that energy has been plowed into quieter social activism and grand-scale social networking, often linked on the same Web page. The millennials’ bottom-up digital superstructure was there to be mined, for an amalgam of political organizing, fund-raising and fun, and Mr. Obama’s camp knew how to work it. The part of the press that can’t tell the difference between Facebook and, say, AOL, was too busy salivating over the Clintons’ vintage 1990s roster of fat-cat donors to hear the major earthquake rumbling underground.

The demographic reshaping of the electoral map, though more widely noted, still isn’t fully understood. From Rust Belt Ohio through Tuesday’s primaries, cable bloviators have been fixated on the older, white, working-class vote. Their unspoken (and truly condescending) assumption, lately embraced by Mrs. Clinton, is that these voters are Reagan Democrats, cryogenically frozen since 1980, who come in two flavors: rubes who will be duped by a politician backing a gas-tax pander or racists who are out of Mr. Obama’s reach.

Guess what: there are racists in America and, yes, the occasional rubes (even among Obama voters). Some of them may reside in Indiana, which hasn’t voted for a national Democratic ticket since 1964. But there are many more white working-class voters, both Clinton and Obama supporters, who prefer Democratic policies after seven years of G.O.P. failure. And there is little evidence to suggest that there are enough racists of any class in America, let alone in swing states, to determine the results come fall.

(…)

[T]his isn’t 2004, and the fixation on that one demographic in the Clinton-Obama contest has obscured the big picture. The rise in black voters and young voters of all races in Democratic primaries is re-weighting the electorate. Look, for instance, at Ohio, the crucial swing state that Mr. Kerry lost by 119,000 votes four years ago. This year black voters accounted for 18 percent of the state’s Democratic primary voters, up from 14 percent in 2004, an increase of some 230,000 voters out of an overall turnout leap of roughly a million. Voters under 30 (up by some 245,000 voters) accounted for 16 percent, up from 9 in 2004. Those younger Ohio voters even showed up in larger numbers than the perennially reliable over-65 crowd.

Good as this demographic shift is for a Democratic ticket led by Mr. Obama, it’s even better news that so many pundits and Republicans bitterly cling to the delusion that the Karl Rove playbook of Swift-boating and race-baiting can work as it did four and eight years ago. You can’t surf to a right-wing blog or Fox News without someone beating up on Mr. Wright or the other predictable conservative piñata, Michelle Obama.

This may help rally the anti-Obama vote. But that contingent will be more than offset in November by mobilized young voters, blacks and women, among them many Clinton-supporting Democrats (and independents and Republicans) unlikely to entertain a G.O.P. candidate with a perfect record of voting against abortion rights. Even a safe Republican Congressional seat in Louisiana fell to a Democrat last weekend, despite a campaign by his opponent that invoked Mr. Obama as a bogeyman.

…[E]ven if Mr. McCain keeps his word and stops trying to portray Mr. Obama as the man from Hamas, he can’t disown the Limbaugh axis of right-wing race-mongering. That’s what’s left of his party’s base.

Now that the Obama-Clinton race is over, the new Beltway narrative has it that Mr. McCain, a likable “maverick” (who supported Mr. Bush in 95 percent of his votes last year, according to Congressional Quarterly), might override the war, the economy, Bush-loathing and the bankrupt Republican brand to be competitive with Mr. Obama. Anything can happen in politics, including real potential game changers, from Mr. McCain’s still-unreleased health records to new excavations of Mr. Obama’s history in Chicago. But as long as the likely Democratic nominee keeps partying like it’s 2008 while everyone else refights the battles of yesteryear, he will continue to be underestimated every step of the way.

Rich is more optimistic than I am about the diminished impact of smear campaigns – I think they will always be effective unless countered decisively and authoritatively (indeed, Kerry’s passive reaction to the Swift Boaters might have been more damaging than the smears themselves).

But overall, I think he’s onto something important: America hates Bush like they’ve never hated any president before.  Nixon might have come close, but he was already two years out of office by Election Day.  Dubya will still be there, and he’ll still be trying to throw his weight around to prove how relevant he is.  If Obama can effectively tie McCain to Dubya and his most unpopular policies, he should win in a landslide.

The good news is that McCain has given Obama plenty of ammunition; the bad news is that the corporate media will be doing all they can to debunk and “fact-check” him at every turn.  My hope is that the media overplay their hand and end up discrediting themselves instead of Obama – because without the media, the Republicans have nothing.

May 11th, 2008 at 11:58am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Clinton,Democrats,Elections,McCain,Media,Obama,Politics,Polls

Your Impartial Liberal Media

Look what Mike Caulfield found in the CNBC Store.

I assume they had lots of anti-McCain novelty items there as well, right?

Right?

May 5th, 2008 at 11:36pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Elections,Media,Politics,Wankers

What Obama And Hillary Should Have Said

See, this is why I wanted the Democratic candidates to ask Howard Dean for pointers before they offered themselves up to be interviewed on Fox News:

WALLACE: The left wing of your party is in a snit over all these Democrats appearing on Fox. In fact, the head of MoveOn.org had this to say about Democrats on Fox. “It legitimizes a right wing network that is going to use that credibility to smear them in the general election.” He and the head of the Daily Kos are using words about you guys showing up here as weak, idiotic, stupid. How do you respond to the left wing?

DEAN: What I’d say is this: we stayed off Fox for a long time because your news department is, in fact, biased. But, Chris, you haven’t been. You’ve always been tough, but I always thought fair and I still think that’s true. And we need to communicate with people who are going to vote in the Democratic Party. Hundreds of thousands of Republicans have turned their back on their own party to vote in the Democratic primaries in the last six months. We owe it to our — to all the American people to reach out to those folks. This is not about Fox News. That’s not why I’m here today. I’m out because I want to talk to your viewers directly about why this election is important and what we can offer the American people.

WALLACE: Let me ask you, and obviously it’s always about the millions of people who watch these shows. Looking back, do you think it was a mistake for the Democratic Party to boycott Fox debates and all the other programs during the last year and thereby boycott getting your message out to the millions of people who watch?

DEAN: No, I think it was the right thing to do, because there are some things in the news department that have really been shockingly biased and I think that’s wrong and I just say so right up front. It is important also for us — we shouldn’t punish the viewers of Fox by staying away. Now those viewers have had an opportunity to look at the debates on other channels, now they’re going to have an opportunity viewing on this channel and I think that’s fair.

But wait, there’s more:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday that Republicans are using “hate and divisiveness” to win elections.

Dean argued that the use of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) former pastor Jeremiah Wright in GOP ads in local races is “race baiting.”

“When you start bringing up things that have nothing to do with the candidate and nothing to do with the issues, that’s race baiting,” Dean said on Fox News Sunday in response to a question whether the Wright issue and his ties to Obama hurt Democrats down ticket.

“There’s a lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on issues, but the biggest issue of all is we don’t use this kind of stuff. We never have used this kind of stuff, and we’re not going to start now,” said the DNC chairman. “America is more important than the Republican Party, and that’s the lesson that the voters are about to teach the Republicans.”

Awesome.  Why can’t all the Democrats say stuff like that?

(He did let Chris Wallace off a little too easy, but he called Fox News and the GOP out for what they are, which is the most important thing.)

2 comments May 4th, 2008 at 08:00pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Democrats,Elections,Media,Politics,Republicans

Endorsement Update

Washington Post:

With endorsements coming in from California, Iowa and Indiana, Sen. Barack Obama yesterday pulled even with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the race for support on Capitol Hill, as Democratic lawmakers shrugged off his recent struggles.

Obama (Ill.) received the backing of Rep. Baron P. Hill, a conservative from a critical district in southern Indiana; Rep. Bruce Braley, an Iowa freshman who grabbed a Republican seat in 2006; and Rep. Lois Capps, who has held her liberal Santa Barbara, Calif., seat for five full terms and whose son-in-law works for the Obama campaign.

Hill also spills in The Hill about why he’s thrilled to shill for Obama (Ill.) over Hill on the Hill.  Which fills Bill with ill will.

I think I may have sprained something.

(h/t TeddySanFran for the WaPo story)

May 1st, 2008 at 07:25pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Elections,Obama,Politics,Puns

Interview Advice For Hillary

Now that Hillary has decided to follow Obama’s lead and legitimize Fox News as A Serious News Organization That Serious People Take Seriously, I thought I would offer up a video tutorial on how best to approach her interview with Bill O’Reilly:

YouTube Preview Image

I’m pretty sure this couldn’t possibly be worse than the reality.

April 29th, 2008 at 08:46pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Elections,Media,Politics,Republicans,Wankers

Question Of The Day

From loyal Bushie and professional wanker Michael Gerson:

There is little doubt that Americans generally feel that the initial use of military force in Iraq was a mistake. Recent, paradoxical polls show a dramatic increase in the number of people who believe that the war is now going well alongside a hardening majority who believe it should not have been begun. Barack Obama’s strongest argument on Iraq is increasingly about the past.

But presidential elections tend to focus on the future. In spite of their past failures, whom do you trust more to conduct a flawed, messy war in the years ahead? Lincoln or McClellan? Nixon or McGovern? Bush or Kerry? McCain or Obama?

Well, obviously, the candidate that I trust more to conduct a flawed, messy war is McCain.  But I would much rather end the flawed, messy war, which is why I’ll vote for Clinton or Obama.  And cross my fingers.

(h/t dakine… again)

April 10th, 2008 at 09:02pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Elections,Iraq,Media,Obama,Politics,Republicans,Wankers,War

Feel The Hillmentum!

Don’t count Hillary out yet!

Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl will reportedly endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The blog of the Boston Globe first reported the pending endorsements, which two Clinton campaign officials have confirmed.

The Clinton campaign earlier today said she is expected to be joined Friday evening by “two special guests” during a rally at Soliders & Sailors Military Museum and Memorial in Oakland. One campaign official today told the Trib that Onorato and Ravenstal are the guests.

Ravenstahl and Onorato could not be reached directly for comment.

Pennsylvania will surely be hers now.

March 13th, 2008 at 10:24pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Democrats,Elections,Pittsburgh/PA,Politics

Black Privilege

Rush Limbaugh, 6/28/03:

I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.

Chris Matthews, 1/9/08:

Let’s not forget — and I’ll be brutal — the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,” right? That’s what happened.

Geraldine Ferraro, 3/7/08:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

What the hell is wrong with these people??? How can anyone honestly believe that the world is just handed to minorities or women? Any preferential treatment at all (i.e., affirmative action) is far outweighed by the prejudices and disadvantages that it’s supposed to (ineffectually) counter. Can you really look me in the eye and tell me that if you were an unborn spirit floating in the void, and you wanted to be President Of The United States, or attain some other prestigious (okay, formerly prestigious) position, that your first choice would be to be born as a black man, or a woman who gets very publicly cheated on?

I sure as hell don’t think so. This kind of bullshit doesn’t surprise me coming from Rush or Matthews – as well-paid and well-fed white guys, the system’s worked out just great for them, and they don�t want to see it change one bit. At least not in a direction that might eventually result in Rachel Maddow or D.L. Hughley taking their jobs (wistful sigh).

But Ferraro should know better. She’s fought through irrational discrimination and hostility all her life, she knows what it’s like. Why on earth would she think that a black politician like Obama hasn’t had to do the same? I’m nowhere near qualified to compare the relative evilness of sexism and racism, but I know enough to recognize that they’re both Very Large Evils, and that neither one trumps the other.

I genuinely do not have a preference in this race (I’m pretty underwhelmed by both candidates), but this shit is just stupid. And while I admit I have not been keeping rigorous score, my gut impression is that there’s been a lot more aggravating crap coming from the Clinton campaign and Clinton surrogates than there is coming from Obama or his surrogates. Not necessarily racial, just aggravating, like her charming comment about how she and McCain are qualified to be commander-in-chief and Obama isn’t. I actually think she probably would be a marginally better president than Obama, but saying that the Republican candidate would be too is just beyond the pale.

Am I saying Obama didn’t say nice things about Reagan, or that one of his advisers didn’t call Hillary a monster, or that he doesn’t exploit the enthusiasm of the netroots while offering them little in return, or that he’s been some kind of courageous progressive crusader in the Senate? Hell no. I’m just saying that on balance, his campaign doesn’t gross me out nearly as much as Hillary’s does. Mark Penn? Terry McAuliffe? Eurgh.

2 comments March 12th, 2008 at 08:15pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Democrats,Elections,Obama,Politics,Racism,Sexism,Wankers

They Can Not Be Serious…

If this really is an accurate representation of the Clinton mindset, then I think I have to support Obama:

…Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton’s communications director, Howard Wolfson.

“I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,” Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

“We don’t make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,” Wolfson said. “And we don’t make distinctions when it comes to elected officials” who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

“We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,” he added.

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate — and the party — would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

“This is a nomination system that exists of caucuses, primaries, superdelegates and also the issue of voters in Florida and Michigan,” states whose delegates currently will not be seated at the convention because they broke party rules by moving up their primaries to January, said Mark Penn, senior strategist for the Clinton campaign. But “whoever the nominee is, the party will come together behind that nominee,” he said.

(…)

Clinton — who initially joined other Democrats in opposing Michigan and Florida’s decisions to go ahead with early primaries — now wants the votes of those primaries counted. The Obama camp thinks that idea is unfair, since candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states, and Clinton alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot, meaning Obama did not have a chance at getting even provisional delegates.

How does Hillary expect to have any legitimacy if she wins the nomination without a majority of the Democratic vote or pledged delegates? This approach would be particularly foul-smelling to the party that got burned by Bush v. Gore in 2000, and I think Democratic voters would stay home in droves, handing McCain the presidency and crippling Democratic efforts to gain ground in Congress.

The winner of the primaries should be the nominee. Period.

(h/t Group News Blog)

6 comments February 14th, 2008 at 11:20am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Democrats,Elections,Politics,Wankers

They Keep Going Missing, For One Thing.

More from the ever-charming and gallant Bill Kristol:

Look the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women… it would be crazy for the Democratic party to follow the establishment that’s led them to defeat year after year… White Women are a problem – but, you know… we all live with that…

Stoopit white women don’t appreciate how important neverending war is.

15 comments February 4th, 2008 at 11:14am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Media,Republicans,Sexism,Wankers

Wait… What?

From a WaPo story looking at the Democratic primary from a generational perspective (which I think is inane to begin with):

…Almost a year ago, in a speech to African American leaders in Selma, Ala., [Obama] underlined the differences between two different types of generations: the “Moses generation” that led the children of Israel out of slavery, and the “Joshua generation” that established the kingdom of Israel. The first was a generation of idealists and dreamers, the second a generation of doers and builders.

With that speech, in which he associated Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with the former generation and claimed the mantle of the latter for himself, Obama fired the first shot in an election battle that’s being fought along the dividing lines between these two generational archetypes.

So… Lemme get this straight: Hillary is the idealistic dreamer, and Obama is the pragmatic doer?

Fascinating.

(h/t dakine)

7 comments February 3rd, 2008 at 11:47am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Elections,Obama,Politics

Post-Partisanship Is A Two-Way Street

Paul Krugman reminds us that it’s not enough to have to have an oh-so-civil, across-the-aisle-reaching, “post-partisan” Democratic president to improve the tone in Washington:

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

(…)

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.

(…)

[T]hose who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

What a tradeoff – we would get a Democratic president who capitulates to the Republicans… and gets savaged just as much as he would if he had vowed to wipe the Republican Party from the face of the earth and proceeded to govern like Dubya’s liberal twin. Fantastic.

Which brings me right back to what I have never been able to understand about the Obama campaign. Obama inspires people with this idea that he would somehow be a transformational agent of change, yet his avowed strategy is to work with Republicans to try to somehow bridge the gap and find common ground between the parties. How exactly will that bring about change? President Obama would get rolled, and the country would continue drifting to the right, albeit (maybe, hopefully) a little more slowly.

I want a Democratic president who will stand their ground and say NO, as clearly and loudly as possible, and who recognizes that the Republicans, as well as most of the media, are his or her sworn enemies. If the Republicans want “compromise,” let them yield some ground first. If the media wants access, let them stop acting as right-wing propaganda outlets first.

If that sounded like an endorsement of Hillary, it shouldn’t. She does understand what she’s facing, but she also belongs to the establishment, business-as-usual, hawkish corporate DLC wing of the Democratic party. I just don’t trust her to consistently take the right stand on the issues that are important to progressives, particularly Iraq, Iran, the Constitution, and the ever-increasingly concentration of power and money in the hands of a few privileged elites.

That’s why I’m still endorsing Edwards, who has a much more progressive and oppositional message, and would be much more likely to fight for actual substantive change. I still would have preferred Dodd, though. He showed far more courage and leadership than any of the three frontrunners, and got precious little to show for it.

1 comment January 28th, 2008 at 07:46am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Democrats,Elections,Media,Obama,Politics,Republicans

Civility

So… tell me again how we progressives are the horrible uncivil people?

What is this guy, thirteen?

(h/t Caro Kay)

January 24th, 2008 at 08:51pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Elections,Politics,Republicans,Sexism,Wankers

Previous Posts


Contact Eli

Boathouse Hallway




Choose a color scheme:

Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

July 2014
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *