Until now, I’ve done my very best not to pass judgement on Hillary Clinton. And I’m still trying. I really (strain) am. But it’s getting harder every day.
On the one hand, I lurve the idea of a woman in the White House. Is that stupid? I don’t know. And I don’t care. People decide to vote for a candidate for any number of unknown and irrational reasons. That I relish the thought of my sons growing up in a country in which a woman demonstrably can be president hardly seems like the worst one on such a varied list. Plus, everything from this primary season suggests to me that Hillary is highly skilled, incredibly smart, and likely not to destroy the nation. At least not on purpose. And on top of all of that, the misogyny that underlies so much of the anti-Hillary coverage drives me right into her arms.
On the other hand, I believe that the country badly needs change. Now. As I suggested a long time ago — back when this blog was just emerging from the primordial ooze — no matter what Paul Krugman claims, I don’t see Hillary as anything like the change candidate in this race. Why? Because you can’t be for change if you represent stasis. Hillary, I’m afraid, is the very embodiment of Democratic stasis: the same stale cultural debates that I trace back to the Vietnam era; a deep indebtedness to monied interests; and a stake in her husband’s policies — both for better and for worse — as well as, in some cases, those of the seated president. Unless I’m missing something, there’s not much change there.
Still, I’m willing to look beyond all of that. In part, because I’ll support whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic field. And also, because I’ve allowed myself to be persuaded that hardnosed politics is required to win the general election, to beat the Republicans at their game. Their side won’t play nice, the argument goes, so why should ours? That’s true, of course. But it’s not change. Is there a better alternative? Honestly, I have no idea. Or, put more accurately, I know for me but not for you. Make up your own mind. As if you need me to tell you that.
Lately, though, the Clintons have really begun to wear on me. First, it was Hillary playing games with Martin Luther King’s memory. That Sean Wilentz is sticking up for her interpretation only deepens my skepticism about Hillary’s intentions. And not because Wilentz is a bad historian.* But anyone who claims he’s not a proxy for the Clintons** hasn’t been paying attention. Next, it was Bill dragging himself through the muck and then popping back up with an expression of righteous outrage on his face when anyone would dare to question his methods. Finally, we have this: Hillary trying to reinstate the delegates from Michigan and Florida.
Clearly, this is smart politics. It’s beginning to look like the race for delegates might actually matter this time around on the Democratic side. Every delegate might count, in other words. But trying to change the rules after the game has already started is nasty business. It’s sneaky, it’s underhanded, and it reminds me of the current administration. Again, you say, hardball. I say potato or tomato, sure, you’re right. But I don’t have to like it. And I don’t. I want a change.
[Update: Josh Marshall agrees. Which raises another point: most of the "progressive"*** bloggers that I read -- Eric Alterman, Atrios, Hilzoy, Ezra Klein, Kos, Josh Marshall, Melissa McEwan, Matthew Yglesias -- have not taken a firm stand during the primary campaign. All of them have said or seem to be saying something like: we're for anyone with a "D" after their name. But I wonder if this sort of dirty pool will change all that. I suppose we'll see.]
[Update II: I really buried my lede here. The question is in the first update: will behavior like this fracture the Democratic electorate?]
[Update III: Nobody's saying yes -- yet -- though Ezra Klein comes pretty close. But Robert Farley at LG&M is also very annoyed.]
[Update IV: And now Yglesias weighs in, echoing his old boss****, Josh Marshall.]
[Update V: Josh Marshall, clarifying a post that was, I thought, already pretty clear.
* I often disagree with his arguments — rather strongly — but he’s very good.
** Which is fine, of course. But it is what is it is. Or was what it was.
*** These are not scare quotes. Quite the opposite. They’re cuddly quotes.
**** Right? Didn’t Yglesias have one of TPM’s internships. Surely Google knows.
71 comments
January 25, 2008 at 5:17 pm
jim
“[W]ill behavior like this fracture the Democratic electorate?”
No.
To elaborate:
Most of us, I think, really don’t care about the primaries. Yes, we (I, at least) have a preference (Edwards in my case, but I was always a bitter-ender), but we (I, at least) recognize that you couldn’t fit a cigarette paper between the candidates’ positions. Any of the three (or more!) would be acceptable. It’s not just that one would vote for anyone with a (D) behind their name, it’s that any of the candidates would be good. Whichever Democrat is the candidate will seek to withdraw from Iraq. Whichever Democrat is the candidate will seek universal health care. So I will support whoever wins.
More, the stuff that is argued over in the primaries is trivial. Party rules? Seriously? Electability? After 2004? The narcissism of small differences. Don’t succumb.
January 25, 2008 at 5:39 pm
ari
Most of us, I think, really don’t care about the primaries.
Depending on who you mean by “us,” this is almost certainly true, a point worth remembering for all of the junkies who do care.
it’s that any of the candidates would be good
As most of my post indicates, I agree with you here as well. Though I do have many unanswered questions about which one would be best for the county.
I will support whoever wins.
Me too. Of course. But I’d like to do it without holding my nose this time. I’m not saying that I’ve arrived at that point should the nominee be Hillary. But I feel like I get closer as the weeks pass.
The narcissism of small differences
If not for this, there would be no blogs.
January 25, 2008 at 5:51 pm
charlieford
Considering Bill is/was “our first black president,” the last week has been a really depressing lesson–not that I needed one, theoretically speaking–on how very utterly politicus the homo politcus is.
We all know that, of course. If you want to keep to your principles and get thru life with charity for all and integrity in every contest, become a (free-lance, of course!) philosopher. Or a sunday-school teacher. Politics is politics.
But given Bill’s identification with the black community, and his rising reputation as a post-president/good-guy, this makes me want to hurl. I guess I have more capacity of recidivist naivete than I would have supposed. After all these years and all that.
As for this: “Hillary, I’m afraid, is the very embodiment of Democratic stasis . . . Unless I’m missing something, there’s not much change there.”
Right. We’ll NEVER–apart from some crisis that dwarfs the Great Depression–see any electable candidates who are.
“Still, I’m willing to look beyond all of that. In part, because I’ll support whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic field.”
I’m not arguing–I’ll probably be with you come November–but that’s what perpetuates the stasis.
See my blog at the bottom for my fears re what a Hillary presidency will entail.
January 25, 2008 at 7:13 pm
SEK
Hilzoy’s recent post hammered home the homo politicus point for me. I know all the major players are political animals, but the Clinton campaign seems to be embracing the record-smearing, fact-distorting tactics that epitomize business-as-usual in Washington. The fact that Obama pulling his negative ads today guilted Clinton into pulling hers is telling — she’s fully aware of the danger of seeming too negative, but she still wants to play that game. I have a feeling Obama’s people were baiting her, and that she barely escaped hooking her lip. (I wish she had.) Obviously, Clinton has my vote if she wins the nomination, but really, I’m teaching kids who’ve never taken a breath without a Bush or Clinton in the White House. If nothing else, political calculus suggests that these folks have done all they can with the alliances they’ve formed.
January 25, 2008 at 7:29 pm
matt w
Didn’t Yglesias have one of TPM’s internships.
He used to have a blog hosted at TPMCafe for a while. I had forgotten entirely about this stage of his blogging career until I looked at his Wikipedia entry just now. It makes me feel old that I’ve followed him through so many blogging platforms.
January 25, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Galvinji
I have been distinctly unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton throughout this cycle — primarily because of her vote on the Iraq War (and continued defense of said vote), and even more so lately with her campaign tactics that reek of entitlement and short-term thinking and threaten to split a surprisingly unified Democratic party. But I think the real problem is that she represents a restoration at the time when the country needs something different after the current administration has wrecked our standing in the world and shredded the Constitution.
Anyway, my opinions won’t matter until November because my state’s primary is late. (I have never cast a meaningful primary vote despite voting my entire adult life in three of the six or seven most populous states.) Since I live in a swing state, I will probably vote for her in the general elections should she be the nominee, mostly because I’m not anxious to see what the Supreme Court and federal regulatory apparatus will look like after another Republican administration, but I’d gladly vote for a third party candidate if I lived in California or New York.
On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton is elected president it would confirm one of my hypotheses about the Bush Administration: they have been engaged in a nefarious plot to transform the United States into an Anglophone Argentina with nuclear weapons. (Just consider Hillary Clinton the American Cristina Fernandez). If only the national soccer team could keep up.
January 25, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Jamie T.
Putting aside the Hillary discussion for a moment, is this the kind of controversy that could implode the god awful primary system? It reminds me of college football’s terrible BCS system. Seems like it would be both beneficial and simple to change it but not one ever does.
January 25, 2008 at 8:32 pm
andrew
I know this could sound snarky and it’s not meant that way – and I think, if I had really strong feelings about it, I’d go with Edwards or Obama – but what exactly is the big change Obama’s promoting? Or even the big idea he has? What’s his signature idea? (”Hope” and “change” alone don’t really cut it for me.)
I know he’s talking about a “new kind of politics” against the “old politics” but the new kind of politics – reaching across the aisle, unity, etc. – looks kind of like older new kinds of politics that have been run against older old kinds of politics. None of this means that he’s wrong to set his new kind of politics as a goal, but it does make it seem less of a big deal to me, and, to be honest, not particularly inspiring.
There’s been a lot of talk about, and sometimes discussion of, the civil rights movement and Reagan and when you think about them you think of, among other things, civil rights – obviously – and (for lack of a more accurate phrase) small government conservatism. And then you get to Obama and Clinton* and you get, uh, change. Of course there are more specific issues, like health insurance, economic plans, etc., but aside from the war they don’t quite stand out as broad social/political movement-level issues.
*To a certain extent Edwards does have signature issues – anti-poverty and defense of the working and middle classes. I wonder if that hurts, rather than helps him. One of the advantages of the vagueness of “change” or “hope” is that it’s easier to avoid getting put into a box, or at least it makes the box you’re put into potentially larger.
January 25, 2008 at 8:35 pm
ari
Yes, the homo politicus issue has been a bit of a downer lately. I’m naive, of course, but things seemed very hopeful there for a while — just after Iowa. Ogged’s brief return from his “hiatus” to blot out the son with this post is another grim reminder of how corrupt the system really is, perhaps especially in SC (there I go again with the naive).
Galvinji, this is my first time living in a state whose primary will matter. And I think, given my preferences, that it might matter too much. But we’ll see. Regardless, as you say, Hillary’s court appointments, should she be elected, will likely be excellent (relatively speaking). Particularly if, as seems likely, the Democrats pick up a few more Senate seats. All of that said, I’ve been anxious, like SEK, about another president named Clinton. South America sans football indeed.
Jamie, in my dream world, there would, if nothing else, be no more superdelegates. Beyond that, the primary system seems to be working comparatively well this year, no?
And Matt, Yglesias’s career is enough to make anyone over thirty feel old. But then again, we are old.
January 25, 2008 at 8:45 pm
ari
Totally fair question Andrew. And I have to admit that I’m guilty of projecting a lot of my hopes onto Obama. But my sense is that his work in community organizing matters, that he genuinely understands and cares about urban problems, and that his age alone is a big deal. None of that, of course, touches the issue of race and background, which, in his case, has the potential to be transformative (also true of Hillary).
As for big ideas, Jim, in the first comment, notes that the big three (I think Edwards still has a chance, by the way) are all basically the same on domestic issues. All of them, I think, have big ideas, starting with huge steps towards universal healthcare. On foreign policy, it’s a mixed bag, though I like Obama’s team (especially Brezinski) better than the others.
All of that said, I subscribe to the conventional wisdom: Obama has been running a general election campaign from the get-go. Lots of feel-good rhetoric, more message than substance, and avoiding big slip-ups. This has hurt him with progressives. But if he makes it past Edwards and Hillary, he’ll have a chance to define himself on his terms, taking into account his Republican opponent. That should help when it really matters.
January 25, 2008 at 9:23 pm
urbino
What Galvinji said. I’ll end up voting for Hillary if I have to, but I’ll be muttering “God damn it!” while I do so. This wide-eyed, “Hey, here’s a great idea: let’s count Michigan and Florida after all!” business makes want to chew off my own tongue. I mean, honestly, how much more explicitly can one say, “I don’t fucking care about democracy or justice or fairness. I just want to win!”
Primaries-wise, I’d favor a single nationwide version, personally. The state party apparatchiks will never let it happen, though.
Or a sunday-school teacher. Politics is politics.
So is Sunday-school teaching, but that’s neither here nor there.
January 25, 2008 at 9:36 pm
urbino
Obama has been running a general election campaign from the get-go. Lots of feel-good rhetoric, more message than substance, and avoiding big slip-ups.
I’ve been saying this for a while, so it was nice when Obama sort of confirmed it: Obama is running as the Dems’ Reagan. Personally, this progressive has no beef with that. I think it’s brilliant, actually. It’d be terrific if Obama did for liberalism (truth be told, I prefer the old label) what Reagan did for conservatism.
There seems to be an unstated worry among Dem voters that, because Obama isn’t giving us a laundry list of specific policy promises, he might get into office and not be a “real” Democrat. I don’t get it; to me, his fundamental liberalism is, if anything, more clear than Hillary’s. He’s simply running as something bigger than that. This is a good thing. It benefits liberalism the way Reagan benefited conservatism. Reagan may have been all about the feel-good rhetoric, and more message than substance in the campaign, but is there really any question that once in office, he pushed “real” Republican policy? By first presenting himself as something bigger than a Republican or a conservative, he brought likability to those things.
January 25, 2008 at 9:39 pm
andrew
The fact that Obama pulling his negative ads today guilted Clinton into pulling hers is telling
I’m pretty sure the order is reversed. Clinton pulled her ad – claiming that it was scheduled to be pulled and replaced by a “closing argument” ad (not sure I believe that) – and Obama’s campaign pulled their response ad in return since there wasn’t a specific reason for it anymore.
January 25, 2008 at 10:44 pm
ari
I’m with you, Urbino, as you know. And I think you’re right, Andrew, though I’m having a hard time confirming the sequence of events. Partly because I’m tired and lazy. But also because the campaigns are issuing statements that are intentionally fuzzy. Or so it seems.
January 25, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Adam
I agree with Urbino about Obama – he gets people across the political spectrum jazzed up about political life. The ‘hope’ that Obama is talking about is primarily being able to politics with a minimum of those things called ‘politicking’, and to present a thoroughly liberal message in a way is at bare minimum unoffensive to almost everyone and please to a clear majority. That’s pretty powerful. I mean, we gain nothing by seeking revenge on our political opponents – it only makes them come back with more vitriol. Obama message of conciliation subtly undercuts the opposition because there’s no partisan language for them to latch onto. I think a good example of this is Obama’s healthplan – I think it addresses the problems of our healthcare system every bit as well as Clinton’s and Edward’s, but it does so with language that non-liberals ought not have a problem with. And by instituting a uniformity in plans among insurance companies, it subtly moves up forward to the day where that plan gets merged into a public plan. His plan shouldn’t frighten anyone who’s afraid of ’socialism’.
January 26, 2008 at 12:23 am
greg in ak
not a lot to except that, this would be far less distasteful and sleazy if she had been this tough, vicious and aggressive as a senator and against the repubs. but we get her win at all costs against us; against our team; against her team. she’s drawn more blood against the D’s than the R’s. And that sux. I’ll vote for her or any D, but I’d really like to see her take this to the senate and knee bush in the balls( in a dignified, senatorial kind of way of course). That would be leadership and inspiring, but I’m not holding my breath.
January 26, 2008 at 1:05 am
Hillary Clinton: Changing The Rules On Florida And Michigan Delegates?
[...] –The Edge of The American West: Lately, though, the Clintons have really begun to wear on me. First, it was Hillary playing games with Martin Luther King’s memory… Next, it was Bill dragging himself through the muck and then popping back up with an expression of righteous outrage on his face that anyone would dare to question his methods. Finally, we have this: Hillary trying to reinstate the delegates from Michigan and Florida. [...]
January 26, 2008 at 1:51 am
American Street » Blog Archive » Justice & Hope, day 25
[...] Boomer liberals are used to the marginalization that the media has pushed to the forefront in this election year. Youthful idealists pushing for Obama are the ‘new way’. Hillary is the ‘old way.’ [...]
January 26, 2008 at 1:51 am
Colin
When Dukakis beat Jesse Jackson for the nomination in 1988 did he get up to the kinds of mischief that we’re getting from the Clintons? I can’t remember anything, but it’s been a while.
While Greider
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDxA8-01cp4
has a point the two Clintons are not exactly a matched set. Bill is both immensely, freakishly talented and hugely disappointing, partly due to an absence of scruple. Hillary has always struck me as the senior law firm partner she was: hard-working and smart and able to master details, but neither an exceptional political talent on the one hand nor the ogre her more frenzied detractors imagine.
So from one angle she looks like a female Michael Dukakis: a low-affect technocrat. It’s hard to see working up a huge emotional charge one way or the other.
But with the Big Dog in alpha-male mode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDxA8-01cp4
we’re suddenly in full-scale national psychodrama, race plus gender plus age plus this ill-articulated idea that because she’s been attacked unfairly and treated badly she’s owed the Presidency to make up for it. Bill achieves redemption for past bad behavior by sacrificing all, reputation included, to get her this prize.
Anyway I’m with you. I *really* don’t want eight years of this. Senator from NY seems a fine outlet for her talents, and if Bill did so poorly as President at creating and holding a governing majority, it seems unlikely she’ll do better. Obama is unquestionably the greater political talent, has wider experience and sympathies, and probably better judgment.
January 26, 2008 at 1:54 am
Colin
whoops, sorry: the Greider link should be http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=274075
January 26, 2008 at 3:46 am
Ben Alpers
I really buried my lede here. The question is in the first update: will behavior like this fracture the Democratic electorate?
Actually, the question ought to be: when will Democrats focus on the general rot inside their party that makes any of this possible? The core problem in this case is the primary process itself. It makes these manipulations possible. And until progressive voters stop automatically saying “of course I’m going to vote for the Democrat,” I don’t think there’s any chance that the Democratic Party will experience the kinds of reforms it would need to function as a progressive, small-d democratic party.
And to the extent that calls for party unity make such reform efforts even more unlikely, I think it’s a good thing that Ari’s chosen lede got buried.
And for Jim who wrote…
…are you expecting a pony with that, too?
January 26, 2008 at 6:45 am
The Constructivist
I think the issue is not the Dem electorate splitting but the primary being so harsh that it forces Obama out of any party leadership position for the next 8 years (certainly Hillary wouldn’t make him her VP pick, right? and there are many others who support her who would make more obvious cabinet picks) and in response he contemplates an independent run. If this happens as I amateurishly speculate, it could split both parties. The Talking Dog thinks it has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually happening, but we haven’t even gotten close to the home stretch yet. This can get way nastier.
January 26, 2008 at 7:23 am
Galvinji
Speculation about an Obama/McCain independent ticket doesn’t really take into account who these guys are, and what the source is for their bipartisan appeal.
Obama’s appeal to independents/moderate Republicans is based on his rhetoric of bipartisanship. I’m not sure those who criticize him as “weak” for emphasizing this have been paying attention to his strategy — it seems to me that his strategy is to acknowledge the concerns of his opponents and reframe the debate leftwards — a sort of rhetorical sneak-attack. Whether this will succeed or not is questionable, though I think he’s far more likely to succeed at shifting the political center leftward than Clinton could.
McCain’s appeal to moderates is based on his reputation for candor and occasional willingness to buck his party’s mainstream. This reputation is not entirely grounded in fact; he’s spent the last eight years sucking up to the Bush Administration, and his voting behavior doesn’t always match his rhetoric.
Just look at their positions on Iraq and foreign policy in general — Obama opposed the Iraq war and emphasizes negotiation, whereas McCain is a committed hawk who recently implied US troops would be in Iraq for 100 years. McCain is also an otherwise orthodox conservative (anti-abortion rights, pro-tax cuts always, etc.). You can’t reconcile those contradictions.
If McCain runs independently, his running mate will be someone like Joe Lieberman. I doubt Obama would consider an independent run; I wouldn’t think he’d be too anxious to see President McCain or Romney. The more likely case is that a President Hillary Clinton has trouble relying on a Democratic majority Congress (many of whose key figures have come out for Obama).
January 26, 2008 at 8:00 am
Smith Michaels
Out of curiosity: Ari, what exactly do you disagree with Sean Wilentz about?
January 26, 2008 at 8:01 am
Smith Michaels
And I don’t really mean about the whole Hilary saying something stupid mess. But about historical issues.
January 26, 2008 at 8:43 am
ari
Smith, I’m in a rush right now. But, in brief, I quite like Chants Democratic. In fact, I think that it’s one of the best dissertation books* I know. Matthias, in my view, is underrated. But Wilentz’s most recent book, Rise of American Democracy, has a kind of “Democracy, getting better every day in every way” quality that doesn’t go down easily for me. The admiration for Andrew Jackson, especially, is very hard for me to swallow. Jackson, in my view, though a complicated figure**, was clearly a vile man, his leadership a net loss for the nation. Really, though, this is a hugely complicated issue and would require a long post, or even a review, all its own. And I have to run now.
* Meaning, for non-professionals, that it was adapted from Wilentz’s dissertation.
* More later, if you’d like.
January 26, 2008 at 8:53 am
Ben Alpers
I generally agree with Galvinji about McCain and Obama (though I’m less convinced that Obama wants to move his party leftward, I don’t think he’s actually trying to move it rightward).
Not only are McCain and Obama unlikely to want to run together, neither of them fits the profile of the sort of person who leaves his party to run an independent presidential campaign. There have been a fairly small number of politicians over the last sixty years who’ve established their careers within one of the major parties and then left to run significant independent presidential races: Henry Wallace, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and John Anderson. What these four very different men shared was that they were part of factions of their respective parties that felt threatened: Henry Wallace represented the old, Popular Front left of the Democratic Party and left at the dawn of the Cold War and the Second Red Scare; Strom Thurmond and his Dixiecrats walked out of the Democratic convention when it passed a Civil Rights plank for the first time; George Wallace left the Democratic Party to run as an Independent after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 had sped the process of Southern white supremacists leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP, and John Anderson left the GOP when its liberal wing was clearly doomed in 1980.
Neither Obama nor McCain represents a threatened faction of his party. Nor are either of them personally outside of their party’s mainstream. Even though Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh have attacked McCain, there appears to be little evidence of widespread dislike of McCain among Republicans.. Contrast McCain and Obama with their Senate colleagues Chuck Hagel and Joe Lieberman, who much better fit the bill of potential independent candidates.
January 26, 2008 at 8:56 am
Ben Alpers
Erratum: That’s of course “the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
(Oh for some sort of preview button or function…)
January 26, 2008 at 9:03 am
charlieford
The dislike of McCain isn’t widespread. It’s concentrated in certain very important corners.
January 26, 2008 at 9:16 am
Smith Michaels
Ari, thanks for the quick answer (especially with you in a rush!).
As someone who wants to do this history thing one day I find disagreements among historians to utterly fascinating.
I enjoyed Wilentz’s Rise of American Democracy a lot, in fact it’s one of my favorite books ever. But I think you’re criticism of it, especially of Wilentz’s laudatory treatment of Jackson, are well deserved. Though I saw the book less as a “Democracy, getting better every day in every way” sort of book and more of a “look at how great Democracy is! But look at the costs it brings!”.
Maybe this is too presentist of me, but I saw Wilentz’s book in light of our government’s program of exporting democracy to Iraq. It said to me: “Look at how contradictory, incomplete, and often tragic the result of American democratization was! Considering how fucked up all of that was how can we try to export this around the globe?”
But I would love to hear more of your thoughts (when you have the time). Again thanks for the quick response!
January 26, 2008 at 9:55 am
Historiann
I just don’t get all of the hand-wringing about the primary this year. Democrats have three excellent candidates, any of which most of us will be proud to support as the eventual nominee. The attacks between Clinton and Obama haven’t been particularly nasty–remember 2003, when the moderate governor from Vermont was painted like the 8th member of the Chicago Seven? By other Democrats?
It’s tough luck for Obama that his main opponent is married to a very popular and charismatic former president. President Clinton isn’t doing anything that Michelle Obama isn’t–he just gets a lot more attention for campaigning for his candidate. Unfair? Sure–but there are lots of advantages that some candidates have that others don’t, like good looks, bags o’family money, a brand-name last name, etc.
Obama is a natural, and I like the fact that he’s sui generis, and not coasting on a famous last name, or a rich family (although he does have the good looks!) Me, I want a tough candidate who isn’t going to be afraid to land the first punches once the primaries are over. And, my fellow Americans, that means swinging for the fences in the primaries first. (Sorry to mix the sports metaphors.)
January 26, 2008 at 11:47 am
charlieford
Re formatting: “Charlie’s brain-waves are getting frustrated! And these pretzels are making him thirsty, too!”
January 26, 2008 at 12:15 pm
roselady
Hilary is Jezebel
January 26, 2008 at 12:24 pm
trewalt
I wonder just how many Hillary Clinton supporters are, in their hearts, really, really longing for “the return of the king,” Hillary being the next best thing?
January 26, 2008 at 12:25 pm
charlieford
“Hilary is Jezebel”
That would make Bill, Ahab.
The ship of state, the Pequod.
When it comes to that, you can call me Ishmael.
January 26, 2008 at 12:28 pm
ari
The Edge of the West deeply regrets any inconvience that the lack of a “preview” button causes our readers. We, too, long for a “preview” function. But it’s not going to happen. At least not until the blog begins to generate revenue. Which it never will. So it’s not going to happen. Again, we’re very sorry about that.
Also: I agree with Ben and Galvinji. It’s impossible to imagine Obama running as a third-party candidate. He’s too young to burn bridges in that way. McCain, too, for that matter. Not the young part, obviously, but the difficulty of imagining a third-party run.
January 26, 2008 at 12:28 pm
totaltransformation
“Their side won’t play nice, the argument goes, so why should ours?”
Certainly, it is the Republicans who are the hard-nosed bullies, and the Democrats are merely trying to keep pace. I was with you until that bit of self-indulgent rationalization. I truly hope you don’t have those kind of rose colored glasses when you view the Democratic party machine which is every bit as mean, hard-nosed, and dirty as the Republicans. And I might add it has become even more so (and just slightly more so than the Republican machine) with the injection of George Soros, Moveon.org, and his cash.
Examples are replete from the dirty race that took place between Lieberman and that Moveon.org Myrmidon in Connecticut to Hillary’s endless attacks against pretty much everyone running against her. The only ones who has kept their hands clean are Obama and Edwards, but Edwards doesn’t count since he allows his wife to do his dirty work for him. Not a bad idea either since anyone attacking a cancer victim looks like a real jerk- even if they really only are defending themselves.
The best candidate in the Democratic field is…well…gosh, they all pretty much stink. But the best of that bunch is Obama. Why? Well even if his speeches seem like endless platitudes and feel good cliches, he is at least intelligent (and not Machiavellian intelligent like Hillary), and FAR LESS corrupted by the bile of D.C. than Hillary. Plus, when you consider Hillary, doesn’t it seem she’s spent her entire life grooming herself for the most powerful position in the world? Her every move seems like it has been calculated toward earning that position. I just don’t trust people whose ultimate ambition is power at any cost.
January 26, 2008 at 12:28 pm
poetryman69
Look at it this way. Hilary believes that communism does not work…Unless she is in charge.
January 26, 2008 at 12:32 pm
even the blind are starting to see « Words By, and Of, Hillary Clinton
[...] a little research into Hillary’s past on the part of the blogger can move him in the direction of real change and honesty in [...]
January 26, 2008 at 1:03 pm
flounderingfathers
All of this debate and discussion of the relative merits of each candidates party, race, sex and potential “ethics” play directly into the hands of the status quo. So long as your all arguing over who should be holding up the pole and what color it should be, the circus will go on.
You, and only you, not our governers, are in possession of the authority to truly re-form the government.
Do you want change or do you just want to be able to say you picked the color of one of the tent stripes?
January 26, 2008 at 1:22 pm
urbino
Jackson, in my view, though a complicated figure**, was clearly a vile man, his leadership a net loss for the nation.
Something else we agree on.
Democrats have three excellent candidates, any of which most of us will be proud to support as the eventual nominee.
That’s the way I felt early in the campaign, Historiann, even when there were more than 3 excellent candidates. I was noncommittal for an uncommonly long time in the primaries because I liked all of the major candidates; we had a surfeit of good options.
Part of what has me wringing my hands, if that’s what I’m doing, is that I actually don’t feel that way anymore. Because of the turn her campaign has taken, I won’t be proud to support Hillary in the general. She (and Bill) have taken what seemed like an opportunity for uncommon unity and revival in the Democratic Party, and made it divisive and disheartening again. Instead of coming out of the primaries with the [perhaps historic level of] momentum of a united party behind them — a rare opportunity that Bush-Cheney presented — it’s now likely that the Dem nominee will again be representing a fairly disaffected, fractured party.
Hillary had an excellent chance of being the beneficiary of the party’s unity and momentum; instead, she (and Bill) killed it. Instead of using the downhill run provided by Bush-Cheney to push the nation’s politics back to the left, the Clintons, sensing that they might not win the race as easily as they’d imagined, dove at the competition’s legs and turned the whole thing into an ugly, muddy, directionless scrum.
They didn’t have to do that. Democrats like the Clintons. Hillary had a great shot at winning by simply running on her own accomplishments, capabilities, and proposals. Instead of becoming Hillary’s Rove, Bill could have been her Obama. Dem voters would have eaten it with a spoon, and probably swept her into office with more support than Bill ever had.
Instead, we get this. It’s frustrating and pointless, and irritating as hell. Not that, you know, I’d rant about it or anything.
January 26, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Jeremy Young
I’m not certain how you could ever have been “neutral on Hillary.” I’ve disliked the Clintons ever since Bill first ran for President (I was a politically-precocious eight-year-old who supported Perot). They are the embodiment of the status-quo, DC-establishment Dems that have run their party into the ground over the past twenty years or so.
On the other hand, I’m neutral on the race, even though I’m not neutral on Hillary. I’m disappointed in Barack’s refusal to stand up for the little guy against the establishment. And while I’d love to see him stick it to the Clintons, I can’t get excited about an Obama presidency either.
January 26, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Larry Cebula
I will hate her for you until you are ready.
January 26, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Colin
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/26/exit-polls-bill-clintons-effect/
As Ari goes, so goes the nation.
January 26, 2008 at 5:29 pm
urbino
A quote from the AP report (courtesy of TPM) on tonight’s SC results:
Hang on a minute. What did that say?
January 26, 2008 at 5:41 pm
ari
Colin, l’etat, c’est moi. What can I say?
January 26, 2008 at 5:53 pm
ari
And Urbino, I just saw that and had exactly the same reaction you did. Let’s hope the rest of the nation looks at that quote and also considers the campaign’s behavior over the past ten days.
January 26, 2008 at 6:42 pm
urbino
I see Josh has actually pulled out that quote and posted it on its own.
Talk about a pivot point. That one plays right into Obama’s message about the past vs. future. And this is the first time I’ve ever heard a report that being “the black candidate” would hurt specifically outside the South.
Anybody else heard that inversion of the usual story before?
January 26, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Colin
Le peuple, ils sont vous. L’etat in due course.
January 26, 2008 at 8:22 pm
ari
All part of my master plan for world domination.
January 27, 2008 at 10:00 am
Scott
“I lurve the idea of a woman in the White House. Is that stupid?”
Yes – it’s stupid. Voting for someone based on their gender, race or religion is shallow and bigoted. What would you say to someone who told you that they voted for Bill Clinton because he is a white Christian male?
January 27, 2008 at 11:44 am
ari
I’d say that we’ve had a few of those already. But I’m a pretty shallow bigot. (Kidding. I take your point, Scott.)
January 27, 2008 at 12:19 pm
charlieford
I could be persuaded to vote for Huckabee on account of his bald spot.
January 27, 2008 at 6:18 pm
ari
Plus, he’d put out an awesome cookbook.
January 27, 2008 at 6:46 pm
urbino
And if the White House is due for renovations, he’d happily receive foreign dignitaries in a double-wide.
January 27, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Hemlock
I heard that Hillary didn’t do well in SC because she didn’t advertise. Maybe she just didn’t care. The “I-don-give-a-bleep” Hillary Clinton campaign…I’m sorta into it.
January 27, 2008 at 7:23 pm
ari
Hemlock, where did you hear that? And thanks for the comment.
January 28, 2008 at 10:11 am
Hemlock
A friend of mine read that the campaign managers didn’t subsidize television spots or public appearances in South Carolina. So, hearsay. If it’s true, though, I’m nterested as to why…test polls?
Love your blog!
January 28, 2008 at 10:19 am
Hemlock
Clarification: the managers allocated only a small portion of funds to the campaign in SC. Thinking about it: sounds like what campaign supervisors say while explaining an electoral defeat….”No money!,” “No people!,” and “low voter turnout!” It’s all their fault.
January 28, 2008 at 10:19 am
ari
That’s interesting. I’ll check with someone who knows and get back to you. Also, thanks for the comment. It loves you, too.
January 28, 2008 at 11:37 am
bitchphd
Voting for someone based on their gender, race or religion is shallow and bigoted.
Ahem. What are the blog rules about telling people off?
January 28, 2008 at 11:45 am
ari
We’re a very high-minded blog. So, we don’t need rules.
January 28, 2008 at 11:59 am
bitchphd
Mmmm. A high-minded, classy, and *tactful* blog.
January 28, 2008 at 2:10 pm
eric
Plus, he’d put out an awesome cookbook.
I look forward to his account of how to be an active retiree, Huckabeeing and Time.
If someone already made that joke, please ignore it. Conversely, if nobody has already made that joke, you should probably ignore it too.
January 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Ben Alpers
Well, apparently John Podhoretz wrote a blog entry entitled Huckabeeing and Nothingness (via the NYRB…I refuse to link to JPod).
So that puts you in…er…company.
January 28, 2008 at 2:22 pm
eric
I would be ashamed, if it weren’t self-evident that Heidegger jokes rule, while Sartre jokes drool.
January 28, 2008 at 4:02 pm
urbino
I suppose the missus could get a couple friends together and host a local access show called, Daseining Women.
January 28, 2008 at 4:16 pm
eric
Oh, man. That — like many commenter jokes — was so much better than my original.
January 28, 2008 at 4:26 pm
urbino
But without your original, there would be no pretext for the follow-up. Phenomenologically speaking.
January 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm
ari
You’re way too kind to Eric. Just say it: you’re funnier than he is. Be done it. Prolonging the agony is just cruel. Unless you want to keep using him as your straight man (I’ve accepted the role, maybe he will too).
February 1, 2008 at 5:27 am
A ‘Dream Ticket’ Question for You. « PostBourgie
[...] her supporters would likely vote for him if he got the Democratic nomination, but because Clinton rubs a lot of people the wrong way, there’s a real possibility that the opposite just ain’t [...]