P.S. I Lama You
Gee whillikers! All I do is post a little thing suggesting that the Clinton campaign has lately been trying to appeal to voters who are likely to believe that Hussein Obama X wasn’t really a real law professor and that he doesn’t want them to vote in upcoming primaries, and Clinton supporters get all offended. Why, some good people have even tried to suggest that I’m an elitist snob who’s dismissive of women over 30 and who doesn’t understand Hillary’s working-class appeal!
Well, it’s true that I find the process by which Hillary Clinton became a certified, tested-and-vetted Working-Class Hero® one of the strangest things I have witnessed in my lifetime, but let me try to make things right. Because I’m just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh readers, please don’t let me be misunderstood.
The fact that Clinton’s latest appeals have been pitched to low-information voters does not mean that every Clinton supporter is a low-information voter. (This development could also be due to the influence of deputy communications director Phil Singer, whom I have come to think of as a low-information advisor. Hey Phil! Why don't you try the Bill Ayers smear again? That one was a winner!) There are literally millions of smart, high-information Clinton supporters. But you know what, high-information Clinton voters? Her campaign isn’t talking to you. In fact, they’re kinda ignoring you and taking you for granted. And if I were you, I’d be very disappointed about that. I know that this woman was, back when Clinton took the low-information road in January.
It also does not mean that every Obama supporter is wonderful and kind and gracious and smart. Actually, some are not. You people know who you are. Knock off your nasty behavior on the Internets or it's ring-a-ding-ding for you bozos! (And what’s more, even some of the smart ones, like Orlando Patterson, are capable of making truly bizarre and vertigo-inducing arguments themselves. Sigh.)
And it does not, not, mean that I think that Hillary Clinton’s “base” is made up of, or fairly represented by, two clueless people in a lunch joint in Hazelton, Pennsylvania. Really, folks! That part of my last post was snark. I learned it at Limousine Liberal University– you know, the place with the delicious vanilla lattes and the world-renowned department of Sneering At Ordinary People Studies. (That’s a doctoral program, of course. Undergraduates, zey are canaille.) I do think Clinton has been turning to (or, if you prefer, exploiting) low-information voters when the chips are down– on reproductive rights, on NAFTA, on Bosnia, on Florida and Michigan, on Obama’s career, etc. I don’t think that LIVs are the Clinton “base,” and I apologize for needling Clinton supporters needlessly.
Honestly, folks. I know full well that Clinton’s real base is made up of Princeton professors and billionaire venture capitalists. They’re smart, high-information voters, and they write forceful essays and powerful letters, too. I was just havin’ some fun with y’all, as I used to say when I lived in Virginia. And I’m really glad to see that Senator Clinton has been broadening that base of high-information voter support in recent weeks, reaching out across party lines to help bring America together and unite our country in the conviction that Obama can't win, no he can't..
Whew! Now that that’s clear, I’ll be back next week with a much more serious post on disability policy.















It's a hard world to get a break in.
April 3, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear ya, Tom. Seems like all the good things have been taken.
April 3, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about you guys, but I'm gonna try to catch a ride on the next serpent.
April 3, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize for needling Clinton supporters needlessly.
As Piers wouldn't say, "Enuf already!"
April 3, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dang those typos! I meant to say "needlelessly."
April 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully, live by snark Professor, and accept the consequenses. I have to say that, perhaps in my own biased view, you sounded just like an elitist snotnose yesterday, as you focused on some ignorant voter out there in rural Pennsylvania, and made some kind of macro point on the basis of the asinine comments of that voter. In any event, I take you at your word that you didn't mean to make fun of people who aren't as smart and sophisticated as you are.
April 3, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
now lookie here bslev im a rite wingur an prowd of it an i comed here to beet up youse libruls who are democraps an like hitlery klintoon an we all know she haves fat ankils LOL LOL LMFAO!
April 3, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the high end Hillary supporters seem to be in on the "low information voter" strategy so it's now pretty tough to say "I"m a Clinton supporter" without endorsing the strategy. Which is why I'm not longer saying "I'm a Clinton supporter."
I really never thought it'd come to the "He's an arrogant radical Nation of Islam non-law professor" strategy.
April 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I misspelled "consequences", and I am a Hillary supporter. Maybe you were right after all professor. :)
April 3, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
made some kind of macro point on the basis of the asinine comments of that voter
Actually, I made some kind of macro point on the basis of the asinine arguments the Clinton camp (and, quite often, the candidate herself) has been peddling in recent weeks. But I understand how it's possible to miss that part when you're distracted by my elitist snotnose.
And I hope I made it clear that I actually like llamas.
April 3, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well then you are an obvious commie infiltrator, since llamas are not American.
April 3, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes they are! They're just not United Statesian.
April 3, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my, try telling that to your hometown folks!
April 3, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really need to take a stand on the crucial lama/llama spelling question. You're flip flopping.
April 3, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not! Everyone knows it all depends on whether the llama has one hump or two. That's why they spell "llama" with one l in Somallia, where they have traditional garb.
April 3, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
get a wildebeest like I did, then you won't to worry about humps.
April 3, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wildebeests are acceptable.
As are llamas.
Or penguins.
Alpacas are almost llamas so they're in solid.
But NO goats!
Those low information GOPers like to do unspeakable things with goats. And notice the similarities in the spelling and pronunciation?
Also I hear in Georgia those GOPers like mules as the preferred first girlfriend choice so we may want to exclude those.
April 3, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wildebeests are acceptable.
That's gnus to me. I always herd that no gnus is good gnus.
April 3, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
groan! :)
April 4, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But NO goats!"
Mission statement of that all powerful Pro-Israeli lobby, ALPACA.
April 4, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If only bslev would offer you a hanky for that elitist snot nose...
April 3, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dare you, Michael Bérubé, subtly suggest that being a low-information voter might not be a splendiferous thing. How dare you sully the reputation of political operatives who are only doing the yeoman's work of shamelessly pandering to the woefully uninformed. How ... dare ... you!
April 3, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
How ... dare ... you!
Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just incorrigible. (I learned that word at LLU too!)
April 3, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um. Have you been reading my blog?
YOU:
Gee whillikers! All I do is post a little thing suggesting that the Clinton campaign has lately been trying to appeal to voters who are likely to believe that Hussein Obama X wasn’t really a real law professor and that he doesn’t want them to vote in upcoming primaries, and Clinton supporters get all offended. Why, some good people have even tried to suggest that I’m an elitist snob who’s dismissive of women over 30 and who doesn’t understand Hillary’s working-class appeal!
ME (3/30/08:
Gee willakers everybody! Well I had no idea that folks would get real upset if I compared my buddy John McCain to JFK. Why, they have the same first name! And I coulda sworn JFK was a Republican! Plus, John and JFK both fought in World War II so they have that in common and John McCain was even tortured by the Italians so you know he's REAL tough.
At least give a brother a link!!!!!!
April 3, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have not been reading your blog, sir. And I denounce and reject your un-American spelling of "whillikers."
April 3, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm going to have my Intern Joe Lieberman keep an eye on you all the same. He's not very tough, but he makes up for it in lunacy.
You've been warned.
April 3, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Low information or high information, I'm most interested in Michael's point about working class voters. How did this leading light and leadership team member of the DLC, and very model of the modern New Democrat, whose husband's administration passed the dreaded NAFTA while moving the party in a more pro-business direction, manage to turn herself into some kind of working class hero?
It seems to me that there is a combination of two factors at work here: some opportunistic - and likely temporary - leftward campaign season pandering on pocketbook issues, and a rightward drift on "cultural issues". The second is important. As black voters have abandoned her almost entirely, she has been freer to suck up to white voters and her campaign has become more Foxified. For example, if she was still pulling down 50% of the white vote, do you think she would have dared play up the Wright issue as she has during the past couple of weeks?
April 3, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
A working class hero is something to be...
April 3, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that this is not so much about Low Information Voters as Wrong Information Voters or, more accurately, Voters Who Don’t Give Enough of a Shit to Get Accurate Information. These voters are found at all points on the educational and socio-economic scale -- witness all the well-educated liberals who announced that both parties were the same and voted for Nader.
This round, the voters who believe rumors that Obama is a Muslim are a particularly noxious subset of VWDGESGAI; the folks in Michael’s original post are a particularly hilarious subset of that subset.
BTW, what good deeds have we all done to deserve two Berube posts in two days? The heck with your Dangerous Day Job; keep the blog posts coming!
April 3, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Gee willikers"? Gosh, Andy, maybe you better have a talk with your pop, Judge Hardy, about those "low information voters" and all their dumb ways and how you can help them. Gadzooks, I have an idea! Maybe you could put a show on in the barn and raise some money to educate them! Gosh o'mighty, we could call it "Books for Shnooks"!
April 3, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean black vote? I.e. if she was still pulling down 50% of the BLACK? vote, do you think she would have dared play up the Wright issue as she has during the past couple of weeks?
April 3, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a horrible dream around 3:00am. Hillary came to me and told me that Obama cannot win because he is a lima (uh, whut is a lima?) and she had a huge horde of red eyed llamas and their Muslim clothed riders at her back. She however, was wearing Christian clothes. Tha's how I knew it was her.
It's all yur falt.
April 3, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was me calling last night, you know. I was trying to get through to McCain, but he wouldn't pick up, so I dialed you. Sorry to have disturbed your sleep.
April 3, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee whillikers!??? Gee whillikers!????
There's no Gee whillikers! in political debate!
April 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. How about "Golly, Sarge!"?
April 3, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elitism is beneath me.
April 3, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the return of Max Sawicky? Where have you been?
April 3, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, gosh, Michael, will you marry me? (I'll even overlook your elitist, unpatiotic misspelling of "willikers"...)
April 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, done! We're married.
These things are so easy on the Internets! And thanks for overlooking that exhtraneous (but totally optional) "h" in "whillikers."
April 3, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC not a working class hero? Au contraire, she tried to enlist in the Marines in 1975 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/bill-clinton-sa.html
perhaps finally acting on her 1969 Wellesley commencement words:
"... there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living."
Take that, you privileged liberal academic pantywaists.
April 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised she didn't "enlist," according to Bill. On the other hand, she did apparently play on her junior high school soccer team, even though there were no girls soccer teams in her town until after Title IX came around - 10 years later.
Maybe Clinton's supporters are neither "high" nor "low" information voters. Maybe, like Hillary herself, they are just really, really into making up their own versions of existing information.
Perhaps we could call them the "Inventing Information Voters?"
April 3, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Ireland, the mine bosses used to send a llama down into the coal mines at the break of day with a tapir tied around its neck (for good luck), and then all the miners would hunker down at the mouth of the mine and listen intently, and sometimes even play a rousing, but very quiet, hand of whist. And then, after a while when they got bored, they'd go on down into the mine and dig up a bunch of coal.
Later on, when the lunch whistle would blow, they'd all give three cheers of, "Huzzah!", and come back up out of the mine and eat tapir and llama and potato stew.
And they say that sometimes on cloudy nights, when the loon calls mournfully and the giraffes are all asleep in their wee nests high in the larch trees, you can still hear the clip-clop of the llamas tiny hooves as it nimbly prances down the coal shaft, and if you listen very carefully, you might also hear the tapir wheeze its mournful song of woe on account if it is tied around a llamas neck.
And that is why we should all vote for Gravel.
April 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Michael
Methinks you doth protest too much!
Don't take it so hard. Obama's camp has said at least as many ridiculous things of Hillary in retrospect. I don't think Team Obama asking The Atlantic to dig into Bill's sex life very becoming, and would that be considered a low information Jerry Springer move?
And seriously, is any and every "rumor circulating" and "unnamed Clinton staffer" and "anonymous Democratic official" to be taken at face value? One of your own links to the Somalia garb was a Drudge link for goodness sake, and was debunked to boot. What gives?
April 3, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of your own links to the Somalia garb was a Drudge link for goodness sake, and was debunked to boot.
That strikes me as a pretty low-information kinda complaint, Mr. Simmons, since I made no comment on the Somalia garb silliness and I've never linked to Drudge in my life. But thanks for trying.
And if we're talking about ridiculous things the candidates have said, please, let me know when Obama says that he and McCain have passed the commander-in-chief test. Because I'm really curious, these days, to know what motivates Clinton voters to ignore the fact that their candidate has run one of the most foolish and destructive presidential campaigns since Ulysses Grant ran in 1868 on the slogan, "If elected I will drink myself into a coma."
April 3, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me in with the people who are totally mystified how Hillary Clinton becamse the champion of the working class. I can certainly see how she's the champion of the uneducated.
Oops, did I just direct some snark Hillary Clinton's way? Forgive me, America.
April 3, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael
Thanks for the reply.
You have a link in your piece "Why don't you try the Bill Ayers smear again?" which brings your reader to the Newsday article titled "Clinton campaign: Whatever sticks II" that has a pic of Obama in the garb, with a link to the Drudge bombshell that shocked the delicate minds of the informed voting bloc. To think one of 700 people in Hillary's campaign might be circulating a pic of Obama in a silly looking outfit is worthy of a 3 day state funeral on the front pages of TPM. Funny thing is Drudge never said Hillary's camp sent HIM the email, but JMM knew of course, but figured the informed voter didn't need to know. Free press is limited to those who with presses!Minor details I know, but that Newsday article is ripe with typical howlers that feeds this Monster Whore Pimping hysteria that's swept half the party to the point where any informed voter should press pause, not vice versa. Out of curiousity, is there a threshold of acceptable campaign tactics or perhaps advertisements for broadcast to the low informed voting bloc? Is the low informed voter only rural and not urban or inner city? In other words, who exactly ARE these low informed voters? Is it bad for a low informed voter in Idaho to vote for Obama?
April 3, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Mark--
That was all I wanted from the Newsday article: Phil Singer trying the Ayers smear, as I suggested in my post. I think the Obama-in-Somali-garb dustup was nonsense, and that the Obama camp was too quick to blame the Clinton camp.
April 4, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
But what about the three-l lllama?
April 4, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personal to MB; no one else may read this:
As a gosharootie man myself, at first I thought your employment of "gee whillikers!" was a misstep. When an attention-getting epithet is needed, you can't beat "gosharootie!" for making the willfully unfocused blink so you hear little xylophone taps, twink-twink.
After sleeping on it, I admit to be mistaken. The post-Edwardian poetry of "g-- w--!" has dawned on me. You should teach others facility with the written word. You're that good at it!
Now that you know that I come in peace I must address the way you -- nay, this entire thread -- alors, both threads -- ignores medium-information voters. Speaking for we, I feel victimized.
April 4, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink