Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Defenders of Machiavellianism Take Note: Your Right to Deplore Swiftboating is Forever Forfeited
- McAuliffe Praises Fox News for being fair and balanced.
- Scarborough openly rooting for Clinton
- Limbaugh Operation chaos aggressively trying to elect HRC and/ or weaked the Dem party (whereas many in the Dem party think its the best thing for us.. hmm.. Woops, I digress)
- Kristol admiring the Machiavellian approach
- Rovian tactics a frequent description of her campaign
- Endorsement by the vast right wing conspirator Mr. R. Scaife
Agree with the above fairness or not, relevance or not, they are factual outcomes of the Dem campaign.
We all know politics gets ugly. We can argue where the line of decency is. But I must assume even the most ardent HRC supporter cringes when the likes of Fox News is the new BFF.
Most often these ugly facts are reconciled by the logic that she should fight hard for the nomination if she feels she is truly the best choice in an important nomination decision.
But the uglier outcome of that logic is this: Now you understand, and legitimize, what the right wing has done in every election and on every day on Fox News and Limbaugh's program that I can remember. The ends justify the repulsive means.
HRC defenders lose the right to complain about a media bias in a Machaivellian justifiable world, they want ratings and you should understand the end justifies the means.
Republicans may fear monger to get what they believe is a safer world, one controlled by them. Again, since they truly believe in the ends, whether you agree or not, you must concede its only "right" to fight, smart to give it their all, without shame or excuse, with any weapons available, to achieve the more important outcome, whether there is agreement on the outcome- or means- or not.
Another argument is that HRC has shown restraint and done nothing repugnant. Facts aside that her right wing fans have only become fans since she "threw the kitchen sink," I suggest that she has not. The only restraint is defined by her nomination chances, IMO. She could press harder perhaps, but risk alienating too many more potential voters.
Yes, she isnt the only one going negative. But you must concede the Ayers and Wright and Bitter fiascoes bear much more resemblance to swiftboating than, say Ferraro's race comments. And lets note that Ferraro's scandal was self inflicted, unapologetic, repeated several times by her in many media outlets and not just at a paid speech. Bosnia, similar, self inflicted over many speeches, not digged up video out of nowhere. They had a microphone in front of them!
Contrast to Obama's restraint. I dont recall Obama in the debate saying Ferraro should be investigated
further, or bring up Bill's WU pardons without provocation. Obama has shown clear restraint (note: restraint does not mean here all positive, it means holding back full assault). Restraint to the point that Kristol and Carville agree he may be to weak, hiding behind skirts, as it were.
Finally, consider that she is vetted. Perhaps more than Obama, but not yet swiftboated. Anyone familiar with HRC and the Clintons knows there are MANY potential Ayers scandals in her closet, which run 24x7, which would hamstring her campaign. The media and the ReThugs have backed off Bosnia not because it wont be an issue if HRC won the nomination, but because HRC is not the front runner anymore.
And thats why I am so appalled, and incredulous at the logic. Her justification to do this is a red herring. Beat him up and see if he can take another 15 rounder with those heavyweights, she says. Why? The heavyweights are going to throw their punches, and land them whether you are black and imperfect or a woman and imperfect.
Showing someone can be damaged by attacks, while you have yet to be assualted, is at the start a hypocritical, nonsensical justification. No matter how much you hit Obama, and make gains on his hide, it says nothing about your ability to do any better. Whether its patriotism or pathological lying, the swiftboats will come, and they will land punches, and we dont know where it will end up.
HRC has brought the swiftboats now, made Obama fight a two front war. And the bonus? Its free, a gift for the 527s. This is HRC's bed, and her supporters defend it. Sleep in it. And enjoy your new right wing friends next to you.
Comments (32)
Brilliant.
April 26, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Update: Did you see that Fox News has a new spokesperson? Terry McAulliffe, on tape excitedly yelling fair and balanced.
April 26, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post deserves a link
Nothing says this better than video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYspjJCjgX8
The McAuliffe thing put it right over the top. Look what Fox is doing with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFEgd2gMerA
April 27, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I do agree with the basic premise of your argument. Sleeping with the enemy is a treacherous and shameful business.
April 27, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC (OK, Matthews and Olbermann) have a pretty clear bias in favor of Obama. Although I like to think Keith is the only one trying to stem the turning tide of bullshit cascading out of the Clinton campaign. The less said about Matthews the better for all concerned.
But if they are claiming CNN is pro-Barack, they are truly unhinged. CNN has been so preoccupied with teasing every drop of ratings gold out of Rev. Wright, "Bittergate," etc., they could have been operatives paid by the Clinton campaign.
April 27, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. I got a kick out out of your phrasing, Mr. Grand. Sweet name btw...
I'd like to know where are those supporters comments on this topic? Do they refrain to engage in a logical discussion knowing its better to fight battles on more spinnable ground? Or don't they work the weekend shifts?
Sarcasm aside, forgive me its my outlet, I wrote this in part to elicit HRC supporter perspectives, especially those who support her but may not approve of the tone. This topic obviously isnt the only measure of a candidate.
Seriously, I'm interested if any supporter cares to share.
April 27, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
So many anti-Hillary posts, hard to hit them all, and the more subjective the longer it takes to rebut.
Where you and I disagree, I think, is a fundamental disagreement on the difference between fact and perspective. Those 6 points you begin your post with have little relevance to whether or not there's any 'swiftboating' going on from the Clinton campaign.
For example, "Rovian tactics a frequent description". Never mind the fact that Rove himself has said that he wouldn't have employed the same tactics, but a statement like that really has no meaning. It's just used as an insult when Hillary does something that some Obama supporters don't like (pretty much everything), and *consider* underhand (pretty much anything that attacks Obama).
"Endorsement by the vast right wing conspirator Mr. R. Scaife"
I find this a strange one. Obama's clarion call is setting aside partisan, divisive politics. If he'd picked up Scaife's endorsement, I think it would have been proof to many of you that Obama's bringing 'new politics' and healing the red/blue divide. When Hillary wins over an old adversary, it's seen as deplorable, another sign of her 'Rovian tactics'. Is Obama winning over the New York Post not an equally large indictment of his campaign? Go figure.
"Facts aside that her right wing fans have only become fans since she "threw the kitchen sink""
Facts do need to be set aside to make that statement, as it's simply not true. Coulter and others have seen her as strong on national security, and preferred her over McCain, for quite some time. Moreover, as I understand it, that kitchen sink comment came from an unnamed Clinton campaign staffer. Hardly a robust information source to base the entire capaign strategy.
"Contrast to Obama's restraint. I dont recall Obama in the debate saying Ferraro should be investigated
further"
That's not a sign of restraint, it's an excellent example of Machiavellian tactics (in the real sense of the word). His campaign sent out numerous statements attacking Hillary over Ferraro's comments. Similarly, they organized press conferences over the Bosnia debacle. The fact that Obama doesn't say anything himself is a sign of how *underhanded* his campaign is. He's out in front projecting an angelic appearance, while Axelrod is in the back sticking and twisting the knife. That represents a true Machiavellian approach. Hillary at least has the decency to attack Obama face to face, in contrast to Obama's polite facade.
Finally, a note on this fair and balanced Fox issue. I don't watch Fox so I may be well wide of the mark, however in principle, it sounds quite plausible. Fox started off this campaign hating both Hillary and Obama. As such, you'd *expect* them to treat both with equal distain, making them fair and balanced in their treatment. Contrast that with, say, MSNBC, who fell in love with Obama. They weren't unfair to Hillary because they were laying into her, they were being unfair because they weren't giving Obama the same scrutiny. Things are far more even now, in my opinion, but looking at the campaign as a whole, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assert that Fox has overall been more even-handed.
It's true that Obama has a much better reputation for honest campaign tactics than Hillary. You can take this as evidence of a failed Machiavellian approach by Hillary, or a relatively successful Machiavellian approach by Obama. I imagine it's here where we disagree.
April 27, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Machiavellian in is true sense is how to be a Prince, without worrying about ethics. The Prince need only hide the dagger if he need to. But if he could wield it publicly, much more opportunities to strike. Moreover, Machiavelli absolutely would have brought up the pardons IMMEDIATELY, to name one. I understand you wanted to gloss over that one, its an inconvenient and not supportive fact.
Now, Ferraro. Ferraro: Your Black your lucky Your black your lucky. Your black thats the only reason why your winning. How many times do I need to shout this to get a response from you, BHO, geez? Obama: Can we release a statement that this woman is offending some people please? Im not going to dignify that with a face to face direct statement. Im going to make this a positive. Speech. Philly. Nice. The Prince only in that it worked (M is not about being a jerk, but getting what he wants). Underhanded, even comaprable to HRC, please. But remember to thank the Republicans for admitting they are screwing you to your face next time they do it. Then it'll be OK. Carry on stealing my Civil liberties...
Anyhow, your argument seems to be:
- its "true" only when Obama does it
- Fox guys seem like nice guys, you could have a beer with them
- Scaife isnt an uncomfortable endorsement, its hypocritical (hypothetical straw man enter) to think thats hypocritical. Meta straw man, nice.
- The right doesnt love her because Ann Coulter still wont courtsey for HRC
Those are some nice blinder you got, where'd you get them? Seriously, I was expecting a better position. Maybe more honesty. Who can even take this logic seriously?
Its not the end of the world the right likes her, its Ok to admit you dont like Fox as Friends. Barack is a one term senator, I dont like that either.
April 27, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm can't really understand what you're trying to say there, better grammar might help. Remember it's "you're black", not "your black".
With Ferraro, she made her statements once in some backwater Californian newspaper and the Obama campaign immediately leapt aboard the outrage train. Then she carried on being an idiot over and over again.
Couldn't really follow any of your other arguments, sorry.
April 27, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject and denounce apostrophes. But we did notice the M in you, Not winning the argument, go ad hominem.
So, about the part you choose to understand:
Ferraro, again, wrong, not some obscure comment. Before you call falsities do the research, or you continue down the road of our partners across the aisle, repeating the talking points, valid or not. She said it also on radio, he claims on his site FIRST, the canceled John Gibson Show. I can look for the third instance, but this should do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc
I wish they had an editing function!
April 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you denounce and reject "e"s as well?
Ferraro made her comments in the "Daily Breeze", some backwater newspaper on 7th March, and that was leapt on by the Obama capaign and others, then she went national. If you have an earlier reference let's hear it, otherwise looking forward to your retraction.
Also, I genuinely couldn't understand the other points you were making, wasn't trying to be rude.
April 27, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not rjct thm.
Interesting you distance HRC from GOP tactics, she seems not to mind. She defends her approach as showing he can stand up to the right wing machine. How do you do that without mimicking it?
The Ferraro quote February 26 with timeline:
http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/03/timeline-of-ger.html
Anyhow, Im comfortable with the BHO response to Ferraro. But I will also pony up and say I wasnt comfortable with BHOs "lying" attacks.
How about you? Is there anything you dont approve of in HRCs campaign or would point to as restraint? Any facts she has twisted, issues exploited disingenuously?
If the campaign does remind you of immoral GOP attacks, do you feel like you better understand the justification for swiftboating?
April 27, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo! You hit upon exactly what infuriates me about the attitude of, "the most important thing is to win by whatever means necessary, not to do so fairly."
If you're a Republican, then maybe so. But I thought the Democrats were supposed to have a little more idealism.
If people think it's okay for Hillary to attack Obama over (for example) the Weather Underground, while pretending that she never knew her husband pardoned two convicted killers (including of a New York cop)? Fine. But that means by default you're also saying that it was okay for the Republicans to Swift Boat Kerry. They won, didn't they? And that's the most important thing?
Bastards.
April 27, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those who think it's ok to win by any means necessary, when does that tactic go into hibernation? And what does "win" mean?
If Clinton becomes president, how many promises will she jettison to "win" passage of some pet legislation? How many more US deaths in Iraq so that she can maintain the "tough" posture and "win" a public relations battle?
April 27, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that was a crazy assertion (that CNN hates Clinton). Cnn is a like a 527 against Barack. Don't get me wrong, CNN will savagely turn on Clinton if she becomes the nominee because they are in love with John McCain and will do anything to see that he is elected. But no one who has turned on CNN lately can argue that they are anything but an in-kind campaign contribution to McCain.
April 27, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she actually manages a miracle and takes this nomination I will sit back and chuckle at them as they watch there lovely Fox news turn so anti clinton that it makes them want to vomit for ever watching the bile.
April 27, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it so ironic...these Republicans giving kudos and support to Hillary and she and her followers eat it up and what .... the rest of us Dems. are suppose to think they're actually favoring her??? I'm truly sick of hearing from them about how great and electable she is... the same people who trashed them when they were in the White House and would NEVER vote for her in the General Election! These stupid pundits and even more stupid Dems. Like Pat B. and Joe S. etc. ...these people's opinions count??? They're not Dems. Never have been and never will be. How stupid can these Hillary supporters be to believe these guys??? I use to like them, but now the Clinton's suck big time!
April 27, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. They must sleep with one eye open.
Do HRC supporters really believe Fox has suddenly become fair? Are they suspicious of an agenda as well? I believe this is one reason they are silent on this issue, to acknowledge Fox isnt fair would concede they want HRC to be the nominee (and the uncomfortable questions why just sink her electability argument), or that they validate that the tenor is hurting her own party and bettering the GPO chances in the fall. Either reason is very damaging to her perceived (not reality based)chances to actually pull off the nomination.
Our favorite Clinton marketer thinks electability is a bogus argument when Obama was making it
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/electability/
Your articles seem to have changed their tone, last one was on message about Obama's white problem, elitist. Do you now accept electability when it favors your candidate? Thats convenient that 75 days later all that black hole got cleared up. But I trust your opinion would be objective and nonpartisan. After all, thats the conscience of a liberal, stick up for principles, not just self interest for one person, but for all.
April 27, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
In defense of Machiavelli, I doubt very much he would be supporting Clinton.
He once said that if a prince has to make a choice between forging an alliance with nobles and forging an alliance with the common people, he should always choose the common people, who only want to be ruled well. The nobles, by contrast, will themselves want to be rulers and are more likely to betray you.
Just throwing that out there.
April 27, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons can never repair their break with the Black Community. She also can't win a general election without the black vote. She would get something, but not the solid turnout any dem needs to win an election.
That's the bed the Clintons are in, as are their supporters who take such glee over Wright.
I know Hillary supporters who are fine people, and will remain my friends after this is over. Those who have delighted in the underlying racism to support Clinton --they are history for me.
Now, you can accuse me of anything you want, but I represent the very real negative effect upon Clintons and some of their supporters from a person of color. Younger Hispanics do not see themselves separated from the Black Community. They wanted to see that race doesn't matter. What they see now is that it does, and they're on the wrong side of it.
Clinton can take Obama down enough so that he can't be president. She can follow plan two, either I win now or he loses now so I run in 2012. But she will never get that chance in 2012.
The final judgement on the CLintons is playing out before your eyes.
April 27, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your candidate wins the nomination, I'll support him and volunteer as I've always done.
Don't ever, ever blame Clinton if he loses. I support her because he's out of the far left wing of the party. He has the same fanatical support of the Che' wing of the party (people like you) that McGovern had, and he'll lose by a margin similar to McGovern.
And Clinton will not have had anything to do with it.
And if you wonder why 28% of Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama, look in the mirror.
April 27, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Che, hehe. What?? Thanks for your response, I'd like to hear more.
This post validates 28% voting for 100 years of Iraq how? Also note that this post has no as hominem attack, unlike yours (2).
Its an uncomfortable reality the consequences of one's actions. Its hard not to be a hypocrite in politics, but supporters tend to regulate, so what is your opinion on this issue?
Do you have misgivings about her campaign, any other comments germane- or just here to assail? The closest relevant comment I heard from you was about "blame." No one knows what will happen or why, so its early to break out the straw man on hypothetical blames. But I dont think he owes her any favors. Is she doing us a favor by saving us from a "McGovern?" Is that the ends that justify these means?
Sure its not good to be associated with Rove, but this isnt a topic that obliterates her candidacy. IMO its more a gut check for her supporters and what they will tolerate.
Thats why I'd like to hear more about other reactions, I just think many HRC supporters cant feel good about the way the campaign has gone on attack. And more attacks coming if you believe Bill. Looks like he feels great about it.
April 27, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, Pete. It was unfair to attack Maria. Che' was actually a hero of mine in my youth, but the Che Guevara wing of the democratic party can't win. I was as passionate a supporter of McGovern as any Obama supporter on TPM, but McGovern lost worse than any Democratic candidate since the party split in 64. (For those of you who are thinking, "Didn't we win in 64?" I mean 1864.)
Clinton has hurt herself with "McCain is ready," the Bosnia fish story (and others) and clumsy negative campaigning (Why did she have to pile on during that last debate? Isn't anyone in her campaign saying, "Take the high road").
I have, however, posted numerous examples of rough, negative and unfair tactics used by both sides. And I've given examples showing that Obama's camp started it earlier and did it more often. That he's the presumptive nominee shows that it worked. She only started going negative recently (two or three months ago), and she and her campaign are much less skilled at negativity than Obama and his campaign. Her attacks and positioning efforts are like blunt instruments while Obama's are elegant and even gorgeous.
Nevertheless, what really matters to me are the policy issues. And both are so similar that the MSM refuses to even discuss the difference.
To answer your key question, I guess it's 'Yes." I do want someone who'll win even if they have to play rough in November. That's a lot better than having someone who'll lose playing Dukakis-style nice.
April 27, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
As anywhere, its up to each of us to define where the "swiftboat" line is, right? I do believe swiftboating isnt really a defensive tactic, but do believe Rovian territory is reached when facts like Ayers are twisted, or worse tactics when she was the recipient as First Lady. That said, I get it, and better understand where you are coming from. TY for the response.
April 27, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ad hominem thing is really out of character for me. Thanks for pointing out its inappropriateness.
Sorry, Maria.
April 28, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, she certainly will not. And it's startling to learn just how out of touch the Clintons are, if they think they're going to get another chance.
April 27, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton supporters are upset that MSNBC, particularly Matthews, less so Olbermann, has become Obama central.
The original comment was, "It's sad when Fox News is more fair to us than MSNBC."
On election night coverage Buchanan, Scarboro and minor commentators like Todd and Maddow are the only ones who even attempt to be neutral.
April 27, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO, also. I have no sense that Clinton has much integrity. She speaks endlessly about toughness, but I've never seen her make a truly tough decision that would hurt her election chances even if it's the right thing to do.
If I may generalize, it's not my sense that TPM Clinton supporters hold much confidence in her integrity either. Their response to attacks on her integrity is rarely to defend her righteousness but rather to argue that a) such tactics are necessary to defeat the Republican Attack Machine (RAM), or b) Obama is just as bad.
I do not and never will believe that all politicians are equally shameless or that integrity is unimportant in politics. I'm sure that many Obama supporters tend to give him too much credit on this count, and surely there are differences between what he says and what his subordinates are allowed to say, but the notion that the Obama campaign has not exercised restraint is absurd. If Obama had truly gone for negative character attacks, Clinton would have been dead in the water last month. She is a very easy target for character attacks, as we saw in the 90's and would have seen again if she'd been able to win the nomination. When he has, in moments of pique, gone for character attacks, as he did briefly in SC, they have been effective. When Clinton was ahead, and when Clinton was behind, he never took the easy path to undercut her, even when his supporters have screamed for him to do it. I hope that Clinton supporters will come to understand this after the race is over and come to appreciate it as I do.
Nice post, btw.
April 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both posts excellent.
April 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
a & b validate Rovian tactics, a slippery slope indeed.
April 27, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember Harry & Louise? - (the ads that helped to kill Clinton's health care reform effort in 1993-4) - Clinton should be the last person to practice swiftboating on someone else. That's one of the things that makes her recent attacks on Obama so disgusting.
Fox and like-minded pundits are just hoping Clinton gets the nomination so they can start pounding her again, starting with what Bill's been dong for the past 7 years. Even without that, they know she'll be easier to beat than Obama.
Why? Lots of reasons - but in addition to the widely-acknowledged fact that the black voters & newly-registered youth voters would be lost, consider the fact that 29% of Republicans voted against McCain in PA, even though he was the only one on the ballot.
Nearly 30% of Republican voters! People who are anti-war, pro-choice, fed up with the mess our economy is in. These are people who tend to support Obama, not Clinton. She is still the polarizing, divisive figure who would be easier for McCain to defeat. (That goes for a lot of independents too.)
Clinton keeps telling us she's been so well vetted that there won't be any more unpleasant surprises. Don't believe it.
April 27, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow 30%! I want to hear more about voter registrations and the impact new dem voters registrations and turnout potential will have on any dem's chances and both candidates electoral maps.
April 27, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment