Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
My 82 Year Old Mother's Debate Reaction
Everyone on every network is missing the entire point of Obama's approach, and it is so basic I cannot believe no one has caught on. There is one simple and overiding reason that Obama does not go in for the kill with Clinton, and it has nothing to do with his ability to "close the deal". Obama has to gain this nomination without pissing off all of Hillary's supporters.
If he dives in to any of the critical comments pundits and so-called reporters think he needs to in order to show some killer instinct, he will totally lose the women who are currently pro-Hillary forever. The vitriol is bad enough now, can you imagine how Hillary's girls would feel about him if he had flattened her?
I asked my 82 year old mother, who hates politics with a passion because it is so negative, what she thought about the debate. She said "Well, he's being a gentleman, of course. Thank goodness, that is why I will vote for him." She then said "It's about time someone behaved properly." She then also asked me why I was making her watch the coverage. "You know this is why I hate politics, I'm going to go play mahjong on the computer."
Simple, to the point, out of the mouth of a lady who usually won't even pay attention to all of this. This is not unpreparedness, this is foresight so complete, and farreaching that gaming minds have missed it. He can't win without all of those women. He can't win those women if they hate him for destroying Hillary.
Comments (103)
As I said in reply to this when you posted it as a comment:
Some of those women scare me, and I'm not scared of much.
I think you are dead right - my mother had a way of dropping those little earth shattering statements once in awhile when she was older, too.
You're lucky you still have her - she sounds like a treasure.
April 17, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena - I love your responses, and yes, she is a little Obama mama gem... all 5'2" of white haired wisdom.
April 17, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a counter tale to yours that I find so sad I can hardly tell it.
I used to hang with some really intense liberal folks on a blog and a regular there is a feminist about my age. She is completely progressive. But she is so hell bent on a woman president a mutual friend of ours just told me she's been saying she'd vote for Condi Rice if the Republicans ran her.
That still has my head ringing.
there is something else going on there, I think, and it's really always been problematical for me with some feminists. I don't hate men. God knows I've been harassed - I was one of a handful of women doing criminal defense in the 80s here. But fuck that - I know who and what I am - they couldn't do anything to me that affects that, so I've never been bitter that way.
I hate to be unfair to these women, but I really and truly couldn't believe what I was hearing. Condi Rice is a war criminal. She belongs in prison. Just having any woman for president does not do one thing for women.
April 18, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a faction of feminists that defies reason in this election. And I can say it: I should be HIllary's demographic. I'm 57 years old, a white female and a feminist. But I am horrified by her exploitation of victimhood, the sheer ugliness of her campaign, and her exploitation of feminist principles when the Clintons have consistently thrown feminists under the bus and Hillary herself is a recipient of affirmative action because of her famous name.
But I'm called a traitor by many feminists. My lesbian friends just want a woman, any woman. To me, it's insane, counter-productive.
Obama today said that he's prepared to come on strong with McCain but he won't use those tactics against a democrat: it's destructive to the party and he won't do it. And no matter what, the dirty little secret is that the black guy has to be careful attacking the white woman. It's just true. As much as pundits have opined today that he should have thrown more punches, Hillary's campaign would be whining today about his attacks on a girl if he had.
It's a difficult line that doesn't satisfy a lot of us. But he's where he is based on these principles. It's not perfect. But it's who he is. No doubt, last night was not his shining hour; but he turned it around today at campaign events and used it to his advantage. He always surpasses my expectations. And he will as president.
He makes mincemeat out of McCain. Just watch.
April 18, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
57andFemale
Your post sums up exactly what my mom has to say about Hillary. Victimhood is not feminist, in fact its anti-feminist.
To add to your point, I always viewed the whole Monica Lewinsky thing not as an 'affair' but really a very egregious case of sexual harassment.
Affairs are with colleagues or co-equals, not subordinate interns half ones age... what Bill Clinton did was use his office to coerce sexual favors from a young woman who didn't understand the consequences.
My mother feels very strongly that Hillary's so-called forgiveness of this made it 'okay', and it was not 'okay'. I happen to agree with you and my mom on all points.
I might burn in hell for assuming this but... I don't think we'll be reading about Obama's secret sex life... he has a wife strong enough to demand better of him, and THAT is feminism.
April 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
witty,
Yeah!!
April 18, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too worked in a male-dominated industry in the late 70's and the 80's. I have always considered myself a feminist but I really don't understand how some of my peers think that they should make a decision on the presidency of the United States based on gender.
There will be a female president when that candidate is the best choice that there is. The presidency is not a consolation prize, not a make-up reward for past bad behavior by mean people.
Hillary is owed nothing.
Andrienne, I think your analysis about 'being a gentleman' is spot on.
April 18, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The gentleman thing resonates with me too, though I think you could also call it simply civilized. I've really had enough of this country calling on candidates to pretend they're neanderthals in order to get elected (though in Bush's case it wasn't that far a stretch). Only in America would John Kerry have been made a laughing stock because he has a vocabulary and speaks French. And, as a woman, one of the things I particularly detest about Hillary Clinton is her trying to partake of this chugalug shoot'em up male identity, which predates the Crown Royal shots and duck hunting lies by a long time. She voted for the Iraq war and cluster bombs and Kyl-Lieberman purely to look like she can hang tough. This is especially loathesome in her because this kind of nonsense is not culturally required of a woman the way it is a man so it's actually her choice. So I say hang her out to dry and give me a guy who goes bowling in a tie. Now that takes guts. It's effing fantastic.
April 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for sharing this.
Let us remember that Obama said today that his restraint is only for fellow Democrats, and that he'll have no qualms about flattening the Republicans.
April 17, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, but I have a feeling he's going to be tough without losing dignity for either himself or McCain. That's my theory, anyway, since I read "Dignity" is a key part of his foreign policy/diplomacy approach.
April 18, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're absolutely right. It's possibly going to be very nasty and the Republican's are likely to go near pornographic in the slurs. But I read an interesting comment on this from a reader on the Daily Dish. I'll cut in because it seems like it might be on the money to me:
"I'm not sure McCain fears that Obama will be more difficult to beat, as much as he fears how an Obama election would play out. If McCain were to retire from politics today, despite all his flaws, most of the country would still have a positive impression of him.
However, the right-wing spin machine will pull out all the stops this election, trying to make Obama some Anti-American Farrakhan type, doing whatever it takes to destroy him. Watching McCain on TV, it's clear that's not really what he wants out of the election, and he worries about how he will look given what his side of the aisle is likely to do.
Instead, McCain speaks of tolerance, goes to Memphis to talk about Dr. King, is planning campaign events in the inner cities, and generally refuses to attack Obama over things like Wright. There is no doubt that if Obama loses this fall it will be a painful day for large segments of this country, as it is doubtful that there will be an African American in the near future with the chance that Obama has today to be President. In this sense, McCain is running against history. I think McCain is concerned that win or lose, he will be associated with a strategy of race baiting and intolerance. In this sense, McCain faces a potentially tarnished legacy, and I suspect that he fears this as much as he does losing this Fall."
April 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. Going out on a limb here, I have to disagree. Responding and initiating are two wholly different ballgames.
Fundamentally, it’s character that matters: character is fate.
I’ve had to come to acknowledge to myself over the last few months of this campaign how greatly my support of Obama has been a function of my distaste for Hillary Clinton’s character. Let’s face it, it’s not just distaste: ever since she gushed at the end of that debate about how `proud` she was of campaigning with Obama that disaste has been transformed into red-hot loathing!
God this campaign’s gone on too long. I can’t even be sure when this happened – was it Ohio? When she went ballistic with the `shame on you Barack Obama` over his flyers re her healthcare mandate. I agreed with her so strongly - was sickened that he’d sunk to this Republican tactic over healthcare of all things. But over a few days my loathing of her resurfaced and my liking him kept me firmly in the Obama camp.
Still I resolutely held fast to my preference for him as I watched in appalled fascination the tapes of Wright and tried to work out how on earth this man and his wife could run this risk of exposing those sweet little girls to those sorts of disgusting – so coarse - and frankly nutty tirades. Yes, I too saw pictures of the family entering the church.
The fact that he was on the same charity board as Ayers had no impact on me – I just thought it weird that a university would give a tenured position to a man with such a vile criminal-in-nature-if-not-fact record and thought it a pity that to mix in Democratic circles in Chicago meant one had to inevitably meet and go through the motions of being polite to such people – especially given that their children were at the same school.
My - what can I call them? – squashed misgivings – resurfaced when I read an article about Michelle which described earlier tensions in their marriage where his single-minded political pursuits detracted from his giving her enough support at home with the children; according to her, she overcame her resentment by basically giving up – coming to terms with the fact that he was never going to give her the support she needed - and paying for domestic help. This jibed so badly with an interview with him that I’d earlier watched and been so impressed by when he said the only real doubts he had of himself were whether or not he was a good enough husband and father.
Conclusion? This man doesn’t walk the talk.
My scepticism grew with more lies from Obama. He’d described in a book an emotional meeting with his sister at the airport terminal – and then she later said in an interview that they’d reunited at a bus terminal. Huh? What a stupid `misstatement`. Oh well - shove that aside. But then came the Kennedy program enabling his father’s coming to America lie. Then the Selma lie. Then his various different portrayals of what he had and hadn’t known about Wright.
So, of course when in the Philadelphia debate Hillary had to confront her Bosnia lie, small wonder that Obama tried to dismiss it as a gaffe that didn’t count, especially as she’d just referenced the fact that she wasn’t the only one to have told whoppers…
But it brought into stark relief for me my reaction to his interview with the women of the View where he’d said the key was to be truthful. Oh Obama… if only your character had determined that you would naturally stick to your own key principle…
I don’t know if anyone else watched Anderson Cooper’s briefish bio of Obama last week. The major impact on me of that bio was how it really hit home strongly for the first time how extraordinarily brief was his time in the US Senate. My God he could only have been there for about a year before he started positioning for his candidacy. It solidified for me my misgivings when I learned during the Texas primary that he’d not bothered to hold any committee hearings on Afghanistan (his European sub-committee) because he was too busy electioneering. (I was sad but resigned watching Hillary capitalise on this with a round table and major policy statement on Afghanistan.)
But therein lies for me the key to what I’ve concluded is the most obvious feature of Obama’s character. An overriding trait of this man is ambition. The only fierce urgency of now is that he didn’t want to have to hang around in the Senate for perhaps another eight years.
We really do get what we create and this was the main creation: that he wasn’t prepared to serve a suitable apprenticeship to take on the most important job in the world. And thus is he hoist with the inadequacies of his own petard.
What did I finally take away from the Philadelphia debate? This candidate is weak. The reason he ums and ums and hesitates constantly in debates is because, unlike Hillary, he *isn’t* sufficiently prepared. He *is* constantly having to think on the run. (I have in my own experience the exact differences to evaluate this on: university exams where I’d comprehensively done the work – walked in there knowing exactly what the issues were and anticipated the only possible questions and had already at home drafted and memorised the answers and only had to sit and write them down and sail out of the exam room an hour early: versus those exams where I’d not put in enough work and had to frantically improvise and dredge up what I hoped were at least plausible, if not compelling, answers.
My horrified thought yesterday watching Obama criticising Hillary and the interviewers to a rally was, `oh God, this man’s a passive aggressive!` Pleasant to and evading confrontation with people directly when they’re shitting all over him and then going off criticising them to other people behind their backs when there’s no-one there to take him on directly and hold him responsible for what he’s saying…
It explains why he’s perfectly happy for his staffers to hold morning conferences running down his opponent or put out republican type fliers.
But that doesn’t cut it. Neither does his response that he will be tough with Republicans - that is not the election he’s involved in right now. It’s Hillary he’s supposed to be fighting and on Wednesday he made a pitiful fist of it. There she was glorying in accusing him of basically selling out ordinary Americans on their core principles? If he were a politician capable of winning the toughest election in the world he’d have punched straight back with her `screw ‘em`. He’d have made it quite clear: that he thought it axiomatic that you don’t feed Republicans their punchlines for the general but if that’s the way she wants to play it, she has to be hoisted with her own petard.
It’s become the new `mythology ` of the MSM that Obama seems unable to close. It’s up to Obama now to understand this and do something about it in these last days of the Philadelphia primary. If he doesn’t, he’s going down. Because she’s killing him with the working class and if he doesn’t understand this and know beyond all doubt that it’s his turn to go for the jugular, then the superdelegates in good conscience are going to react in exactly the same way as the Party did in 2000, when Bradley lost to Gore because he was seen as too nice and too weak to take on the Republican Party.
And no this isn’t to derail a central feature of his campaign: he makes it quite clear that he’s having to respond – not initiating.
Character *is* fate. What I’ve learned from this democratic primary is that the notion of a `dream` ticket is just that - a dream. The reality is that we’re confronted with two deeply flawed candidates – both have huge electability questions hanging over them – both of them are Republican wet dreams - and the only question remains is whom does one like? (Or for some, perhaps, dislike least.)
On that one I’m relieved still not to have a dilemma.
But I would point out to people who still think Obama’s only purely wonderful that it’s empirically the case that people who are unsure in the lead up to an election overwhelmingly revert either to the person they started out leaning to, or to the one who seems less risky. So steel yourselves. Unless Obama has a surrogate who’s prepared to, or the media itself, blow her out of the water on `screw ‘em` or some such other dynamite – Hillary probably now has the nomination sewn up. Obama won 11 straight in a row because he had a strategy to win the caucuses while she didn’t, and he brought in independents and some Republicans whom the Wright and Ayers issues have now largely alienated. If he can’t get working class voters that only leaves him the youth, highly educated & affluent liberals & the black vote.
No uncommitted superdelegates are going to ignore an obvious huge late surge in momentum for Clinton, or invite the wrath of the women’s vote, for such a minority coalition to nominate a perceived `weak` candidate.
April 18, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow... you left a lot to comment about. Well, I only have about 15 minutes so I'll have to be brief.
There's much in the latter part of your statement that is just pure guesswork which isn't substantiated in the trends shown in the polls. Some national polls now have Obama leading Clinton AMONG WOMEN, for example. And, there's been no shift in the polls over any of the recent flaps over Wright, or the "bitter" comment. Still, things could change.
But to say that Clinton has the nomination "locked up" is fantasy-land. Unless Obama becomes demonstrably unelectable through some major gaff, or a significant revelation about his past, he's the one who has it locked up.
By the end of the month Obama will lead Clinton in all possible measurable metrics: pledged delegates, popular vote, lead in national polls, and SUPERDELEGATES. Yes, the trend is clear, by the end of April, or soon thereafter, Obama will overtake Clinton in the superdelegate count. Nobody is talking about this, but I believe it will be a major milestone. The media will have to concede that she's so far behind - no matter how you slice and dice it - that she's done. As soon as the heads start talking like that, the money will dry up, and it will be over by June.
Aside from that, I think your assertion that character is important - maybe even fate - is valid. Unfortunately, your ability to judge character is the part that I take issue with. I have no doubt that Obama is ambitious, but the trajectory of his life shows that he is simply not some one-dimensional ladder-climber, bent on achieving fame and power at all costs. His extensive work as a low-paid and relatively anonymous community organizer (instead of taking a highly-paid job at a major law firm) is a great example.
By the way, I've read some interesting biographies and articles about Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and other great religious and spiritual leaders who's wives and family shouldered large burdens so that the husbands/fathers could focus their energies on their civic/religious passions. And in this case, I don't see Michelle Obama as some weak doormat of a woman who couldn't stand up for herself or her family. She seems very engaged and supportive of the campaign - not the sign of a woman being pulled into the game begrudgingly. No doubt there were arguments and heated disagreements about family vs. career priorities. My wife and I have had the same discussions (only in reverse - she is the 'breadwinner' and I'm the at-home parent). And, being around a lot of other at-home parents, I can tell you I've heard the same complaints and fights having happened from at least a score of other parents with young kids. It's par for the course.
And then there's the airport vs. bus terminal thing. C'mon now. Seriously. If Clinton can 'misremember' sniper fire, do you think he could've flubbed that one up too? Maybe it got messed up in editing? Maybe his sister was wrong? And who cares? It proves nothing. There's no consequence to the misstatement - if it was. This one is a real stretch, and sure makes it look like you're less objective about this than you'd like us to believe - or maybe you believe it yourself. Either way, time to do a reevaluation because when a portion of your rational for choosing a president is based on whether or not he met his sister at a bus or airport terminal, you're not thinking clearly.
April 18, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
“There's much in the latter part of your statement that is just pure guesswork which isn't substantiated in the trends shown in the polls. Some national polls now have Obama leading Clinton AMONG WOMEN, for example. And, there's been no shift in the polls over any of the recent flaps over Wright, or the "bitter" comment. Still, things could change.”
Yes it is guesswork – intuitive sense – but it’s backed up too by today’s Rasmussen & Gallup’s huge downward trend. (A trend I regret) And when you argue that Wright has had no effect on polls I think you’ve been looking at the democratic nomination polls – not the state national ones.
“But to say that Clinton has the nomination "locked up" is fantasy-land.”
I did say locked up subject to something blowing her out of the water: a change either in Barack’s way of responding to her or the MSM taking her on.
“By the end of the month Obama will lead Clinton in all possible measurable metrics: pledged delegates, popular vote, lead in national polls, and SUPERDELEGATES.”
Well this is where we differ. As I said, unless something huge happens, I think there’s going to be huge momentum for Clinton – I think it’ll show in Philadelphia and certainly Indiana and in national polling. I think the superdelegates will lose confidence in Obama and that they’ll end up switching to Clinton.
Let hope I’m wrong and you’re right. But I do think I’ll only be wrong if Obama starts to perform more strongly, finds a killer instinct he hasn’t yet shown or, as I said, he has a surrogate or the MSM do it for him. I suppose my basic feeling about this is that from now on something has to happen to make Clinton seem a worse candidate in terms of electability: I do think that’s what it’s all about now. And as I argued, the last week in particular has been horrible for Obama and I think he’s coming to be seen as a very weak general election candidate. Something has to change that perception for him to stay frontrunner.
“Aside from that, I think your assertion that character is important - maybe even fate - is valid. Unfortunately, your ability to judge character is the part that I take issue with. I have no doubt that Obama is ambitious, but the trajectory of his life shows that he is simply not some one-dimensional ladder-climber, bent on achieving fame and power at all costs. His extensive work as a low-paid and relatively anonymous community organizer (instead of taking a highly-paid job at a major law firm) is a great example”
Well thanks for reminding me of that latter part which I admit I’d stopped thinking about at all. I don’t, however, think it says much about his motivations since becoming a US Senator. I suspect the glorious feedback he got from his 2004 Convention speech rather went to his head. (I’ve worked for a senior politician, had a great deal to do with politicians, and one of the more regrettable features of the political process is how they almost all invariably come to believe their own publicity. ;-)
With regard to your comments re Michelle, I’d simply say that this wasn’t huge in and of itself, it was just one of the early seeds in what became part of a growing picture. (I take your point about Ghandi – but my reaction to it is that I don’t think you’d have seen Ghandi claiming a distress that he wasn’t prepared to put his actions behind. Obviously I may well be completely wrong about that.)
“And then there's the airport vs. bus terminal thing. C'mon now. Seriously. If Clinton can 'misremember' sniper fire,”
Well, for a start I don’t accept that Clinton `misremembered` sniper fire. It was nuts, it was an outright lie, and watching her tell it to very genuine people at rallies in Ohio and Waco was revolting and, for me, unforgiveable – confirming one of the reasons I’ll think it tragic if she becomes the nominee and goes on to win the presidency.
“do you think he could've flubbed that one up too? Maybe it got messed up in editing? Maybe his sister was wrong? And who cares? It proves nothing. There's no consequence to the misstatement - if it was. This one is a real stretch, and sure makes it look like you're less objective about this than you'd like us to believe - or maybe you believe it yourself. Either way, time to do a reevaluation because when a portion of your rational for choosing a president is based on whether or not he met his sister at a bus or airport terminal, you're not thinking clearly.”
Again, just something I suppressed – until I learned of the other fibs. None of these things on their own were definitive – it’s the cumulative impact. I still like Obama. Cf Clinton, I think there are good reasons still to believe he’d be a better President. Where I have huge worries about him are in relation to electability. My fundamental point is that in a primary election where their policy stances are so congruent, character has become the great differentiator and all the attacks have meant that he has come to seem almost as vulnerable her, albeit in different ways. Right now I’m rather pining for Chris Dodd…. sigh
Put it another way, I certainly understand now why Edwards hasn’t endorsed either of them – whereas until a few weeks ago I was disappointed.
April 18, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your response.
I'd only add that if electability is the issue, then I'd have far more concerns about Clinton in that regard:
• Her negatives were horrible to start with, and have only gotten worse. In the process of this campaign, she (and Bill) have effectively offended blacks, the young, small state voters, and much of the core Democratic base with her extreme flirtation with Republican talking points. She is ticking off the DNC and much of the party leadership, and in general, not winning friends where she needs them most. As the campaign continues, she's her support even among her core groups has been diminishing.
• Whereas Obama attracts a good number of groups she doesn't (new & young voters, independents and some moderate Republicans), Clinton doesn't. In fact, Obama's strength in that area is a key plus against McCain, who's strength also is his appeal to independents and crossover voters. Obama has a much better shot at pulling votes away from McCain than Clinton does.
• Hillary has NEVER been able to raise the kind of funds Obama has, and I doubt if Obama is out that much of those funds will shift to her. The grassroots folks of the Obama campaign may vote for her, but they won't do all the work (calls, canvassing, etc.) or raise the sums of money for her that they have for Obama. Grassroots passion fuels Obama's campaign. He goes, the passion goes. And while the young vote has been reliable for Obama, traditionally they're unreliable. I doubt that she brings as many to the polls as Obama could.
• Finally, as much as it may seem that there's been a bit of dirt on Obama lately, none of it compares to the depth and breadth of dirt to be found on and around Clinton. The R's have been and remain far more worried about an Obama campaign than a Clinton campaign. They've got the book on the Clintons. They've been preparing for her presidential run for 8 years. Obama has not used the Replublican playbook on Hillary the way she has on him. Not by a long shot. There's alot of low hanging fruit that Obama has left for the Republicans. It may look like Obama is the pigpen of the group this week, but McCain and Hillary each have triple the amount of B.S. to sift through.
Now, this is just about electability, and not who the better candidate is. Of course, having viable candidate is a prerequisite. (Nader voters, you listening???) But nothing that has happened so far makes Obama DOA. All three candidates are flawed, maybe deeply so, but not fatally. So, until such a time a candidate is revealed to be unelectable, the focus should be on determining the best candidate. We all have different values and priorities, view the world through different lenses, and carry different expectations about how a president should look, act, speak, and campaign. I can't speak to that. But, when you've found the candidate who resonates best with what you want for your country, with your beliefs, values and ideals, and so on, I think you stick with that candidate as long as they remain viable.
Obama's my guy, and I've seen nothing so far that takes him out of the game. His numbers remain strong. His response to the Wright flap was powerful and dignified. Yes, he looked a little tired and off his game in the most recent debate, but debating isn't his strong suit, nor is it a skill that's particularly useful for a president. The lapel pin, "bitter" comments, Ayers, Michelle's pride/lack of, and and the like are essentially trumped-up non-issues that have nothing to do with the needs of the country or the capabilities of the candidate to perform in office... it's the political equivalent to tabloid news; pithy, shallow, and mostly fictional. Also, keep in mind that the MSM's job is not to report the facts in a 'fair and balanced' way, their job is to sell ad space by making the news as interesting and sensational as possible. So, ABC drags a debate deep into the gutter with trivial issues instead of pressing the candidates to answer important questions about real issues and any kind of deep and meaningful way. The political talking heads speculate breathlessly about the damage Obama's "bitter" remarks might cause, but never actually go out and interview the small town folks they claim to speak for. They talk about whether Clinton's dress showed too much cleavage. I can go on, but essentially what I'm saying is that most of what you seem to be worried about doesn't add up to much. We can either choose to buy the B.S. and empower the B.S.ers, or elevate the dialogue by refusing to surrender our better judgement to those who think we're stupid enough to believe the B.S.
I'll leave it at that.
April 19, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your response.
Thanks. Ditto.
I enjoyed reading your reply. It cheered me up - at least for five minutes! ;-)
Went away and thought about it all and it solidified for me the following conclusions:
There are several quite separate aspects of all this for me.
(1) The huge differences between election processes and governing;
(2) the way in which the strongest features of character always give you the polar opposites of each – ie your strongest virtues are accompanied by the diametrically opposite flaws
(3) And the most regrettable: the way in which the media, and its impact on those of us who are political junkies and follow campaigns microscopically, invariably ends up distorting our sense of current reality in wider community perspectives.
Because of (2) I think that Obama might not be able to get to the general because the very things that would make him such a superior President to Clinton least suit him to take her on and finish her off in the primary.
I’ve become depressed about Obama’s campaign because I think his most admirable qualities which would serve the world so well in government in fact detract from his campaigning. ie He’s conflict averse – thus, for example, he looks for workable compromise in order to achieve a better outcome than the status quo, rather than sticking rigidly to seeking what would be his original highest possible outcome and thus ending up achieving absolutely nada. That’s the plus. The negative of it is that he intuitively seeks to placate people where it’s not required. eg it drives me nuts that one’s forever seeing him in rallies, interviews etc letting Clinton off the hook when he simply doesn’t need to. So many times I’ve seen him do it – he did it at the first rally after the Philadelphia debate: he’s wanting to get people to see Clinton as being negative and playing Washington politics and says `that’s her right`. Why give her that? There’s no need to. It’s absurd. This isn’t nitpicking. He does it constantly –every time he criticises her for something, he also simultaneouly lets her off the hook on it and insodoing makes it acceptable. (She would never do that – not in a million years.) He should be only putting it down – saying the country and certainly the Democratic party at the moment – can’t afford that sort of politicking. The man really does lack the killer instinct which could prove fatal for him against a woman who has it in spades. This particular female of the species really is more deadly than the male… sigh
She’s succeeded in painting him as elitist and herself as the working class champion – she understands and shares their values: he doesn’t. Sure, she hasn’t succeeded with higher educated voters; she hasn’t succeeded with his strong supporters. But she’s made the point with too many lower educated voters and people who were before on the fence. And it’s that very lack of killer instinct in him that’s let her get away with it. Theda Kolscop’s post on the Clinton `screw ‘em analysis: a politician with a better ear would know by now that he’s in deep trouble with working class voters and would have had that plastered all over the airwaves yesterday and this weekend, thus neutralising her attack that he doesn’t share their values; and crucially he’d have been sufficiently adroit to do it in such a way that everyone listening to him understands he’s having to respond to this deadly republican style attack from a fellow Democrat who should never have made the initiating attack in the first place.
With regard to your arguments about electability, the problem is that the combination of the Hannity and Clinton collaboration (how disgraceful is that?) have driven up his negatives now to a point where they’re nearly as high as hers. It’s desperately sad. Today’s (Rasmussen) unfavourability rating has his at 51, hers at 53. She’s taken him from 11 ahead 1 behind her preference rating among Democrats in the latest Gallup.
My key issue is that it’s the impact of all this on the superdelegates we have to focus on. My political instinct is that there are two main criteria for them: one is the downballot effect for the politician SDs and who can win the general? If they don’t believe they can win their elections and/or we can win the general without the working class vote and alienated women then he’s history.
You say, Obama attracts a good number of groups she doesn't … independents and some moderate Republicans)… Well that was true. What’s depressing is that it probably isn’t any more thank to Hannity & Clinton. Obama’s appeal to the SD’s has always been that he could bring these crossover votes. Where’s his appeal if, because of Wright and Ayers, he no longer does, only has the `latte` liberals, African Americans and the youth vote? Where will he be by the end of this if he can no longer pull in the male vote which he commanded in Wisconsin?
You know, I think we all get caught up in a highly educated, progressive view of the world and don’t sufficiently factor in the impressions of the working class voter who sees very little news – only gets the odd sound byte. Remember how the MSM was so sceptical of Reagan and was simply blown away by the actual result – the way he’d won over the working class? Too many working class, in principle democrat, people watch Fox – specially O’Reilly.
You say: “Hillary has NEVER been able to raise the kind of funds Obama has, and I doubt if Obama is out that much of those funds will shift to her. The grassroots folks of the Obama campaign may vote for her, but they won't do all the work (calls, canvassing, etc.) or raise the sums of money for her that they have for Obama. Grassroots passion fuels Obama's campaign. He goes, the passion goes. And while the young vote has been reliable for Obama, traditionally they're unreliable. I doubt that she brings as many to the polls as Obama could.”
Oh I love this argument. Hopefully Obama’s behind the scenes arguments to the SDs use it and that it’s fully as powerful with them as it is with me! .
You: “Finally, as much as it may seem that there's been a bit of dirt on Obama lately, none of it compares to the depth and breadth of dirt to be found on and around Clinton. The R's have been and remain far more worried about an Obama campaign than a Clinton campaign. They've got the book on the Clintons. They've been preparing for her presidential run for 8 years. Obama has not used the Replublican playbook on Hillary the way she has on him. Not by a long shot. There's alot of low hanging fruit that Obama has left for the Republicans. It may look like Obama is the pigpen of the group this week, but McCain and Hillary each have triple the amount of B.S. to sift through.”
Well there you go drepressing me again. That is my main point. He’s not going to get a chance to run against the Republicans if this goes on the way it has lately and no-one’s focusing on vetting her. No-one’s publicly refuting her argument that the GOP has nothing left to get at her with. So far she’s winning the argument and Obama’s campaign, his surrogates, are only to blame for that. (Yes I do agree that there’s a limit to how much the `positive` Obama can go public with this one but his surrogates could be doing it – just as Rendell has been slaughtering Obama. It was quite sickening watching Rendell doing it to students on a Hannity programm that I caught a brief, sickening glimpse of yesterday – no Obama surrogate there to counteract.)
Old saying in politics – the people get the politicians they deserve. I rather wonder nowadays whether that’s true? It’s more the case that they get the politicians the media serves up to them. But what sickens me is that we’ve been through all this disgraceful type of campaigning leading up to Bush; we’ve been through the distortions and hypes that dished up Iraq to the world after 9/11; and now it seems that Obama, through his fault, his own fault and nothing but his fault, is about to create the situation where Clinton’s going to be allowed to serve it up to us all over again… `that’s her right.`
(time to get a life - get out in the garden )
April 19, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm confident that we'll see about just how he's planning on taking on the Republicans.
He's already been explicit on 60 minutes that he regards flinging the dirt as contrary to how he wants to conduct his campaign and government, and notwithstanding that the Clintonians see him "attacking" Mrs. Clinton every time he points out inconsistancies in her behavior, it's seemed to me that he's been gentlemanly in a way that that 82 year-old-lady, and my 65-year-old self recognizes from our upbringing.
But that chair holding business must really burn Mrs. Clinton. She clearly wants him to crack and join her in the cess pool.
I'd be somewhat more confident if Barney Frank would break ranks before the end of this weekend, because I know he's smart enough to understand what's going on at this point. But there are still a lot of old ladies in MA who just refuse to see.
Interesting that they have a crush on Bill Clinton and that's why they support Hillary.
April 17, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have such enormous respect for Senator Obama. I know I would have cracked a long time ago - I have a bad temper.
April 17, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. That's why I can't go to Denver. I'll end up in jail.
April 17, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have an uncontrollable mouth.
I have never been able to keep it shut. I can't believe it hasn't gotten me killed yet. It came close, a couple of times, in '02 and '03.
;)
April 17, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh, I know what you mean. I'll admit that one of the many reasons I initially wanted Biden to get the nomination was that I sympathized with his gaffe-prone tendencies, especially because the head behind the mouth seemed so good.
April 18, 2008 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw Barney Frank on Bill Maher's show a few weeks ago. He looked tepid in his support for her.
Most of these cowardly supers will still wait until after PA, at the earliest. And we don't know if 5 days is enough time to turn around the effects of this poor excuse for a debate. It's impossible to tell. The polls won't show us enough -- and PA tends to respond to negative campaigning.
We'll see. If she wins by 15% or more, this nightmare continues full force. At least after Wednesday's debacle, the expectations for Obama are even lower than before. He could use that to his advantage. But I've been around too long to not be prepared for some of this mud to stick.
Of course, it sticks to Hillary, too. She is viewed as untrustworthy and her unfavorables go up when she gets ugly. But it's unclear how this will play in PA.
We'll see, won't we?
April 18, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's really brilliant. They do support her because they have a crush on him. Think it's that every mothers' son thing about him?
April 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My grandmother said much the same thing, "Nice to see a politician with some manners."
April 17, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My wife's grandparents in Halifax Canada (originally Romney supporters) have been very surprised by Obama. They are now rooting for him to win, and say that his is the best thing that could ever happen to America.
April 18, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I'm sure your mother is a dear, but quite frankly, I wouldn't take advice from someone who doesn't pay attention to politics and knows nothing about it. Would you take medical advice from someone who doesn't pay attention to medicine and knows nothing about it?
April 17, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously that manners thing was lost on you.
April 17, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
1/2 the people in this country have below-average intelligence.
And their vote counts just as much as those with above average intelligence.
April 18, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are just bitter.
April 18, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was snark meant for clear thinker, lest BevD get in a huff.
April 18, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I taste much better when spinkled with sugar.
April 18, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, BevD, once more, from the top:
One of the few trends that cuts across all demographics of traditional Dem voters has been this: the closer a voter pays attention to this race, the more likely they are to vote Obama. Take, for example, this poll from before the Texas primacaucus: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/25/texas.poll/index.html
People that follow the news voted Obama 60/40. People that didn't? 60/40 for Clinton.
It is ironic-- the knock on Obama is that people project onto him whatever they want to see in a candidate, and that he is the candidate of impulsive or uninformed Democrats. But the facts point to the opposite conclusion: that this is much more the case with Hillary.
And let's be clear-- Andrienne's mom does not sound like a woman who is in any way ignorant of politics. She just hates the way the game is played. Sounds like pretty good instincts, if you ask me.
April 18, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's entirely possible to pay attention to politics -- in the sense of the important issues involved -- without paying attention to politics in the other sense the word is used -- to describe the shallow posturing that's too all-too-common and shallow media coverage that's also all-too-common.
The last debate fell squarely into the latter meaning of the term.
April 18, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
What an elitist remark!
So elderly ladies who don't spend six hours a day following the blogs have no right to speak on politics, which is everybody's business? If you are someday lucky enough to reach the 80's may God grant you as much wisdom as this lady shows.
April 18, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, first of all that's really condescending. Second, there are millions of voters that don't pay attention to politics but in the end, vote. Andrienne was just sharing the opinion of someone whose vote will be important for democrats in the fall. She's not giving us advice, she's sharing her opinion.
April 17, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your mom has an excellent point, and it gives Obama some powerful arguments both for his viability as a candidate and his electability. Neither he, nor his campaign have breathed a word of 'Snipergate.' Look at the treatment he received over the tape of his words in a San Francisco fundraiser! She threw Obama, his campaign and the entire city under the bus! He is proving that he can withstand her, the debate moderators, McCain, and anyone and anything else that gets thrown at him, WITHOUT his poll number slipping. So his strategy is working, and SD's are committing to him on a steady basis. His poll numbers keep closing in PA. He is acting like a frontrunner weathering the final throes of his opponent's campaign. She will eventually have to fold.
April 17, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It all boils down to a little thing called class.
Obama has it; Hillary doesn't.
April 18, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has class... just not what most of consider high class.
Really I think this campaign has made it clear that Hillary likes to throw mud if it means winning. Why else bring up Farrakhan, 9/11 and Hamas in one rebuttal of why Obama wants to move on from divisive name calling?
The short of it is - this is how she has always played the game, and she has no interest in changing it. She has 35 years of experience wallowing in the shit that is our politics, why would she think it was bad?
April 18, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point made in this blog. If you look at Hillary's Senate race, her opponent did go negative and of course she played the victim and won. Obama knows what he is doing. McCain is a different story though.
April 18, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I wholly agree with you here. And I especially like when you said:
The pundits are seriously underestimating Obama, aren't they? He's the only one who seems to understand what it means to be in this for the long haul.
April 18, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andriene,
I took the liberty of posting your wonderful article over at DemocraticUnderground.com. At of about 1am pt, when I posted this comment to you, it has been viewed by almost 600 people, has received 22 recommendations and 30 comments. I just wanted to let you know that your story has reached a wider audience and that it is being appreciated (greatly!) over there. If you would like to view the comments folks there left in response to the wonderful story about your mom and your analysis of Obama's restraint, go here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5559015
Thanks for posting your experience and thoughts here - I think you are spot-on!
April 18, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
housewolf - thank you, that was a hoot. My Mom is actually delighted that all of these "crazy bloggers" are interested in her thoughts. Saw quite a smile as I read her some of the posts.
April 18, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your mom is completely astute. It's not simply chivalry, but also that Obama is at ease and comfortable in his skin. I wanted to blog about this, that though he loses this battle, he will win the war while Hillary desperately hacks away with her assorted culinary utensils-weapons but it won't show.
There were those who fault Obama for his inaction, for his "deflated" performance, but I think that will be his way to win against Hillary. With McCain, I hope it'll be different.
Wanted to share this Taoist story too, excerpted from
http://the-philosophers-stone.com/articles/taoism/taoism.htm
The story of Cook Ting, in the Zhuang Zi.... Vegetarians may care to look away at this point.
"A good cook changes his knife once a year - because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month - because he hacks. I've had this knife for nineteen years and I've cut up thousands of oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though it had just come from the grindstone. There are spaces between the joints, and the blade of the knife has really no thickness. If you insert what has no thickness into such spaces, then there's plenty of room - more than enough for the blade to play about in. That's why after nineteen years the blade of my knife is still as good as when it first came from the grindstone.
"However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I'm doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest of subtlety, until -flop! The whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground. I stand there holding the knife and look all around me, completely satisfied and reluctant to move on, and then I wipe off the knife and put it away."
... This principle of seeing the overall structure, seeing the way of least resistance and then using the least effort for the maximum returns, leads ultimately to the principle of wu wei, which can be translated as 'inaction', 'not doing' or 'not striving'.
April 18, 2008 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, as the Navy SEALs say, "Slow is fast."
April 18, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen many an example of Twu wei in the Gentleman from Illinois' style.
I think Stephan Mitchell's translation of Tao Te Ching 36 sums up this situation well (though the Mitchell translation can lack some depth IMO)
April 18, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great lines. It's difficult to understand the concept of wuwei but you get it when you watch Obama. :) I think his way of government will be similar too, "Yes we can!" and "Change".
April 18, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally feel on of the best physical displays of wu wei is the bow arm of a truly great violinist or fiddler.
The less effort and ego involved, the more dynamic and captivating the sound.
The butcher story is wonderful.
April 18, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been marketed from the beginning by an extremely skillful campaign manager named Axelrod. I saw the same ploy used in the presidential debate in France where I now live. The male contender "played" it calm and made the female contender look aggressive. It was skillful, it was slick. It was marketing.
I would hate for this important election to be "marketed away". We need major re-management of the country. Beware of slick suits and slicker manners. Resist the Glitz!
April 18, 2008 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Vaughn B, what type of campaigning would not be "marketing"?
April 18, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
As did Americans with Bush, the French got with Sarkozy what they voted for. They may express buyers remorse, but Sarkozy was no unknown, and he has performed as expected. Campaign glitz had zilch to do with this.
April 18, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do Democrats win the White House? How do they lose it?
1) Hillary gets out, energetically campaigns for Obama, encourages her supporters to get out and vote for him, they will, the Democrats win and she's a hero.
2) She stays in, super-delegates fall for this "electability" ploy, she gets nomination, Obama campaigns for her, encourages his supporters to get out and vote for her, they won't, the Democrats lose and she's not.
The difference? She has gone far too low for most Obama supporters to vote for her. Obama supporters will sit it out.
Who's the wiser of the two? One of them has been restrained enough to be in position to win the presidency.
The other is in position to hand victory to the Republicans. Hillary before party. Hillary before country.
April 18, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton; George and I have grown tired of beating Senator Obama over the head with our baseball bats; would you care to take a few swings?
Thank you Charlie, and yes I would.
April 18, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent post. Congratulations on being more insightful than 90% of the paid columnists.
Obama's task is to steal Hillary's voters, not piss them off. Sometimes he pnditry focuses on zingers and attack ads, missing the real point, which is gaining votes.
Her gender is definitely a factor in that if Obama hit hard on a personal level, it would outrage many of her supporters. And when she concedes in a few weeks or months, he will need her supporters to be comfortable switching to him.
Of course Hillary is using his reluctance to attack her hard as a sign a weakness, which is false. Obama played this the other day as reluctance to hit hard agaisnt a "fellow Democrat" but I think it is more of a gender dynamic.
Against McCain however, Obama has shown no reluctance to hit hard and counterpunch aggressively. The sooner HRC gets out of the way, the better.
April 18, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Caringthinkingperson: Tell your Mom I'll play mah jongg with her anytime (see my avatar)!
Thank you for a wonderful post.
April 18, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful post. This resonates with the sentiments of me, my family, and many of my friends.
My estimation of the mass media has taken a nose dive this election cycle. I'm dying for alternatives . Glad to have found TPM.
Peace.
April 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great lines. It's difficult to understand the concept of wuwei but you get it when you watch Obama. :) I think his way of government will be similar too, "Yes we can!" and "Change".
April 18, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the consumate gentleman.
Of course he was raised by two women. One was his grandmother and she assuredly made him understand how a gentleman properly behaves towards women. Even if the woman is being a shrew.
What a great upbringing. Given that his mother was independent and embracing of all peoples. Thus he is a great humanitarian as well.
Obama has lived a rich and full life despite not having a male of color to help him navigate during his adolescent years.
All those women who want to hate on Obama because of feminism..should feel good knowing that he is the responsible, loving, empathetic brilliant human being that 2 women produced and set forth in the world to achieve all their hopes and dreams.
Guess that is why Obama knows the power of sublety and the art of persusasion much more so than most males, he thrived and learned to achieve under the tutelage of feminine power and boy did he ever master it.
Go Obama...you know how to walk soflty and carry a big stick.
April 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is - because if we get a woman president who is even remotely as much of a disaster as Bush has been, it just kills women in the future. That's why ANY WOMAN will not do!
April 18, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo! Thanks for your post.
April 18, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Problem With Your Post, Andrienne
You're conflating your mother's position with something you've inferred from it, that he has in mind that "he can't win those women if they hate him for destroying Hillary." We don't really know if he has that in mind. We just know, as your mother put it, that he's a "gentleman," a point many others have tried to enrich by saying that he's empathic and that he wants to elevate politics. There are other descriptions of him to add to the rich impression people have of him. But your inference seems to cast him as a game player, as someone whose gentlemanliness is contrived to make political gains.
While you seem not to believe that he is basically conniving, I think it's important to maintain that, with some slips that mark him as human, his basic orientation is empathic. When he says he wants to "disagree without being disagreeable," the texture of his personality becomes gentlemanliness. But I believe that the root of his gentlemanliness is his feeling for people's suffering, including Hillary's. Her nastiness is the other side of the coin of her suffering--from perhaps an overwhelming internal pressure to be president that hasn't been explicated.
What's the diff? you might ask. To me, his empathy, especially as expressed in his thought about resentful white men, is the difference that makes all the difference, the thing that sets him apart from all other US presidents and candidates. Moreover, his empathy is at the heart of his problem solving method, the thing that makes it work. It's the heart and soul of his success as a community organizer and politician/statesman and the reason many of us will work hard to elect him.
Perhaps he is conniving in this instance. Maybe you're correct. If so, he needs to deepen his empathic view of people and rely on the horse that got him to the lead and sustained it in the face of the overwhelming Wright flap that threatened to do him in. His speech on race is the flagship of his candidacy, and those of us who support him ought to encourage more rather than less reliance on it.
April 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Preach, You are absolutely right, I am conflating my mothers statement with my observation and perception of the coverage, but I did not infer it from what she said. My post started as a crticism of the MSM. But, I did conflate two ideas, I thought they fit. Granted you caught me trying to write in short hand on a web-site, but it was not intended with the meaning you gave it. I apololgize if I gave you the wrong inpression. I think that he wants to include the entire Democratic party in his fold, and a lot of Independants and Repubulicns too. This is clearly his idea of a change, it comes out of his pours, and it is not conniving. But he also has to win.
The MSM may not understand the gentleman concept, but they do understand the need for more votes. I think your reaction that this might be some sort of an agenda involving cunning is more from your perseption of winning tactics than it is my position. As far as everything else is concerned, you are preaching to a very Obama educated choir.
April 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take it from me. Obama has been doing a GREAT job of pissing off Hillary's supporters. His excuse that his poor performance was because he was holding back is simply damage control.
April 18, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're having a grown up conversation, sweetie. Please don't interrupt.
Go play. Scat.
April 18, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, you guys are really pissed off aren't you? :) :) :)
The more you try to take him down, the taller he stands.
April 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before I ever supported Obama - back a year or so ago when I thought I'd go with Edwards in the race, I had dinner with my husband's sister, who is in her 60s and lives in Missouri, and his aunt, who is in her late 70s a and lives in Georgia. They were both going on and on and on about Barack Obama and how much they really liked him and wanted him to run and at that time, I wasn't so sure, but it surprised me that two older, white women who are fairly liberal, but still pretty moderately so, - already were sold on Barack Obama.
He does not turn off women voters unless they just are hell bent on having a woman and don't care who it is.
All of which really upsets me, because I fought in the gender wars too and this is the very thing that we were always accused of. It just makes me furious to see my sisters so blinded by whatever it is that makes them into such irrational harpies over this.
April 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted about that somewhere else about 3 months back right after her kitchen sink thing was dropped. I said, hey I get it. I understand, its important for you to have a woman President if your a woman, and for some men who want it. I said you think I dont want a Black President(Im black of course). You dont think latino's dont want a Latino President. Asians and Indians so fourth. I get it. At the time I was for Edwards (who incredibly disapoints me now) but as an independent voter, I could see that Obama has people in my Neighborhood caring about politics. So then, I gave him a listen. It wasnt long before he convinced me with rational solutions to either questions, his demeanor, and his willingness to unite this Country.....But again, I get it, how important it is for women right now. It's just that some things are more important if we think about what the idiot and his gang members have done to the middle class and the poor, annnnnndd our soldiers.
April 18, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
When your mother pointed out that "he is a gentleman", it made me think that maybe that is one of the reasons his support in the upper Midwest is so strong. And why all this "bitter thing" did not translate into more support for Hillary. You know, pundits are in Washington or New York and generally judge things for who wins the shouting match, but people in rural areas tend to see things in a different way. I am living in Minnesota for many years now, and one thing that atroke me is how well mannered the people is in general, and how they are turned off by any sign of prepotency or arrogancy. My goodness, to say that something is weird or loony, they say it is "interesting". I think Obama may have come from South Chicago, but he may know rural Illinois quite well . You don't have to be obnoxious to show that you are strong here.
In that sense, I don't know if that Hillary video downing whiskey to show that "is one of them" is going to help. It is more a cartoon than how people really is. I think that people like your mother may be turned off by it.
April 18, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whichever one it is I wish they would hurry up or I will become a nervous wreck . . .
April 18, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sort of confirmed what I thought. Obama is a bit wimpy on most things and can't "run over" someone. That person, unfortunately, cannot be in the oval office.
April 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said Louisville, there is a difference between strong and obnoxious. I see that you can't catch that difference.
April 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why is that? Because the Republican go it alone/my way or the highway style has had such good effects?
April 18, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
One does not have to be glued to politics to know civil behaviour when they see it. Please remember the first part of civilization is civil. Perhaps more of his supporters may take their cues from him, and approach criticism of the very ugly way things are being done, with so much civility the opposition will be thrown off track. That would truly be unexpected and revolutionary.
April 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice response. As an Obama supporter, I agree. And then there are the trolls, or the troll-look-alikes, who snipe and bitch and natter and throw mud. Every once in a while I let one slip out at them. So, while I agree, I'm guilty on occasions. We're human too.
April 18, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if Clinton lost everyone would love her, even those who dislike her, whereas if Obama lost, he could definitely come back and would be embraced. I don't think Clinton could come back.
I think that is why so many women are behind her. Though, I think that it these women can be convinced otherwise. My parents were Clinton supporters and now they are Obama supporters. I think some baby-boomers are stuck in their ways, but others are more open minded and flexible.
I think Obama is a fresh change and definitely what Obama needs. In fact, he is too honest and I think many don't know what to do with that. They are used to politicians just singing a nice song to em... I think people see him and are ashamed sort of at how corrupt our democracy is. Cause he is such a breath of fresh and intelligent air.
April 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean what America needs.
April 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last night on Countdown, Howard Fineman gave an unvetted conclusion that struck him so, one could see the emotion and earnestness on his face. He said that Obama may win because voters do not want the Rove style of politics and they do prefer his.
He thought that might be the single most important rationale for voters in this primary and general.
I'm saying to myself, No kidding, Dick Tracy. Nonetheless I have not really heard any of the other analysts think of that seriously. For them it's always issues or likability or negative gotchas or momentum or bases of support that they base their pontificating on. The entire debate Obama was practicing his most important weapon -- not issues the voters care about -- but how he will govern.
The questions should revolve around issues. But the answers may be so closely tied, and may center about implementation instead. That's the argument, for example, against mandates in universal health coverage though Krugman (say), who never had to persuade anyone to agree with one of columns, still fails to comprehend.
April 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely true. Clinton would face rabid opposition from the Republicans, and I'm sure there would be some score-settling with Obama-supporting legislators, which would only be repaid in kind.
It might actually be better, should Clinton become the nominee, to have McCain win the general. In that event, he still accomplishes nothing and accrues all the blame for the Republicans.
A woman, yes, but not *that* woman......
April 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people wonder if he is so gentlemanly . . .
April 18, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louise Brooks, Janet Leigh, you have really made my day. These people who need to see a woman up there - any woman - are putting vanity before country, and refuse to see Clinton for the insecure thug she is. What really wins this for us all is women who are up there making us proud, showing and proving and all. I know it's nice to see - I do find myself feeling a little happy inside whenever Rachel Maddow says something smart on the CNN panel. I get it. But Clinton makes me writhe, and no, I'm not going to cut her all this slack because she's a woman. Because I'm a whatchamacallit - feminist - dagnabbit.
April 18, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"refuse to see Clinton for the insecure thug she is."
Well said. I love it!
April 18, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not bother watching the debate. I watched a Three Stooges Episode.
The usual Three Stooges stuff. One guy named Charlie used a baseball bat to assault a very refined African American Gentleman. After Charlie got tired of assaulting the Black Man, he then passed the baseball bat to a Stooge name George, who then wailed on the same African American Gentlemen, until Stooge number two grew tired of it. Then Stooge one, turned to Stooge number three, some one named Tuzla Mistake and asked her if she wished to have unlimited time with the baseball bat to punish the black man for not wearing a flag pin, and for having lived in the same large city as some guy who was a friend of two people that Tuzla Mistakes' husband had pardoned.
Tuzla Mistake said; thank you Charlie, and yes I would.
I bet you folks are all jealous that you wasted your time watching that boring debate, instead of catching that classic episode of The Three Stooges starring in: Only White Folks Don't Need To Wear Flag Pins.
April 18, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one, liam! LOL
April 18, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, sister HusseinTenax, another veteran of the gender wars here. One of the debates I remember having was how women should behave once we broke through a particular ceiling. Do we try to change the system from within with our so-called "female" social traits (consensus building, taking everyone's opinion into account, blah, blah), or, once we get on the playing field, do we start playing just like the boys?
There was also the opinion that if Americans were ever going to elect a woman president, it would have to be someone like Margaret Thatcher. A right wing "battle axe" who is just like the right wing white guy, only in a skirt.
I think some of our sisters are still stuck on that idea - that for a woman to make it she has to be just like the guys, only tougher and more ruthless. I don't know where Hillary's head is at, but I do agree with another poster here that I think she'd make a mess of the presidency. And then we won't see another woman president for years and years.
April 18, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
In order to take America to a more positive place, we will need some one who is Positive. It takes a great deal of restraint not to get angry, divisive, and down right dirty like some we know. Barack has shown that he is a man to lead us with great dispassion and willingness to be different. He will not even give street money to campaigns even when it might effect him adversely. He is different and he is change. We are lucky to have him.
April 18, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama walked into an ambush Wednesday. But he handled himself well and did not complain ... except to say it took nearly 45 minutes to get to any substantive issue. Conversely, when Obama had a chance to stick a knife in Hillary's back over Bosnia, he refrained. Now that's class. The next day he said to go hard against Republicans is fair game, but when dealing with a fellow Democrat, he feels compelled to use restraint: You do not sucker punch your own sibling. Hillary hasn't learned that lesson. In fact, precisely because of Hillary Clinton's overzealous, unrestrained negativity, the result is the story TPM posted earlier -- Howard Dean calling for Superdels to make a decision now. Get ready for one hell of a backlash.
April 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to you!
Andrew Sullivan takes note:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/can-obama-go-in.html
April 18, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, it looks like our fellow female Obama supporters are under seige from the Emily Listers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_el_pr/women_superdelegates_7
We have to get their backs.
April 18, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, this is my point entirely. I wouldn't support just any African American candidate - I didn't support Jesse Jackson. I don't think he'd be a good president.
It's stupid to narrow your voting focus down to an obsession with something that isn't supposed to be an issue in the first place.
April 18, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tina, Do you mind helping me with a little of topic question about this blog? Why when I go into my or someone eleses profile, it only shows stuff way back to march 23Rd and how do I fix that?
Also, how do you quote people?
April 18, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he is doing a great job:
http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/04/17/did-obama-give-hillary-the-finger-today/
What a gentleman.
April 18, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adrienne,
From the splitting hairs department:
To be more precise than I guess I was in my first reaction to your words, I think your conclusion about Obama's motive for not attacking Hillary LEAVES OPEN the interpretation that he's conniving. And my fault lies in not being precise enough to avoid the specious claim that you think he was being conniving.
Why might our discussion be important, more like splitting logs than hairs? It's because all of the attacks against him boil down to him being deceitful, of harboring qualities and beliefs inconsistant with his behavior and words on the campaign trail. I think he suffered especially in this last debate from not helping viewers see through the personal attacks, and I haven't read anything yet that is clear and compelling enough for him to prevent the effects of these attacks.
On to my next blog in which I try to fill that bill. I'm toying with the title, Defeating the Guilt By Association Ploy: A Recommendation to Obama
April 18, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally see your point. And I love the care with which you have responded. I guess my fault lies in believing in the message of Obama so much so that I am more inclined to block out those who respond in so negative a manner - must be something I picked up from my Mom. I would certainly be horrified if my position were to convince someone with a more pernicious view of politics that he was using his own philosdphy as a tactic. But I know you are right that they are out there...
April 18, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adrienne,
From the splitting hairs department:
To be more precise than I guess I was in my first reaction to your words, I think your conclusion about Obama's motive for not attacking Hillary LEAVES OPEN the interpretation that he's conniving. And my fault lies in not being precise enough to avoid the specious claim that you think he was being conniving.
Why might our discussion be important, more like splitting logs than hairs? It's because all of the attacks against him boil down to him being deceitful, of harboring qualities and beliefs inconsistant with his behavior and words on the campaign trail. I think he suffered especially in this last debate from not helping viewers see through the personal attacks, and I haven't read anything yet that is clear and compelling enough for him to prevent the effects of these attacks.
On to my next blog in which I try to fill that bill. I'm toying with the title, Defeating the Guilt By Association Ploy: A Recommendation to Obama
April 18, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find all - ok, most of the posts here, refreshing.
I have always found it offensive when someone deems I am "unamerican" if I don't do something a certain way - whether it wasn't supporting Ronald Reagan, our rape of Panama for political gain in 1990 or not being a Dallas Cowboys' fan during Super Bowl XIII.
That is why, as a man, I am offended about this thing that a number of feminists have come up with lately, that if you don't back Hillary, you're against all women. It's another version of "If you're not for us, you're against us," argument. It not only defeats the concept of feminism, in my view, it is also 'anti-american.'
I have, and will continue to support, women in political office, at all levels. I could support Pelosi as a presidential candidate, or Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, to name just two off the top of my head.
When I vote for someone it's because I feel they're more qualified or they're better able to grow into the job they're seeking. Hillary, in my humble judgment, does not fit the bill (no pun intended). Obama does.
Remember when all the rightwingnuts were running around the country during the Lewinsky situation, saying "I don't think he's setting a good example for my children"? I do.
Obama's civility and obvious courage are just two of the traits I want in my children.
See? Some guys get it. Just took an extra bit of hot air to get there...lol...
April 18, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just saw this - I'm sorry I didn't see it sooner. I don't know the answer to your profile question. The quotation html is simple:
put blockquote between the arrows and to close put /blockquote between the arrows.
:)
April 18, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
about that finger or two:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10162
lovely flagpin smackdown:
http://pomoco.typepad.com/postmodern_conservative/2008/04/my-elitism.html
Now I have to actually leave the house.
Luvya,
P
April 18, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adrienne's exactly right: Obama, as the leader, knows he has to be able to mobilize his base plus Hillary's in the fall. He may eventually win some of the Hillary extremists over but he has to hold back with Hillary to avoid alienating the majority of Hillary voters. And he knows he could make them loath him by appearing to victimize her.
Of course, the Hillary faithful will say he already has, but they're not going to agree with anything I say. Should I say screw 'em? No. I don't.
It's hard to imagine an aggressive Obama. But if Thursday's "twist the knife" speech was any indication, Obama can lay it on thick with ease, even with joy, while still staying on message. And once Obama can pivot (his word) to take shots at McCain we may actually end up feeling sorry for the old man.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/17/obama-clinton-used-debate-to-twist-the-knife/
April 18, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
:) Thanks Tina.....
Anyhow, Cant keep track of where I posted...Oh Well
April 18, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Tina....Tena.....lol...Im horrible with names...Thanks again!
April 18, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not like I'm good with names or that 90% of people make the same error.
It's ok.
:)
Sorry I couldn't help on the profile thing - someone else surely knows - ask DF if you see him around.
April 18, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He can't win those women if they hate him for destroying Hillary."
Once they start paying attention to McCain and what he stands for, there is not a woman in the party who will take the chance of letting him win. Obama said it the other day: there are things you can say when you're running against a Republican that you shouldn't say about a fellow Democrat. Too bad Hillary doesn't subscribe to that philosophy.
April 18, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, 93 comments and no one has hit it up yet. Well, here goes: Did you just throw your mother under the bus?
April 18, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this post.
You are so right.
How Obama is thinking ahead, and I agree with the your assessment, though from a different angle. I've told others - Obama can't be seen as that 'Big Black Brute' beating up on that 'Poor Defenseless White Woman'.
Only commentator to break it down like that was on Hardball, when a Black REPUBLICAN Female - Michelle Bernard told it just like it is, and that Joan Whatshername from ' We called Obama UPPITY' Salon.com, poo-pooed it. But, Bernard was on the money.
Obama understands what's at stake. And, he's known how to run this campaign. HOW he's run his campaign is the most important part of his strategy for success.
April 19, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment