Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
RTFM
In the world of technology there is a very old saying (which has not surprisingly been reduced to an acronym). RTFM: Read The Fine Material or, when delivered with derision to someone who should have done so in the first place, Read The F***ing Manual. Richard Reeves has an interesting take on just why it is that the inevitability of the Clinton campaign went from inevitable win to inevitable loss: Obama and crew read the manual. Specifically:
Last Thursday, about a year too late, I read the "2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention." Not a fun read, I must add, which may be the reason Sen. Hillary Clinton, or her people, and most of the press, did not read or understand its 25 dense pages.
He goes on to note a fact contained in these pages which is now well known:
"Seventy-five percent (75%) of each state's base delegation shall be
elected at the congressional district level or smaller ...
"Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the
expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary
voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus
participants."
In other words, using terms of political art, the Democrats have
rejected "winner-take-all" elections in favor of "proportional
representation." The best example of that is what happened in Texas:
Clinton won 50.9 percent of the overall vote to 47.4 percent for Obama.
But because of the way the votes were divided by counties, Obama won 99
delegates to 94 for Clinton.
Of course, observing that proportional allocation is what has allowed Obama to capture and maintain an insurmountable lead is nothing new at this point in the game. However, I think his final observation does forward an interesting idea on the possible difference in culture here:
This is not a new thing in presidential politics. In my experience, the
new guys, new managers, usually win. And Axelrod was the new guy, as Karl Rove was the new guy in 2000, and before him there was James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, Lee Atwater, Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell.
The new guys win because they have to learn the rules from scratch. The
old guys play by old rules, run the same old campaigns that worked
before -- and it is often too late for them when they realize the game
has changed. Poor Hillary and her strategist Mark Penn just didn't get
it.
The full article is here.
Comments (125)
Apologies for the formatting. I had mistaken trusted that it too may have been fixed.
April 16, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama hit every area he could hit.
That's why he's winning this thing.
I first heard about him through word of mouth from a coworker who had seen him on Oprah. Based on that endorsement alone, I was disdainful.
But my coworker urged me to read Obama's books. At the same time, she and I heard that there was an Obama meeting taking place in Manhattan, down in Soho at some guy's apartment -- and we went. We took the train together into NYC and then we hopped on a subway, not sure where to get off, but luckily we got off near Columbus and found the damn place, after walking westside for I don't know how many blocks.
We find this guy's place and it's packed. Packed.
This was in February of 2007 in Manhattan and we're seeing people overflow this huge, gorgeous loft apartment and everyone is full of ideas about how to raise awareness of Obama and his 2002 speech against Iraq. We're all looking at each other, complete strangers, and nodding our heads in agreement that something special has come along, and we're asking each other how do we help it grow?
We all come up with ideas and exchange emails, and the next thing I know Obama has a website that embraces the group I just met, and asks us to continue along for the ride, and here I am a year later and I'm still enjoying the ride.
So, yeah. The old rules don't apply anymore.
That's what makes Obama...Obama.
April 17, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that I don't understand is all of the people who seem to be so sure that it's better to bank on Hillary "Sure-thing" Clinton. None of them really seem to be able to explain it beyond lacquering her with adjectives like tough and tested. The only they do seem capable of explaining is that the new fella is scary! Well, buckle up, kids. And maybe get yourself a helmet. Life is scary, but banking on your fears is never a good idea. We could use some new rules and I like the idea of someone who actually bothers to RTFM.. something that Hillary should have done before her AUMF vote.
April 17, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm totally perplexed by this as well - one of the main reasons I looked for a different candidate to support was a belief that she's the most unelectable Democrat.
I think it's based on two things: some people think she's "earned" the nomination more than other candidates, especially someone as new on the national scene as Obama. From my personal experience, this is a big deal for some party activists in the older age range. Second, it is a simplistic but totally inaccurate belief that name recognition is priceless.
What is lost on many people I think in all of this is the distrust of the Clinton name for the majority of people, even outside of the right wing nutballs. Distrust and dishonesty are not two words Democrats want hanging on the nominee in the fall.
April 17, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I originally opposed Obama because in my experience as an observer, it takes one national race before the candidate gets his "sea legs" under him. by the time Super Tuesday was over, I realized that the rule does not apply to Obama.
At least not much.
And the Hillary Clinton who I expected to understand the issues and the election process seemed to be trying to rerun Bill's old campaign strategies from the 90's.
This is definitely not the 90's. When the inevitable problems appeared, her campaign has made awkward shifts in message and tactics. Unfortunately they have never revamped the strategy, unless that is what Penn's departure say. Even if that's true, it's too late.
I expect some more gaffes out of Obama, some he makes and some foisted onto him. But he has demonstrated that he is highly adaptable, which Hillary clearly is not. That makes Obama a moving target for the wingers, while Hillary is trying to sell herself as an impregnable redoubt.
I still think either candidate can beat McCain. The circumstances surrounding this election make his nomination ridiculous. If he campaigns to take independents, he loses his own base, at least at the margins. But Hillary's lack of flexibility in the nomination campaign has amazed me, almost as much as Obama's ability to do the right things and keep moving.
And an Obama nomination will have real coattails for Democrats in Texas, while a Clinton nomination will be a bad negative for our local Democratic candidates.
So now I'm depending on Obama to deliver the White House, and with luck, Sen. Jon Cornyn's Texas seat.
April 18, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF, why did you choose not to watch the debate? I'm curious.
April 17, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
After 20 friggin debates, I think the more relevant question is why would anyone choose to watch another?
April 17, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because there are definite repercussions for the PA primary. But if there ever was a debate not to watch, this was the one.
I'm still pissed.
April 17, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
No particular reason except that ABC didn't broadcast it live out here. By the time Ben Hocking supplied me with a stream link I was doing some other things. And, to be perfectly honest, I found the last two debates to be torturous. There's really nothing left to discuss. The primary calendar has really drawn this thing out and dragged it through the mud. After listening to Clinton harangue on the minutiae of her health plan for sixteen straight minutes in the last one I knew there was nothing left to say.
I'll probably watch it at some point, but from all of the commentary all over the web it seems that it was pretty terrible. If there was some compelling reason I'd go ahead and do it, but I really don't have much trouble believing that ABC did an awful job and that nothing redeeming went down. However, if there's something you think that I missed then please let me know.
April 17, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't miss much - except maybe her threatening war with Iran, other than that, pretty ho hum.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/hillary-vows-massive-retaliati.php
April 17, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honey, you didn't miss a thing.
April 17, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your word is good enough for me, Lis. ;)
April 17, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
RTFM a term uttered in many an IRC room.
Hitlary and Wolfcub read a different manual. The manual they read was the "We're Entitled Scumbags And We Don't Give A Shit About Rules- Rules Are For Losers"
April 17, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
IRC is not the place to go for help, a fact that has always amused me because it's full of knowledgeable people idling all day long. However, the unsuspecting inquisitor will rue the day. Actually, RTFM is far less prevalent since Google. The canned "did u bother 2 google it??" has become boilerplate.
April 17, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhhh boilerplates- A Sargent vocabulary staple.
The key to getting help on IRC is seeming or actually being more intelligent than those on IRC, which in the case of the latter, presents you with the position of not being able to get any friggin help from the jackoffs in the room. But it does allow you to ridicule those less fortunate who wander in after you or help them- whatever your preference. IRC has only been useful for meeting nerdy chicks from Iceland or bullshitting with equally bored timewasters, at least for me. Pretty much newsgroups with faster turnaround.
BTW - Your avatar is Conan's homey ;) I see you playa
April 17, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and there are some cool channels on freenode where you can still get help without being verbally lambasted for asking an on-topic question.
April 17, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that the really knowledgeable people probably wrote the manuals in the first place, and they see no reason to waste their time on people who are unwilling to expend a minimal effort towards self-education. Hence 'RTFM'. Answering the same questions over and over gets boring.
April 17, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not what you missed. It's what you maintained, by making that choice ... which is your equanimity.
I'm still mad as fuck!
April 17, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it makes you feel any better, I would have taken the ride just like everyone else had it been on before all of the fine commentary here and elsewhere. I guess maybe you can take solace in that you took one for the team? Or maybe that I didn't take one? Sorry, that's the best I can do, man!
April 17, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I started watching a vid of it today - I followed it live here last night.
I had to stop the vid I was getting so mad.
April 17, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, your avatar: is that a picture of you or Jimmy Carl Black? Just wondering.
I didn't watch the debate, either. On the West Coast (Oakland), they ran it three hours old. By then I'd already gotten the fully digested consensus: crap. Plus I've seen all the low-lights. PLUS, I've read all the fine analysis of TPM members.
So I decided that I'll just stick with Obama, because I love him. (And Hillary's a monster and a whore, who should be McCain's V.P.)
Oh, and everybody should check out this hilarious, absolutely perfect, totally brilliant YouTube satire of Barack as Rocky ("Baracky"):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA
April 17, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a picture of me or Jimmy Carl Black, although that's a good guess if you read my profile. Actually, there's only person here that has recognized it and that's Billy Glad.
April 17, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mars Bonfire?
April 17, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, since you asked twice I'll tell you. It's erstwhile actor Gerry Lopez in his role as Conan's thieving sidekick Subotai from the 1982 film Conan the Barbarian. Gerry is actually a top-notch surfer and ended up being called in for casting when no other suitable Subotai could be found. I think he was an acquaintance of John Milius or someone else involved with the film. He also starred in the 1987 film North Shore, which was a very natural role for him given that it was about surfing the pipeline in Hawaii.
April 17, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
so rather than watch the debate you copped some of that good sturgeon, typical
April 17, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad knew all that? He sure is smart. (But his avatar looks mean.)
April 17, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he knew it was Subotai, but he's apparently a film buff from what I've seen. In fact, his blog indicates that he was a film-maker of sorts in a previous life.
April 17, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truth revealed!! Billy does know his films, 'specially sci fi.
April 17, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still like you anyway. ;-)
April 17, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, now you know the true story of my avatar!
April 17, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come clean, DF. The posts aren't yours either, are they? You've got one man's face and another one's words. You're nothing but a fraud.
April 17, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true. I'm actually channeling the spirit of H.L. Mencken.
April 18, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
For Hillary, this is all doubly true--for she really did live through all this before. And so was entirely caught off guard when the rules changed--i.e. Texas.
We did not watch the debate, though we recorded it in case. But, frankly, this thing is over--all of this is just street theater. No debate is going to change anything. We knew the media would be playing gotcha--though we had no idea how bad it would be--and that nothing substantive would be discussed or revealed. And i almost threw something at our TV at something Hillary said the other night. And if I broke the TV, how would we watch our Netflix?
April 17, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, she essentially admitted that they were unaware of the Texas rules. I'm still not sure if I buy this entirely, but she never had the look of being prepared so there's a good chance that this simply wasn't an excuse.
April 17, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
anneeliz & DF
Texas did not change rules in the middle of the game. It has always been like this for the past 30 or so years.
Bill Clinton knew this, he campaigned here.
Everyone knew, but Hillary thought she was inevitable. So believing she had cinched the nomination her campaign did not plan beyond Super Tuesday. Worse they did not even have a plan "B". Once they realized the race was still on Hillary had to scramble to put a team in place for Texas.
And the rest is history.
BTW Most Texans were not aware of the caucus. LOL It was a secret evidently. Texas is funny like that ... I know, I live here.
April 17, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yeah. The main question in my mind when she claimed that the Texas rules were confounding was how she could possibly not know this since she's married to two-time President (no pun intended) Bill Clinton.
April 17, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's as if Clinton was trapped by her own "inevitability" strategy. How could she muster the requisite certainty to bully donors and party regulars into supporting her candidacy if they saw her preparing for a long, hard-fought campaign? Inevitability was all she had going for her, so she couldn't risk bursting that bubble. Once everyone realized that she was not "inevitable," she morphed into a "fighter," but she was fighting for herself, and fighting to bring down Obama, never fighting on behalf of a constituency.
I hope to see a detailed analysis at some point of the $$ end of her campaign. To what extent was money transferred from donors to friends and allies who drew huge salaries working for the campaign? Was the inevitability factor (the assurance that Clinton would be President) used as leverage to produce $$ for Clinton's business deals and the Clinton Foundation? Lumping tax returns for the past 6 years obscures the fact that most of that $109M came in after her White House intentions were evident.
April 17, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My final summation of the experience of watching the debate tonight:
Obama filled his mouth with gravel and tried to speak over the sound of the pounding surf.
That's all I can see or hear in my mind at this point. Was it Cicero that did that?
April 17, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demostenes
April 17, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, thinking about it with a somewhat cooler head, when one realizes that H. Clinton, C. Gibson and G Stephi of ABC and S. Hannity (who G. Stephi got some of his questions from) all joined forces to attempt a massive hit job on Obama during the debate, then you begin to understand just how powerful he truly is.
Obama is a Supreme Threat to the status quo.
And they certainly are acting like it.
April 17, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like that e-mail you spammed here and on other sites? You know the one that factcheck pointed out was a bunch of lies.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html
Any fool could see it was bs but you kept spamming it here even after several people pointed out how erroneous it was.
And then there was that brilliant insightful analysis of the debate you posted. What was the title again? Oh yeah, "Hillary Clinton IS A PHUCKIN BIOCH!" You're a true intellectual, I'll even repost the whole analysis. "There, I had to say it. I absolutely cannot believe her silly ass!"
April 17, 2008 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they really are.
Both Bill and Hillary are still on the same wave length they've been on - I just read another statement where she was praising McCain for his environmental stance. Said she'd do better, but he was making a good start.
god she does make it hard for a body to contemplate actually voting for her if it came to that. Harder every day.
April 17, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's like it was all white noise and harpies. Hillary could have been a carboard cut-out stand-up for half of the evening. After that experience, Obama should be well-prepared for whatever the general debates throw at him.
Obama sure was given a crash-course refresher of the Slime-Ball Manual of Gotcha Debate Technique tonight.
April 17, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama still stands up straight and tall. That's what matters after all.
And Dinto's still sexy, in my eyes.
April 17, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
LisB
Mine, too. *S*
April 17, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a hard time imagining that Obama would have a hard time with McCain, but I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens.
April 17, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt. McCain is toast. He's not a major league presidential candidate. I don't see him being able to go toe-to-toe with either Clinton or Obama. But that's not his biggest liability. After all, W wasn't even a minor league candidate. The biggest problem for McCain is that the republican side is not fired up at all. My (admittedly few) republican acquaintances have no fight in 'em at all this time around, or so it seems.
April 17, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
None of them really seem to be able to explain it beyond lacquering her with adjectives like tough and tested.
--------------------------------------------------
This is bs. There's been plenty of threads detailing why people prefer Clinton that say much more then she's a fighter. I've seen you participate in some of them so I know you know they exist. For example there was a long thread comparing the 2 health care plans with many Clinton supporters explaining why they liked her's better. This is just more of your partisan hackery
April 17, 2008 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat, I think ur drowning in stupidity.
April 17, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tweeeet! Offsetting penalties: Goading and ad hominem attack. Please retreat to your corners.
April 17, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the problem: Simply saying she's a fighter doesn't make her one and I've never seen it justified. This is probably the fifth or sixth time you've accused me of partisan hackery instead of just explaining why you think she's such a fighter, so who's the partisan hack? Excuse the hell out of me, but I just don't see it. She's never really accomplished much of anything as far as I can tell with the exception of passing a few minor pieces of legislation with regard to child welfare. Oh, yeah, she also rubber-stamped the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, so I guess that's something. Seriously, feel free to drop the name-calling and actually made a fact-based, substantive argument any time. I won't be holding my breath.
As for the healthcare plans, I've called out her so-called "universal" healthcare plan as smoke and mirrors and I'll be glad to do it again. She doesn't do anything to curtail insurance industry profits and she doesn't explain how she'll enforce her mandate. She doesn't want to actually make it a federal tax and she doesn't really want to garnish wages. She doesn't explain how her mandates will succeed when a very similar plan of mandates is failing in MA as we speak. She doesn't explain why these mandates, when not applied as a tax, would be any more successful than, say, mandated auto-insurance. So, you or anyone else are free to prefer her plan all you want, but this doesn't really say anything about her except that she differs slightly on policy.
April 17, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree that she's a fighter. Her scorched earth, chronically negative campaign proves it, just as other aspects of her campaign prove that she's a crappy manager who can't balance a budget or keep managers who report to her in check.
I just think the Shrum-Gore-Edwards 'fighty' meme smells like two day old fish at the moment. I only liked it when Gore was down 17% and fought back with the populist pitch. It should not be our general approach as Democrats, and certainly not in a general tilted toward us. It's our 50% +1 path, and this year should not be that. It's what would be wrong with Hillary even if she were ahead and inevitable.
The partisan hackery that drives me nuts is the "he's an empty suit, but she's substantive." I don't like her, but she's smart. So's he. They both have plans, arguably needlessly overly elaborated ones. These things are obvious.
So yes, she fights, they're both substantive, blah blah f'ing blah.
April 17, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker has already made the appropriate call on this one: She doesn't fight for people, she fights with people. That's something that I can agree with.
Personally, and I know many disagree with me, I don't even find her to be particularly substantive. Sure, she can quote policy proposals and talking points chapter and verse, but I find her to be almost completely phoney at this point. That's my opinion and I'm not going to apologize to anyone for it.
I won't deny that she's intelligent, but intelligence doesn't come in one simple flavor. I have serious questions about whether she has the appropriate intelligence required for the job that she's applying for.
If this makes me a "partisan hack", whatever the hell that actually means in a context where I'm being called that because I simply don't approve of one Democratic candidate, then whatever the hell oceankat says must be right. Right?
April 17, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
*basically agreeing*
April 17, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I didn't mean to point any animosity at you, articleman. I'm just pretty much fed up with being called names because I didn't pick Hillary Clinton. I've been called naive, misogynistic, cult-like, short-sighted, gullible and on and on and on and now I'm a partisan hack just because I don't happen to think that Hillary Clinton or her supporters have made a very substantive argument for her candidacy. And I think you already made the perfect point about how one-sided this is, given all of the "empty-suit" nonsense. Anyhow, stay funny and I'll shut up now!
April 17, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that you keep saying that Hillary's supporters don't post anything except that she's a fighter. You know its not true, you're lying. You've participated in several threads where Hillary's supporters discussed why they prefer her policy positions. You may disagree with their opinions but its a lie to say they weren't posted. I think I'm right on target calling you a partisan hack because you know better.
Asking me to explain why I think she's a fighter just ignores that main point. That there are so many other reasons I and other Hillary supporters have posted as to why they prefer her as the nominee.
As for her health care plan, its been discussed to death here. But I'll point out that Obama's plan has mandates too that he hasn't explained how they are going to be enforced. Nor does Obama say how he's going to be able to afford to pay for those who opt out and then end up in emergency rooms. He just keeps repeating what I believe to be nonsense, that if its affordable everyone will join up. So yes, I favor mandates and hillary's plan, even though it has weaknesses and I would prefer single payer. By the way, so does Edwards, who I supported before I supported Hillary, and his wife.
April 17, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I said is that her supporters lacquer her with adjectives that I don't think stick. Just because her supporters state they like her positions better doesn't mean that they've made substantial or convincing arguments. I've yet to see one.
Just because I participate in discussions where I make this opinion clear doesn't mean that I'm somehow now disavowing that they took place. They did and do, but I have yet to see anything other than the sort of insubstantial nitpicking that you display here RE: healthcare. Mandates are a problem period and EVERYONE in the party except for Kucinich is dodging the issue, IMHO, which is why I could give a shit about people like you and Billy Glad trying to make contortions to say her plan is better than Obama's. It's absolute nonsense.
You might be "right on target", but only in the sense that you've been calling me names since the beginning. If I'm a partisan hack, you're a fluffball. You've got nothing, so who cares what kind of name you call me?
April 17, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate how progressives have this all or nothing mentality. It's what gave us gay marriage before gay equal rights. Same thing -- we must have universal health care -- which is how we set its cause back 15 years. HRC is so _not tactical_ on this. Sometimes you need to build change into status quo incrementally. It's hard to repeal wider health care, or broader rights -- the point is not to kill consensus leaping in one moment for the whole deal.
April 17, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not quite sure that I'm catching the parallel here. If you're saying what I think you're saying I believe that I would agree with you, but would you mind elaborating just a bit? I think this a worthwhile point to make.
April 17, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of them really seem to be able to explain it beyond lacquering her with adjectives like tough and tested.
---------------------------------------------------
The fact is many of them have explained why they support Clinton time and time again. While many believe she's a fighter that is usually the smallest piece of the reasoning. Like any partisan hack you want to forward the meme that Hillary's supporters have nothing to say except she's tough and tested, a fighter. You've said it several times in several different ways. Its a lie and you know it.
If mandates are a problem why did you solely attack Clinton over them as you main argument against her plan? Why not both of them? I know how every discussion is going to go here. Just reruns. You know damn well that the flaw you're attacking in Hillary's plan is one that exists in Obama's as well. Even knowing that you're still going run through the talking points and attack her over them.
Stating my, Billy's, or other's opinions on health care is "absolute nonsense" isn't a convincing argument and it doesn't elevate you into the pantheon of intellectual giants. And you call me a fluffball? rotflmao. I still remember you distorting the data on health care from opensecrets to attack Hillary. When I called you on it and proved you wrong you backed down like a kiddie caught with his hand in the cookie jar. So I know who the hack is and who's not. And so do you. As a man who actually has some insight and intelligence aren't you ashamed to be using your abilities to spin rather than to enlighten and educate? Or is winning all that matters to you?
April 17, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Likewise, you can keep calling me hack and liar. Prove it. I remember that thread. It's what I said then and it's what I'll say now and I'll use the same facts to back it up. Prove that I'm lying. Show me the data. You didn't show me a damned thing, I didn't back down and I won't back down because you're wrong. You didn't understand the CRP data, that's the problem.
Keep calling me a liar. You're and unsubstantial fluffball and I dare you to make one of these vaporous cogent arguments. Go ahead. Like I've said before, I won't hold my breath.
Seriously. Give me one link. One concrete example. You won't. You'll run away like you did last time you called me a liar, which is what really happened.
You won't. You're juvenile and all you have is name-calling at your disposal.
April 17, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not the only one who called you on your spin in this thread.
First you claim:
"Anyone who thinks that she is serious about her initiatives, like health care reform, should take a careful look at her campaign contributions."
When you were called on it by others you stated:
"Here's the real deal with the current state of Clinton and the health care industry:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=H"
When it was pointed out:
"Clinton, Hillary -- $3,949,534
Obama, Barack--$3,210,449
Hum, I'm not sure that your link is terribly convincing on this point,"
You responded:
"Right, except that had you understood my post you would realize that every dollar in Obama's column is from an individual donor, not a PAC. Read the fine print: METHODOLOGY: The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC.
Clinton lives in the pocket of special interests, period."
So I got into it and posted:
"Nice spin.
As has been posted total contributions from the health care sector for
Clinton, Hillary -- $3,949,534
Obama, Barack--$3,210,449
And all of Obama's is from individuals. Clinton's total PAC contributions from all sources is 1,045,419. Let's assume two thirds of those PAC contributions are from the health care industry. I think that's a more than fair estimate, comes to $696,964. Subtracting that from Clinton's total health care contributions we see that Clinton got $3,252,570 from individuals and Obama got $3,210,449. Wow, apparently individuals from the health care sector support Clinton more than Obama financially.
True, Obama accepted no PAC money. But only 1% of Clinton's campaign contributions came from PACs. one per cent from PACs. That hardly seems like she's bought and paid for.
Ok, I'll admit it. As accurate as my numbers are, from the same site as DF, its all spin. There's simply not enough information to follow the money. Much of the so called "individual" contributions are the result of bundlers, well connected backers holding parties for wealthy to meet the candidate, high dollar gala events, 1000 dollar plate dinners. There's all kinds of ways to get around the campaign finance laws. Both sides get money this way and its all listed as "individual" contributions. "Individual" contributions, all done with a wink wink nudge nudge. I really hate to shill for my candidate with such spin like this but its the only way to counter the spin from the other side."
Your response to me:
"Opensecrets doesn't really provide enough data to go very deep on this (for that you have to go straight to the FEC.)"
So what is it DF? is opensecrets the real deal or doesn't it provide enough data to go deep? I'd welcome you to use the data at opensecrets to prove that "Clinton lives in the pocket of special interests, period." You tried to spin it that way and you backed down as soon as I pointed out your spin. You never challenged my post. I didn't understand the data at opensecrets? Why did you back right down after my post? Why didn't you point out my error then? Please do so now.
I point out less than a tenth of your gross spin on this site. Its not worth the effort. But I do think you are one of the biggest contributors to the degradation of this site. Some of your contributions are great but no matter how low the thread you're there. Like on Bionicsoy's, "Hillary Clinton IS A PHUCKIN BIOCH!" thread, you're always there to join the slime.
What bothers me is you know better. You're capable of much better. Some here just aren't following the issues and haven't looked into it enough to discuss them with sophistication. You have looked into them and you can engage in sophisticated dialog. You have the intellectual stature to engage in honest and rational dialog. Yet instead you choose to spin and hope you can fool the less informed and that those who can see through it don't respond.
April 17, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing here to challenge and what I said is accurate. The CRP data does not tell us exactly how much of the PAC money Clinton has accepted came from the healthcare sector. It does not "go deep enough" in this respect in that we cannot derive an exact figure simply from opensecrets. If you wanted to sift through the FEC data on your own you could, but if you've looked at the FEC data you'll know that drawing these conclusions is not a simple task. And either way we know that Obama's PAC contributions from the healthcare sector, or any sector for that matter, are nonexistent. This doesn't make him perfect, but it's a start and I happen to think it counts.
It looks to me like you think you totally "got me" and that you simply don't like my characterization of "she lives in the pocket" etc. Gee, I'm sorry, oceankat. She doesn't live in the pocket. She just takes about as much lobbyist money as anyone in Congress and she doesn't seem to think it's a problem:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FaAkcXynqLA
It's true that this is usually only something like 1-2% for Presidential candidates, but it's as much as 40% for members of the House. Personally, I have a problem with this. If you don't, that's fine. Is that better? Will you forgive me for a hyperbolic expression? I had forgotten that no one around here, least of all yourself, has made any hyperbolic expressions here. You certainly haven't made any about me in this very thread. You're better than that, right?
You want to rag on me for "spin" and "slime". Fine, here's your spin. This is my "slime" from BionicSoy's thread:
Gee, how slimy. How spinny. What a terrible person I am for not being able to stomach Hillary Clinton's crass and phoney whiskey-swilling and folksy gun stories.
Seriously, I don't need your damnation by faint praise. I don't really care what you think of me or what standard you think I'm not living up to. I'm just a reader blogger like everyone else, but somehow you want to lay the so-called demise of TPM at my doorstep and then tell me that I'm capable of so much more.
Get over yourself.
April 17, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing here to challenge and what I said is accurate. The CRP data does not tell us exactly how much of the PAC money Clinton has accepted came from the healthcare sector.
--------------------------------------------------
Yeah df, after I called you on your spin suddenly your remarks about opensecrets were accurate. Before that you were holding it up as the "real deal" and telling others that their "links were not relevant." (shrug) No it doesn't tell how much PAC money Clinton has accepted from the health care sector but it does tell us that only 1% of her total contributions come from PACs. Now you're seriously telling me that the 1% is the cause of your hyperbole when the whole premise of your blog was that Obama was clean and "Clinton lives in the pocket of special interests, period." And that opensecrets was the evidence that proves it.
"Some might even say that those who persist in this belief in the face of the evidence I've presented are drinking the Kool-Aid, to use the parlance of the day."
It was this that provoked me to get involved in that discussion. You bragging about your so called evidence from your so called "real deal" site when it was obvious that your site had no evidence to support your claims and it was all spin. I still have yet to see that evidence.
April 17, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I was correcting either workerbee or BevD because one of them supplied a link to the CRP data on the insurance industry at large when this concerns not only health insurance, but all insurance companies.
Are we seriously still discussing this? The CRP data is an accessible survey of FEC data. My blog was not entirely about Obama's refusal to accept PAC money, but also about the larger issue of his propensity toward transparent government. Another component of this is his work on Coburn-Obama which can now be utilized at USASpending.gov.
You don't like my characterization? Fine. It doesn't matter to you? Fine. It was hyperbolic? Fine. You want to walk around with a stick up your ass for the rest of your life because of any of these options? Fine.
Seriously? The point over healthcare became narrowed in the comments of my blog because workerbee, BevD and I got into a discussion over healthcare specifically. However, the point in my blog was about the larger point that Obama does not take PAC money, something that is easily evidenced on opensecrets. It's something that you know. You've seen the evidence of this so I have no idea what in the hell you're still going on about. You don't happen to think it matter. I do.
What you're apparently REALLY objecting to is my choice of words. This is pretty laughable coming from someone who supports HRC. How about this? I misspoke. Surely this is forgivable. Or perhaps you're holding me to a higher standard than the person who is running for President.
April 17, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you're apparently REALLY objecting to is my choice of words.
---------------------------------------------------
What I'm objecting to is your distortion of facts to attack one candidate and support the other. Especially when its fairly clear that you know the truth. When you are capable of attacking Hillary with clear evidence and supporting Obama the same way. When it seems clear that you are engaging in spin rather than honest dialog. When I consider it very likely that you are not uninformed but know that you are twisting things.
I've got no stick up my ass over anything. There are several Obama supporters I respect here. You're just not one of them and I have no problem saying that and explaining why.
April 17, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't distort the facts. Obama doesn't accept PAC money. You know it, I know it and the FEC and CRP know it. You don't think this warrants me saying that HRC "lives in the pocket" of special interests. Fine. It's hyperbolic, which I've acknowledged, but the facts stand.
What about you accusing me of jumping into the slime and similar bullshit? Of course, you're not going to answer to your own standard. I've answered every accusation you've thrown at me, but you wouldn't dream of returning the favor.
I don't care what you think of me. The feeling is mutual. I'm not perfect by any means, but you contribute nothing. I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion and acknowledge my mistakes and overreaches. You're more interesting in distorting the story in your own way so that you can engage in your own hyperbole and call me a liar.
April 17, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment thread is getting dangerously close to the right margin, at which point TPM will explode.
April 17, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is reaching the right margin like dividing by zero?
April 17, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like crossing the streams.
Let's do it.
April 17, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woos. Are you scared?
April 17, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The flowers are still standing!
April 17, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we looking at an implosion or an explosion? How does this work?
April 18, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shit, we wasted an indent by cross posts.
April 18, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be distracted by my other post. This is the one that's going to make it.
April 18, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's going to happen when it's no longer wide enough for the avatar? Where's Egon when you need him?
April 18, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel like Han Solo and Luke Skywalker in the trash compactor.
April 18, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're about to lose the Reply link. Prepare for critical mass.
April 18, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't even see you, man. You're crossing over to the other side!!!!!
April 18, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
lpb, nice to see. You.
If you boys haven't recommended my snark, please hit it.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/angry-bloggers-demand-substanc.php
It's become so hard to make the list these days, I'm resorting to pushing it on other threads.
All right. Let's cross those streams.
April 18, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that I already recommended it, but I just hit it again in case I hadn't. When Gozer shows up what form should it take?
April 18, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
A troll.
Shit, now we're really wasting indents.
April 18, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown.
April 18, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretend for a moment that I don't anything about physics or metallurgy and just tell me what the hell is going on.
April 18, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. Duh. J. Edgar Hoover.
April 18, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong branch. Hit the one up thread.
April 18, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. It just disappears.
April 18, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF, I crossed over! I crossed over! I see stars and angels and shit.
April 18, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
...
April 18, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are now in the danger zone.
April 18, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's game, Hendrix.
April 18, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done, men. We've gone where no poster has gone before. Over to the OTHER SIDE. Too bad this is off the list, so there's no one to witness our feat.
April 18, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What was it like over there? Do the laws of physics as we know it still apply? Also, who is leading in pledged delegates on the OTHER SIDE?
April 18, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the other side, there are no pledged delegates. Anyone can be a delegates, and the delegates are all free to choose whomever they want and as many people as they want. Everyone gets nominated. Even Mike Gravel.
Don't ask about physics. Physics does not apply on the OTHER SIDE.
April 18, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Were you also surprised that they played the Wham! Rap on a continuous loop?
April 18, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got Wham? I heard The Cars. My Best Friend's Girl. Careful. I don't think I can handle going over again tonight.
April 18, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you hear whatever is in your heart. Uh oh... here we go again... is there time to call a babysitter?
April 18, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny story about Wham!: A friend of mine was once browsing used CDs and happened to be in the W's. As he passed the Wham! CDs he stopped to examine the selection. A very large African-American man was peering over his shoulder and suddenly stopped him with an exclamation.
"Hey! What do you know about Wham!?"
"Huh?"
"That's right! You don't know nothin' about Wham!"
April 18, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF, that was a really weird story, and it creeped me out. I think you need to stay away from other side.
April 18, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It creeped my friend out, too. I still don't understand what it means. It's kind of like a zen koan in that respect. Staying away from the other side might be good advice.
April 18, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh ...
April 18, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably a jet black guy with a hip hi fi.
April 18, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It just goes to show that the modern Wham! fan is as a serious as the modern political blogger.
April 18, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
April 18, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once more, into the breech!
April 18, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a close call
April 18, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh dear
April 18, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I'll even make it easy for you. Here's the deal with the mandates. Hillary Clinton holds up her larger mandate as a superior aspect of her plan. That's why I was addressing the mandates. I don't think there's any significant difference between Clinton's plan and Obama's plan. However, people like Krugman say that Obama's plan will leave 15 million people uninsured. As I've said before, I'm a fan of Krugman, but this is one of the more irresponsible stances I've seen him take because it's poorly justified. He has no way of knowing this and he hasn't reconciled it with the difficulties in MA. So this is the significant point: It is Hillary Clinton and her supporters who hold up her larger mandate as superior. I contest this because it can't be substantiated. It is conjecture at this point. I also, therefore, object to her calling her plan "universal" in contrast to Obama's plan. Either of the plans have the possibility of covering every American, but neither can, in fact, guarantee this.
Billy Glad made a similar argument, but he wrapped it in an emotional appeal by saying that Hillary Clinton's larger mandate gave her what the Chinese call jen, or human-heartedness. I reject this because it is simply an emotional appeal that attempts to seize some sort of moral high-ground which I frankly do not think exists. It is based on the assumptions above, which are conjecture and not substantiated by fact.
However, I will give Billy this: He might be arrogant at times and he may make emotional appeals that I do not think amount to valid arguments, but he's nothing if not honest about his point of view. And he's never called me a partisan hack or a liar for disagreeing with him.
As far as the CRP data from opensecrets.org, I'll say exactly what I said before: Obama does not accept PAC money. The CRP data backs this up. Also, Hillary Clinton accepts more money from the healthcare sector than any other member of Congress at this point. It's true that this includes individual contributions and it's also true that the contributions from PAC lobbies amount to something like a couple of hundred thousand dollars, but this is still money that buys access and influence and it is a difference between Clinton and Obama.
Also, I'll remind you of something that you said which I find is interesting in light of you calling me a liar. You said something to the effect of, "Come on, we've all lied to sell our candidates." So, I'm forced to wonder if this is an admission of lying on your part. If so, it's a rather interesting thing to be accusing other people of lying as if it means something to you. However, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, perhaps you simply misspoke.
April 17, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I'll remind you of something that you said which I find is interesting in light of you calling me a liar. You said something to the effect of, "Come on, we've all lied to sell our candidates."
-------------------------------------------
I have said no such thing. Please cut and paste that quote.
April 17, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't find it or I would paste it. The TPM system is too broken and the oldest post of mine is now from March 28th. I'm not even positive it was on one of my posts, but the archive doesn't seem to go back far enough. How did you find the quotes from my old post about Obama and campaign finance?
It might have been more to the effect of "You know you've lied to sell your candidate", but you definitely said it. I asked that you explain what you meant and you bailed. I'm guessing that if this is what you said instead that you were probably talking about what we're now discussing. At any rate, I can't prove that it happened and so I retract that last remark.
April 17, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said something to the effect of, "Come on, we've all lied to sell our candidates." So, I'm forced to wonder if this is an admission of lying on your part.
--------------------------------------------------
I have never said anything even remotely like this. This is a complete fabrication. I'm absolutely sure since I would never ever say anything like that. I do not lie, excepting when it is absolutely necessary if I'm confronted by the cops or another government official with power over me. I don't care enough about politics or any candidate to lie about it or even spin. That, I believe, is something you don't understand.
April 17, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I already said that I retract it and I offered a quote from you below which I may have been confusing for the quote in question. It's not exactly easy on this site to look at comment history and it's not much easier to come at it orthogonally with Google.
I do understand, especially from searching for your name and words like "lie", "liar" and "lying", that you apparently consider yourself the lie police and that you've uttered your creed about never lying on more than one occasion.
Fine. You never lie. You're perfect and I'm very proud of you. Hope it works out for you.
April 17, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't the encounter I was thinking of, but the language is similar:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/dont-like-the-divisive-tone-be.php#comment-2651004
Of course, I didn't lie and I explained this time what I explained before. You don't like my characterization or you don't think the distinction matters. Cool, whatever. You want to call me a liar? Whatever.
April 17, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me ask: do they get paid time and a half? I mean, the grounds crew has been slaving all day long for you, moving these goalposts.
April 17, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have I done my due diligence here? Can I feel free to bail on this pompous charade without compunctions at this point?
April 17, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Game over.
April 17, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because that's her argument. That's the only reason - they are parroting what she and her campaign keep saying.
There are two reasons why this is so stupid: first of all, as has been pointed out over and over, she's killed her own argument. She's literally thrown all the plumbing fixtures at Obama and not only is he still standing, he's still gaining. She just obliterated who own argument, which is to me a pretty good argument for how insane she is right now.
Secondly, and always - electability is bullshit anyway. How does one objectively -Objectively - measure electability? You can't because no one knows who is more electable until someone is actually elected. Did we learn nothing from '04?
April 17, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
her own argument.
Damn rented fingers.
April 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good article, and you certainly picked the money quotes.
April 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey DF, Thanks for the link to the Dan Savage article. Excellent choice for your offset doantion!
April 17, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think Savage is a pretty swell fella.
April 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh
Axlerod: RTFM
Penn: TLDR
;-)
Bethany
April 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that always comes to my mind when I hear the "fighter" meme is that, first of all, a fighter is what we've had for the last 16 years and all we've had is wars - internal and external. For me, a fighter is exactly what I don't want. Of course, being close in spirit to the Society of Friends but not interested in religion as part of my life, I realize that my aversion to "fighters" is not the norm for 21st c. America, or for that sad matter, for the rest of the earth.
But I do wonder just how many people in this country really want yet another "fighter" at the head of our government.
And watching Senator Obama brush the shit off his shoulders in Raleigh this afternoon, and the guffaws and cheers and roaring laughter as he did it (along with his coy little snicker), I am beginning to hope that maybe I'm actually no longer alone in my aversion to "fighters".
The other part of Mrs. Clinton which was a terrible mistake when her husband did it, and continues to be a terrible mess that we can not clean up any longer, was NAFTA. I watched that way back when and tried to grok what sort of Democrat this guy was and concluded that he wasn't my idea of a Democrat. And the subsequent years have hardly proven me wrong.
So I was certainly relieved when something else came along to compete with her and I still don't think I can vote for her for any reason.
April 17, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posting at spot no. 69.
April 17, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only trouble is that there's no way to tell this now without counting up the posts by timestamp. However, I will vouch for you as I saw it happen. Of course, I'm apparently a known liar so this vouching is not to be believed. Beware!
April 17, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment