Why I’ve Been Writing about Sens. Clinton and Obama
By NoQuarter on December 21, 2007 at 1:42 PM in Clinton, Current Affairs, Obama, Presidential Candidates
I know some of you have been unhappy with my posts of late — and one of our dearest regulars telephoned me about it last night. I care very much what you think. You deserve a short explanation: I’m scared to death the Democrats are going to nominate a smart young guy because he’s a “symbol” — who isn’t vetted sufficiently, doesn’t have enough experience (yet), and doesn’t get nearly the press scrutiny that Sen. Clinton gets. Joe Conason writes vividly about the scrutiny. And the WaPo’s Howie Kurtz cites examples galore in “For Clinton, A Matter of Fair Media,” and it’s a must-read in full:
“She’s just held to a different standard in every respect,” says Mark Halperin, Time’s editor at large. “The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he was applauded. When she does it, it’s treated as this huge violation of propriety.”
Then there’s that Barack Obama is Karl Rove’s dream candidate. To beat. Radio show host Taylor Marsh analyzed this brilliantly in “Why are Karl Rove and the Neocons Endorsing Barack Obama?.” Taylor Marsh, nobody’s fool, gives example after example — all must-reads — of why “in Republican back rooms everywhere, the wolves see a lamb coming to slaughter and they’re licking their chops.”
Then there’s Steve Clemon’s Washington Note post this morning, “Times of London on Obama’s Europe Void.” Steve, a serious foreign policy expert, was quoted in the UK’s Times on Obama’s failure to hold any hearings as chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs — and his post today explains why that’s cause for concern. (I’m also curious what Gen. Wes Clark thinks about no attention paid to NATO, under Obama’s purview.) Clemons is disturbed that his Obama-gaga friends claim Obama’s instincts make up for experience. But Steve, who knows the John Bolton saga like no one else, points out the difference in how Sens. Obama and Clinton handled his U.N. nomination.
Clemons closes with this kicker: “It still bothers me that Mike Huckabee has been to Europe and Obama hasn’t.”
It’s flabbergasting: Not only has Obama never been to Europe, but in his two years as chair of the Senate’s Foreign Relations’ subcommittee on European Affairs, he’s never visited the continent he’s in charge of.
Taylor Marsh has more great insights and observations:
- “The Matthews-Schultz Clinton Tantrum“:
Matthews’ message: Ignore the legislative record of the “junior senator from Illinois.” It is not relevant. What is important to him is that Hillary is a Clinton. That this woman must be stopped. Who has the best record on the issues and can beat back the Republican machine doesn’t matter to Matthews at all. Remember his insulting interview with John Edwards recently? But today he found a buddy in Ed Schultz. Air America’s Mark Green was the odd man out, as Matthews and Schultz went at Clinton, no doubt inspired by the lack of access and attention Clinton has given these men. If I had a choice I’d choose Keith Olbermann, too. Wouldn’t you? [...]
But still the double standard remains for Clinton coverage, especially on Chris Matthews’ “Hardball,” …
No one watches “Hardball” anymore. It’s been one of the disappointments in this primary season for me that progressives couldn’t have banded together to take Matthews down. But because he was bashing Hillary many didn’t seem to care. But Matthews’ desperation for relevancy, especially in the face of Keith Olbermann’s brilliance and ratings power, seems all the more pathetic given the stakes. If Mr. Matthews understood the urgency of vetting the Democratic candidate, especially his legislative record, or really cared what candidate Democrats serve up against the Republicans he would do his homework before spouting off. But he doesn’t care about Democrats, or that he’s trying to destroy the first viable female candidate in U.S. history. [...]
A lot has been written about Bill Clinton’s rocky relationship with the military during his presidency. However, you will not hear that from the military when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Simply put, she gets it. I’ve heard many say just that, including Wesley Clark and Joe Sestak, among others, most of which is based on her tireless efforts for our soldiers and veterans. I don’t doubt for a second that Mr. Obama supports our veterans and troops, but the record on action is worrisome, especially as this all adds up. … Read all.
- “Obama’s ‘Present’ Vote Ignored Dangers of Sex Shops Near Schools“:
I’m getting quite a lot of heat these days for my posts on Mr. Obama. Frankly, I don’t care because when a man running for office hasn’t been vetted by the media or our own party, it’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it. I talked about the “live birth abortion” and Obama’s “present” vote, over which no doubt the wingnuts are salivating. For some reason, people seem to think that Mr. Obama’s legislative career doesn’t matter; that he deserves a pass on it. Do you think Republicans will give him a pass? There are a lot of Obama fans that just don’t seem to get how this works. Ask John Edwards, he knows. Hillary’s been through this for fifteen years. It’s going to be a meat grinder next year, no matter who our nominee is, but when you serve up beauties with “present” votes it makes it an even bigger target.
Besides, Obama is continually talking about Clinton being a “triangulator,” as do many of the Hillary haters. People talking about her calculations. I don’t agree with all of her votes, especially on some foreign policy matters, particularly her Iraq war vote, but also Kyl-Lieberman. But when she’s pushed she votes and puts herself on the line. She never votes “present” when it matters. When pushed at YearlyKos on lobbyists she could have pandered. She didn’t. She also took the heat, including boos. She didn’t back down over Kyl-Lieberman either, even though it cost her in grumbling. It’s what she believes, with Wesley Clark and Joseph Wilson backing her. Larry Johnson told me on the radio the argument was a silly one.
Obama got a pass when going after her on Kyl-Lieberman, even though he voted for similar legislation earlier in the year, but more importantly, skipped the vote that would have put him on the record. He also has the exact same votes as Clinton on Iraq, and when Senators Kerry and Feingold offered legislation on the floor to redeploy, Mr. Obama made a speech against it. Not to mention that he never held a hearing on his own foreign relations subcommittee. He also skipped the MoveOn.org vote too. How convenient it is just not to show up and be counted. … Read all.
Taylor Marsh adds, “The piece in the New York Times today has many troubling moments in it highlighting Obama’s legislative record, which the press is finally, at long last, after months and months and months getting to, but the closer is a shocker”:
Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.
In both of those cases, his campaign said, he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities.
In my book, you vote yea or nay. Voting “present” is a cop-out. An Obama supporter defended Obama’s “present” votes on live-birth abortion by telling me that that was the strategy the Planned Parenthood laid out. Well, okay. But that tells me that Obama took his marching orders from a lobbying group, not what good common sense would have told him would appear to most observers, for the rest of his life, like an attempt to avoid a tough decision. He’s just not ready for prime-time, or for the brutality of a general election race.
I’ll take my lumps for these posts. But please know — please know — that in my heart and mind I am terribly worried about the besotted Democrats who are projecting their dreams onto Obama who’s not ready — just yet — to be president, or to survive a general election race against the extremely effective GOP attack machine.
And here’s wishing you and all of yours the very best, and safest, holidays … I remain your friend, Susan
You are a class act.
Susan, et al, I am SO tired of just hearing about the “celebrity” candidates from the Democrat’s field. Why not more on Dodd (especially) and Richardson–who are both far better qualified than Obama–and Dodd is way better qualified than Hillary–and without her high negatives. It bothers the H*** out of me that the bloggers I depend on for intelligent & alternative analysis are sucked into the same “star” obsession as the mainstream media.
Look at what has happened to Ron Paul’s incredible fund-raising success due to his treatment in the alternative (ie, internet) exposure. Why aren’t you giving more coverage to some other contenders who would also make good candidates (& good presidents)? Maybe, just maybe, there would be a similar ripple effect that would not foreclose our choices prematurely…
A recent poll indicated that by covering only the celebrity candidates, the Main Stream Media has effectively reduced the 17 candidates from Reps & Dems to a total of 5… that’s the MSM deciding instead of the increasingly mythical “we the people.”
Thanks for all the great work you do.
Peace & blessings in this solstice season of moving out of the dark.
You make a very important point. I too wish that Chris Dodd got more consideration because he’d be an able president — vastly superior to anything on the Republican side, with his experience and brains.
The thing is that, despite Dodd’s hard campaign work and moving his family to Iowa and his courageous effort on FISA last week, he’s not getting any traction. The truth is that we have to focus on, and investigate, the candidates who are likely nominees.
What happened to Huckabee won’t happen in the Democratic field. One reason I can see: The Democrats are happier with their field than are the Republicans.
Even Ron Paul, with those millions his worshippers raise, doesn’t get traction. I.e., it may be an online phenomenon but it is not translating to the actual voters in early primary states. (And I fail to see what people see in Paul, who’d gut Social Security, Medicare, etc. … and his promises re Iraq are only promises … his promises don’t mean he can begin to deliver. Reality would definitely “bite” if he ever ended up in the Oval.)
Online efforts go so far. But most American voters don’t read the blogs like you and I do.
Just my two cents.
And thank YOU for your great comments — they’re very thoughtful — and blessings to you and yours too.
Joe Biden is actually the most qualified.
SSSHHHH!! It’s a secret. Everyone on the stage has said “Joes right.” or “I agree with Joe”…
If the Chevy car salesman tells you Fords are better what do you do?
(Shirin: I respect your opinion on Bidens’ Iraq but has most of he suggested already happened?)
This is like a horse race. How often does the first horse out of the gate win, unless he is a Secretariat? Hilary is not a Philly. And Obama is still a Yearling. There is room for other contenders as long as they have the right strategy coming around the stretch.
Like the the race at Belmont, don’t bet all your winnings just yet.
*8th race…DOH!
No, it actually hasn’t happened, not at all, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not WANT it to happen, and it would create a whole new set of catastrophic problems if the United States, led by the covert imperialists Biden, Boxer (who will never get another syllable of support from me, let alone another vote), et al. try to make it happen.
I know this flies in the face of every bullshit myth anyone in America has ever heard, but Iraq’s society has ALWAYS (and I am talking about centuries here) been too integrated and cohesive for that to be a viable option. Iraqi geography, has never been so neatly divided along sectarian or ethnic lines, and Iraqi society has NEVER been a sectarian one. Contrary to the “received” version of reality, Sunnis and Shi’as in Iraq have NOT been “slaughtering each other for centuries”, though that bit of nonsense is certainly convenient for presenting what is going on now as a conflict that is too ancient and intractable to be resolved by anything but separation. (You can say the same about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which is so often presented as an ancient conflict when it fact it is less than a century old, and began AFTER it became clear that the European Zionist colonists had something in mind other than immigrating and living side by side with the existing indigenous peoples. Prior to that relations between Jews and non-Jews in Palestine had been neutral to very good.
When did other religions become illegal under Sharia law? AFTER it became clear or before? I ask this with respect.
What is the longest duration of peace these lands and people have known?
Other religions are NOT and have NEVER EVER been illegal under Shari`a law! Where on earth did you get the idea that they are?!
As for your second question, that is irrelevant. What matters is why the peace has been broken.
What laws to the Saudi’s live under?
To the second question, I am curious as to what conditions existed to maintain peace.
Other religions are not illegal even under Saudi law.
Saudis live under Saudi law, which I suppose is their twisted interpretation of Shari`a law. Even so, as I said, other religions are not illegal even under that anomalous set of laws, and I cannot think of a set of laws anywhere in the Islamic world under which other religions are illegal.
It seems to me we have strayed rather far afield. We WERE talking, were we not, about the Biden/Boxer/et al. attempt to partition Iraq along some imaginary geo-sectarian lines, and the useful nonsense about ancient hatreds that is employed to justify that, as well as provide a false explanation for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which has never been religion-based)? What has all that to do with Shari`a law?
On the other hand, since you brought it up, the Qur’an is the source of Islamic law. It is very clear on “other religions”, particularly regarding Islam’s monotheistic predecessors, Judaism and Christianity. There is nothing in the Qur’an to justifying making other religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones, illegal. In fact, there is a lot in the Qur’an about Jesus, who is considered a very important prophet, as well as Moses, and the other Jewish prophets, all of whom are also revered by Muslims:
3:3
“It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book [the Qur'an], confirming what went before it [the Torah and the Gospel]; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).”
5:44
“It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah’s will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s book [the Torah], and they were witnesses thereto:
5:45
“We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.” But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself.”
5:46
“And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.”
5:47
“Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.”
5:48
“To thee We sent the Scripture [the Qur'an] in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it [the Torah and the Gospel], and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;“
I don’t understand what you are getting at with your second question. The first thing you need to know is why, how, and by whom the peace has been broken.
Saudis live under Saudi law, which I suppose is their twisted interpretation of Shari`a law.
In terms of Biden’s suggestion and the guy I saw with a new 40″ TV and two hams leaving Costco. If he goes to vote, what will he have been watching? That the bible is illegal to possess in Saudi Arabia and they are our “friends”. (Read Animosity). That Shai’s and Sunni’s are killing each other for hundreds of years (Read nothing can be done). That we are in FUBAR up to our knees, but to leave would create chaos in Iraq. That Terrorism is caused by crazy Muslims. That Iran is threatening us. My point is, he will not care one wit about what is the right thing to do. As John Dean points out , he has to BE TOLD.
Second point about “What is the longest duration of peace these lands and people have known? I am curious as to what conditions existed to maintain peace.”
When we leave , and the Iraqi’s are left to there own devices, what does peaceful co-existence look like in a way that can be can sold by the MSM next August and voted on in the elections by the guy watching that TV?
If I appear to be speaking from a position of ignorance, it is only to make a point and that I plead guilty, but others won’t .Biden’s plan won’t matter but his experience with the region will. Remember every one agrees with him, that has a shot. They said so not me.
But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself.”
I thank you for posting passages of the Qur’an to make your point about Shari`a law.
“the bible is illegal to possess in Saudi Arabia”
A lie.
“and they are our “friends”.”
Depends what you mean by friends.
“That Shai’s and Sunni’s are killing each other for hundreds of years (Read nothing can be done).”
A lie.
“That we are in FUBAR up to our knees, but to leave would create chaos in Iraq.”
There is already chaos in Iraq, and that chaos is a direct result of the U.S. actions there.
“That Terrorism is caused by crazy Muslims.”
Terrorism predates “crazy Muslims”.
“That Iran is threatening us.”
A lie. The U.S. is threatening Iran, not vice versa.
So, what do you want ME to do? Americans are being lied to, and they believe the lies. And based on my experience with some Americans they would rather continue to believe the lies than to have them questioned. So, what am I supposed to do about it?
I still don’t know how to answer your question about the conditions to maintain peace. For centuries Iraqis have lived together, intermixed, cooperated, done business together, intermarried, and lived as normally and with as much harmony or conflict as people do in any diverse society. There is no history prior to 2003 of serious, protracted, or widespread conflict within the society. I am unaware of any particular “conditions” being necessary for that to happen. On the contrary, it seems to me that this is the normal way for humans to live and interact with each other in a society. It seems to me, that living in peace is normal, and it takes special conditions to destroy that peace.
So, what am I supposed to do about it?
Exactly my point. We may not be reading from the same page but we are asking the same question.
It is not that history can repeat it self. Just that the people we elect make judgements contrary to it.
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/May/kadhimMay06.asp
Joe Biden thinks the United States Congress has the right to decide to partition Iraq. That’s just a little too much blatant imperialism for me.
I read the links you posted and have been considering the two very different views of the Middle East and Hillary’s positions. I recall Hillary called for the creation of a Palestinian State while she was living in the White House(?).
She got a whole bunch Crap for it and was smacked by the shrub in waiting…
By what ever means that informs her positions on the middle east, do you think the most effective way to change the “machine” is from the inside or outside looking in?
Iraq is self-partitioning. It is called ethnic and sectarian cleansing. The difference is that if done by our army, the Iraqi-Iraqi bloodshed would likely be less.
You could not be more wrong.
Yesterday, Obama said he’d love to include Republicans like Richard Lugar or Chuck Hagel in his cabinet. And he specifically mentioned Schwarzenegger — what, for the EPA or Energy? Arnold, who drives four Hummers? Then there’s this:
Obama may have said that because NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg is reportedly meeting and talking with Sen. Hagel about a possible presidential run. Hagel would be Bloomberg’s running mate on the Independent ticket. Bloomberg is reportedly waiting for the GOP and Dems to choose their nominees before announcing his candidacy. If this happens, a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket would seriously damage the Dems more than the GOP.
Knowing this, Obama may be trying to stanch future bleeding?
Bad Nationally? It could change the electoral picture, but enough to make a dent? I wonder how that would look.
Sounds right.
Well, if that is the idea, it’s a good thing Sen. Clinton didn’t suggest it because they’d accuse her of acting “inevitable.”
(Actually, I’ll guess that that’s a bit of a stretch to project that he’s doing that to stop Bloomberg — he probably is trying to appeal to independent voters in primary states. His people probably did some polling that showed that might be helpful for him to say. Caveat: I’m also just guessing.)
….Even Ron Paul, with those millions his worshippers raise, doesn’t get traction. I.e., it may be an online phenomenon but it is not translating to the actual voters in early primary states….
Paul’s status may change from on-line phenomenen to early primary contender after his appearance on Meet The Press this coming Sunday. As opposed to Obama, Ron Paul WOULD be ready, as he ran before and his supporters are young Americans who will shape the future of the country. I can’t blame them for wanting a REAL change.
Susan — excellent, passionate post. I want to note one thing though. Although the Obama Campaign did not put “England” in its list of international travel that it gave to me — it turns out Senator Obama did do a pass through London on the way back from Moscow. It was a drop by, transit, not a visit — but I wanted folks to have the technical truth here. I would have made the same points I did in my TWN posts, but I like the full story out.
All the best — and I know what it’s like to be telling these kinds of things to partisans. I’m not partisan in this case….there is stuff about both I don’t like and stuff I can applaud. but I do think that the record of each — particularly when we have a chance to see it empirically — should be out there for viewing.
All the best,
Steve Clemons
http://www.TheWashingtonNote.com
Thank you so very much, Steve. I posted this at Daily Kos, and added your clarification re Obama’s travels because — as you say — it is important to have the “technical truth” stated.
I visit your blog every day.
And I don’t know why it didn’t dawn on me to add your blog to our blog roster, but I will do it right this minute.
Have a great holiday. Saw you on C-Span a couple weeks ago — also on BookTV.org (C-Span2 on weekends) / great interview by you! (I “DVRd” it and haven’t watched it all yet.)
Kudos to you Steve Clemons; I knew Obama had been to London; I love truth tellers and people who correct the record.
Shifting gears to making a comment about truth telling in general, and the need for more of it, as we live in what, imj, is a fundamentally dishonest age. To borrow the lyrics of the country western star, Tim McGraw: “I like it, I love it, I want some more of it.”
Best Steve.
I don’t think there is any formula for choosing a president that really works. If voters choose Obama, it will not be based on the details of his senate record, but other qualities they see in him.
It really bothers me to see Clinton supporters picking Obama apart like this, and the obvious underhanded smearing that the Clinton camp is engaging in.
All of the Clintons’ blogging friends are out in force, spreading criticism of Obama to add to our Christmas cheer. Some of it has been blatant misinformation. And what Taylor Marsh thinks, does not concern me.
I’m disgusted, frankly. I will not vote for Hillary. She is the establishment candidate, yes. She is a very competent, qualified politician. I was a big Clinton supporter during Bill’s 8 years, despite all of the many reasons he gave us to end our support of him. And the establishment candidates usually win (screw the rest of us).
But to say that Hillary can win in the general but Obama can’t? To say that the Republicans want to run against Obama? RUBBISH!! I have heard the opposite, and I think it is a waste of time to try to figure out who it is the Republicans want to run against, anyway.
They’re already running against Hillary… that should give you some clue.
So you will be voting for Huckabee or Romney or whoever the Republicans put up?
I’ve gotta tell you, I just do not understand that attitide. I’m an old-fashioned Republican and I wouldn’t be caught dead voting for any of those guys. I’ll vote for the Democrat’s nominee whether that person is my favorite or not. Even if I think they are weak here or there, I think I can count on them to do represent me at least 90% of the time.
So, seriously, what will you do come election day, if Sen. Clinton is the nominee?
Ditto what MKolb says!
So, seriously, what will you do come election day, if Sen. Clinton is the nominee?
Make sure that there is enough voting machine to vote. Hope the voting machines work and the county registrars office is not over run or locked down with Rove and Diebold reps inside. Fret about weather or not several of the 50 States’ election officials do a Katherine Harris. Knock on wood to prevent Bush from declaring martial law. Hold my breath so Iran does not get bombed. Save enough of my paycheck to buy duck tape one last time and take of the foil hat and hide them in a safe place in case I need them.
Ummmmmm - there are other choices besides Republican and Democrat, or hadn’t you noticed? I, for one, will vote for the person whose positions come closest to mind on the things that matter most to me, and who does not cross any of my red lines.
Will it bother you if that person had to cross the political spectrum changing postion along
there are other choices besides Republican and Democrat? Nope haven’t noticed…not for want of lookin though. :>(
I am am wondering if you think its better to work from within to effect change or from the outside looking in.
How does voting for someone whose record and policies I abhor add up to “working from within”?
I was not asking about a candidate. I was asking about what your “red line” was and mindful of you wishing to vote your conscience, which I respect without question.
Looking at the “candidates to date” they all have changed positions to some degree or another. None of them are “outside the bubble” of the echo chamber. Those of them that have had the machine chew them up and spit them out are reluctant to confront the dogs Bush let out, head on. (Thanks to Joe and Valerie and all the others that have.)
not for want of lookin though. :>(
What candidates? Bloomberg and Hagel? What third party has a prayer, in the next 100 years, of doing anything? Feel trapped? I do.
OK - I did not understand what you meant.
Yes, I feel utterly trapped.
That’s right!
I always vote. I’ve held my nose plenty but never regretted voting for a loser!
Iowa could surprise folks. Edwards is looking better with all this squabbling between Clinton and Obama. The rules are that less than 15% doesn’t get you a delegate to the next level. So what are the Richardson/Biden/Dodd/Kucinich people going to do? Join an uncommitted group? They might determine the winner in some caucus groups.
I’m glad YOU have the option to be high and mighty.
Some of us care about the tenuous state of the Supreme Court — the next president will surely add the deciding vote that will change the balance of the Court for decades to come.
Then there’s Social Security, which the Republicans would love to privatize, undoing Franklin Roosevelt’s great legacy. That would be utterly devastating.
I have no option but to support the Democratic nominee, which I will. But why nominate the one candidate that the GOP can’t wait to take on? (Their pronouncements that they want to take on Sen. Clinton are diversionary … they want to promote Obama now because he’s their ideal target.)
High and mighty? For voting for a candidate whose views come closest to mine and who does not cross any of my red lines?! Susan, come on! I thought making one’s own choices based on the criteria one finds most important that is what democracy is supposed to be all about, and you call that high and mighty?
In my view Hillary Clinton’s voting record and stated views on things which matter most to me to be very dangerous not just for the U.S., but far more globally. I find other candidates’ record and stated views to be less so, and I will choose accordingly. If you find that a good reason to make a personal attack on someone, OK.
Excellent analysis, Susan. I think that the GOP would much rather run against Obama than HRC.
And it IS too bad that Dodd doesn’t get much traction. I think he and Biden could have a duel, cut cards, or Rochambo for the nomination and we might be as well served as with Clinton or Obama. Bith smart, accomplished men - idealogues, to be certain - but legitimate patriots likely capable of some statemanship.
Perhaps either Dodd or Biden should bow out and help the other one. Or Sen. Clinton.
Slightly OT: Have you ever read the book, “What It Takes”? The author builds in-depth portraits of several candidates for president, and all the travails and challenges of their lives. He included Biden in the bunch, and there is remarkable detail about Biden’s tough early life, and life lessons. Bob Dole’s life story is also remarkable.
SusanUnPC: I think that is what Iowa will do in a few weeks. That said I was driving to the polls In Ca when Carter conceded early and did not get to vote…I imagine it was the same for the entire west cost. I think the candidates will hang in there as long as they can until they are playing to an empty room (been there done that) or they get to a state that they think they can place well in and suffer a similar fate.
PS Takes one to know one. (JW’s comment)
and “What It Takes” by Richard Ben Cramer ?
TWK, yes to Richard Ben Cramer. Iirc, 1988. Considered a classic wrt pres. pol. campaigning.
Thanks.
That’s so sad, Teak. Yes, it happened to us too on the West Coast. Carter did some regrettable things, that among them.
I should put up an ad for “What It Takes” — it’s as timely as ever, and Cramer’s phenomenal work and riveting writing make all the stories remarkable. (And people can probably buy it now at great savings.) Doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican or Democrat — each of his subjects has a fascinating life story. He chose well.
VERY OT story: I was living in Los Angeles when Carter was running in the primaries. I went to a downtown LA rally for him. While we waited for him to come, Cher talked, and then she instructed the crowd to back up from the stage. Well, she created a crisis because the crowd rushed back, and I got caught in it. For the first time, I realized how people get trampled in crowds. I didn’t fall, but my pantyhose was shredded. It was frightening because I had no control, and no way to escape. Since then, I’ve always been cognizant of crowd situations in which that might happen.
I was at Times Square only once during New Years eve. After the ball dropped my friend and I had to lock arms hard in order to not be dragged apart. We ducked into the subway and there where so many people above us the the platform was shaking like a mild earthquake. Never again. I am sticking to being on the stage, not in a large stampede.
Yeah, hopefully Dodd and Biden will help the nominee. It’s a shame that both of them are marginal candidates. I respect them both. Either would make a good president.
Susan,
I’m worried too. I was justing thinking about the question Mr. Murder asked about us being spectators or participants.
I don’t have the answer because we had a bloodless coup when Bush stole the election the first time.
The voting machines continue to do it and I don’t have any confidence that who I vote for will win. Why should I bother attacking the opponents? The money boys are going to make the decision. One way or another.
More than a hundred computer chips containing voting machine software were lost or stolen during transit in California this week.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/election-softwa.html
Cee, you bring up a very important issue. That recent story about Ohio’s flawed machines brought it to the fore again. Keep us posted on it. And I certainly hope that the national party execs are on top of this; they absolutely have to be.
What is Dean doing about this? Any one close enough to ask? The secratary of state in california ran on a platform of “no more Blue Tooth voting” and if you check Brad Blog she is attempting to keep her word. Not easy to do.
I haven’t commented to date regarding your support for one candidate over the others, for a number of reasons. Among them:
• I respect both your right to make such a choice and passionately advocate for your candidate.
• I am personally very uncomfortable with the idea of either Senator Clinton or Obama running against any of the remainder of the ’seven dwarfs’ in the running for the Republican nomination.
This is simply not the right time for the rest of us for either of the anointed candidates to seek the nomination. In my estimation, both should have waited, and both for different reasons.
The nightmare scenariois this: none of the current crop of Republicans survives this primary process, and a brokered convention instead settles on Newt Gingrich. Someone who appears with just enough lower a set of negatives, pitting a white Southerner and perceived favorite son against an ‘uppity’ Senator Obama or, in the case of Senator Clinton, pits a good old boy against the ‘dreaded Clinton menace’ and dredges all that up again. Winning by a percentage point or two. If you don’t think that this can happen, you’re simply not paying attention.
I watched what happened as I worked on the ground to Dean in Iowa, then saw our efforts fall short in Iowa and Arizona. I held my nose after taking a few months off to try to push Senator Kerry into the White House, though comparatively, I despised the idea of his candidacy.
I simply cannot understand the fascination with our ‘rock star’ candidates, who I perceive as the weakest of the lot in a general election. And, I wonder: what happens if former Senator Edwards emerges as the victor in the Iowa caucuses? What then? Does this development, and strong finishes in New Hampshire and subsequent primaries—coupled with weaker than anticipated outcomes by the others—draw enough of the sheen off of Senators Clinton and Obama that they are no longer the presumed winners? I wonder…
Michael, I didn’t know you were also a Dean supporter in 2003-2004. Oh, those were the days. (Leslie was a Deaniac too.) I worked my tush off, both as a local Meetup leader and as a congressional district coordinator (which took a lot of work for a geographically large district).
Someone just came over to visit or I’d write more… later.
Hat tip, Susan. I agree with Joe Wilson. You are a class act.
Thanks for the explanation Susan. I’ve been among yours and Larry’s critics on this. Because many of the reasons cited against Obama could also be cited against Clinton, such as skipping important votes. Whereas NQ’s criticisms against Obama have been very partisan, in support of Hillary. This is my biggest problem with the Obama posts: I’d like to see more even-handedness.
I’ve also been concerned that advocating one candidate over another might be destructive to the eventual nominee–if that nominee turns out to be Obama. It’s not that I support Obama or Clinton…actually, I can’t decide [both Obama and Clinton have good points and bad]…I just don’t want to hurt any of the Democratic candidates’s chances. Because I’m worried a Bushie GOP candidate may win. There’s just too much at stake, lives at stake.
‘Horse race reporting’ does not vet candidates; nor does it offer the information people need to make informed decisions. For instance, I’m not going to purchase a stock simply because ‘the price is up this week’, nor because ‘it’s leading the stock ticker.’ Who gives a sh*t if the price up ‘this week‘? That doesn’t tell me what I need to know to figure out how it will perform over the long term.
Is a stock ‘up this week’ b/c it sold a patent? Or b/c it laid off staff? Or any number of reasons that make it look good right now, but that damage the organization’s future performance.
‘Horse race politics’ fails to cover ‘the fundamentals’ of how an individual shapes and leads an organization. It also fails to inform anyone about how the organization derives its funding, what its funders expect in return for their money, or how accountable the organization is to specific performance objectives.
Here’s how I’ve seen electeds repay their contributors — while screwing over the public, offering sanctimonious speeches, and keeping their own hands ‘lily white’:
1 — appointing their funders and/or biz buddies to (a) Commissions and/or (b) Task Forces and then ‘accepting the recommendations’ as policies and laws.
2 — failing to attract and hire competent, capable staff.
3 — failing to implement real, simple-to-update performance criteria.
4 — declining to implement practical, simple accountability or performance measures. (Sorry, but quadrennial elections just don’t cut it.)
Having watched some genuinely charming, ‘authentic’, people with gggrrrrreat ideas blow through tons of money in the dot-com era, I don’t much care what anyone ’says’. Ditto with some of the absolutely disastrous electeds that I’ve observed in my regional government, which is a Case Study in dysfunction.
Yes, I want to be inspired.
But inspiration stems from the belief that someone can act in meaningful ways that alter outcomes.
Inspiration follows action; it does not precede it.
Hope precedes it. Once hope is translated to action, only then does it become inspiration.
Maybe I simply saw too many charming, ’smart’ people blow through too many millions in the dot-com era, but I’m not that captivated by what anyone ‘thinks.’ I am captivated when I see someone actually translate beliefs into action.
Horse race journalism masks that key transformation, but that’s the info we really need.
Susan, keep at it. You are a breath of fresh air.
Susan, by the way, I accept your explanation, but I have to tell you that lately this place has been looking an awful lot like a Clinton campaign site. So much so that frankly I was shocked - and rather relieved - to see Larry say that he actually prefers Edwards.
If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to vote for one of the top three Democratic candidates, I would vote for Edwards. If they tried to force me to vote for Hillary or Obama, I would be terribly tempted to tell them to go ahead and pull the trigger.
Shirin, where did Larry say this????? I don’t recall this at all. I am very curious about this.
Shirin……you do make me laugh.
Shirin, disregard on my, “where did Larry say this?”
All, Larry, in the “Be Obama’s Tour Guide” post said this.
Larry Johnson,
I hope you are having fun brown-nosing for Hillary? Not that I am surprised. It was always clear that the Bush years were a bizaree interregnum that made strange bed-fellows, where Wilkerson appeared on the Amy Goodman Show, Wilson /Plame were liberal martyrs and so on. Now we are all reverting back to type and disgusting national security types such as yourselves get to do what you have always done best: jockey for perks and muddy the waters for the public.
truth be told I favor Edwards over Clinton. This much I do know, Obama is dangerous because of his ignorance and inexperience. You may feel differently. As long as you voice your opinion in a reasonable, rational way we can agree to disagree. Peace.
TWK, re Richard Ben Cramer, What it Takes. Meant to add that it is a classic primarily because Cramer did the most exquisite, beautiful, insightful profiles of each/most of the candidates. Great, great journalism. I richly enjoyed it.
I’m not a fan of Obama, but the attacks against him for not doing committee work is hypocritical on the part of Clinton supporters. Senators running for president have a new full-time job, and they just don’t do their Senate work any more, except for casting the occasional vote. Obama gives his committees short shrift, just as Hillary has abandoned hers. And it stinks - a pox on both their houses.
Great coverage, Susan. I appreciate your prompting this discussion. Very helpful.
I am always surprised to hear people only voicing concerns about the electronic voting machines — and yet not the issue of “caging” and the deliberate suppression of the vote. Crucial in states like Ohio and Florida. Greg Palast has done outstanding investigative journalism on the issue, and it needs to be talked about. I just never hear anyone acknowledging it!
And, I’m with Larry, I’d rather see Edwards win over Clinton or Obama.
Yea, they did! During a hearing of the House Judiciary. It is a matter of public record! Nothing like cognitive dissonance brought on by a witness confessing to a Federal Offense during open testimony and seeing an elected official behaving like a deer in the head lights.
“You knew then and still you did nothing!”
The congresswomen asked “what’s caging?” These people would not see Karl Rove coming even if he was a Mack truck parked in the driveway
A short view puts either Obama or Hillery at the TOP of the GOP Pick List - both would be enough to jell the Bible Humpers, and the NeoKKKons into a Rovean Dream Machine - sorry to say, Edwards is really the one that should scare them, a white Southern Boy, self made from po’folk, married to the same woman, believes in Democracy and peoples needs, and a realistic world view . . . but Democrats are not know for going with the best choice - Edwards/Dodd - but no matter if they select a cabbage, I’ll support and vote DEMOCRATIC - the alternative is un-printable . . . but being in California it’s over before it’s over . . . best thing we can do is to keep defeating the effort to split our power and Electoral Votes.
best thing we can do is to keep defeating the effort to split our power and Electoral Votes.
Crazy Rove ain’t it…oops I meant Crazy Ivan.
Thanks for good sense. We need to get GOP out of the White House and Dems back in. If we run Obama now, he gets destroyed, and by next time Hillary may be too old. If we run Hillary now, she wins and cleans up and makes it safe for Obama (or whoever) next time.
http://1950democrat.livejournal.com
On what do you base this assumption that Hillary is going to “clean up”, and specifically what is it that you think she is going to “clean up”?
Unless, of course, you consider her intention to keep tens of thousands of forces in Iraq, to enlarge the military, etc. etc., etc. - in other words, business as usual with a slightly different mask on it “cleaning up”.
http://ods.org/pngs/xxx/1/xxx-kama-sutra.html xxx kama sutra http://ods.org/pngs/xxx/1/xxx-kareena-kapoor.html xxx kareena kapoor http://ods.org/pngs/xxx/1/xxx-kom.html xxx kom http://ods.org/pngs/xxx/1/xxx-ladys.html xxx ladys