Month: January 2008

A reader writes:

I don’t like what the Clintons are doing to Obama either. It goes beyond just "hardball politics." You were right to mention in an earlier post that they are stealing a page out of Rove’s playbook. I think Rove’s idea is not just to go right at a candidate’s strength head on (not to mention going for their jugular) and in the process bloody them bad. More importantly, it’s designed to deliberately muddy the waters in a nihilistic way. 

The former you can understand, that is hardball, the later is far more troubling and it is the height of cynicism.

Why?  Because, first it bets on the idea that if you throw enough mud and lies you will confuse the voter so that they will not be able to tell the difference between a candidate who has something to say and one who doesn’t but just attacks. Second, it takes the idealistic voter out of the picture by deflating them – the old "all those bums are the same! What’s the point of voting?  I can’t change anything"  So, it becomes a form of voter suppression and undermines our democracy.  Hey!  Two negatives for the price of one.  Then it’s just a question of picking up on those "microtrends" to pander to enough segments to eke out a tiny, partisan victory.  Rove’s legacy is the mastering and mainstreaming of the technique.  After 7 years of this we really don’t need the Democrats to do the same – even if they are angry at what has been done to them.  But then there are many genies the Bushies have let out of the bottle that I hope others in the future can refrain from partaking in.

(Photo: WIn McNamee/Getty.)

The dread rises.

I live-blogged it here. Kevin Drum:

The policy distinctions between the candidates, which were pretty small to begin with, are shrinking even more. They really hardly disagree on anything.

Ambers:

Both Clinton and Obama needed the racial paroxysm to end; both were eloquent and seemed genuinely interested in calming their supporters down. Fortunately for Obama, his conciliatory manner reflected his campaign message very nicely.

Crowley:

I saw a modest win for Hillary tonight … That said, her potshots make me wonder if she’s sweating the polls more than she’s letting on.

I think Clinton won the debate, and at this point in time, is winning the battle of nerves. Obama is still human. He looks deflated, as he must be, after New Hampshire. And whatever else you say, you have to admire Clinton’s sheer stamina. I don’t think she’s more experienced in any relevant way; I do think she is more emotionally and psychologically tested for the presidency. She and her husband are not, it seems to me, always the better politician in the race. But they have the most staying power, a preternatural ability to absorb blows and keep going. Like some sort of new political zombie, they just keep coming at you. I’d almost forgotten their shameless resilience.

The one sliver of optimism I can find in a Clinton presidency is that the enemies of the United States might one day feel a little bit of what Clintons’ domestic enemies do. Maybe they can bore and grind al Qaeda into submission.

I guess you could see this anti-Muslim email to Jewish recipients coming. It’s encouraging that many are exposing it. But the problem is deeper, according to this reader:

I wish that Cohen’s column were an aberration, but unfortunately I think Obama faces a lot of obstacles with the Jews–especially older ones who’ve grown leery of the black community.  The anti-semitism there is real, and not just with Farrakhan, but with Jesse Jackson referring to New York as "Hymie Town" to and Al Sharpton calling Jews "diamond merchants" and Andrew Young’s more recent comments about Jewish store-keepers. And these aren’t isolated incidents – the hate pops out of the mouths of rappers and athletes. This is especially hurtful to a group that has traditionally espoused black civil rights.

Sadly even my mother, who lives in Florida, says about Obama, "I just don’t trust him." She can’t give any reasons, though she will usually mutter something about Israel.

My mother’s fear is that he’ll cut ties to Israel.  She’s typical of the older generation and their belief that in every black person’s heart, tthere is hatred toward the Jews.  And it’s not just the Farrakans. Remember, too, that this generation was alive while the Holocaust was happening.  They watched as the Jews were liberated from the camps.  Anti-semitism is especially real to them.  So for my elders, Israel has become the one deal-breaker.  And it doesn’t matter how many times I tell her that he hasn’t said one thing to dis the holy land or Jews.  I don’t know that I can budge her (though I’m desperately trying with threats of not seeing her grandchildren) before the election.  She can’t be convinced.  And this from a woman who left South Africa decades ago–before it became fashionable–because she couldn’t stand living in a place where blacks lived as second-class citizens.

Cohen’s column is a disgrace. There is something of the "loyalty oath" about it.  But, unfortunately, it’s more deeply reflective of Jewish opinion than any of us rabid Obama supporters would like to admit.  I don’t know much about what Obama is doing to reach out to Jews, but he should probably be doing more of it.

The Clintons’ message to African-Americans?

Put ’em up:

Researchers have found that males usually hit others with the intent to coerce or punish; women, by contrast, are likely expressing distress when they hit others. It’s almost the opposite intention: speaking in generalities, men hit to establish their power, while women hit to express their powerlessness.

Then there’s Hillary Clinton.

"Obama messes folks up because he refuses (generally) to campaign in blackface mask. Yes, he does tend to sound a little more down home before black audiences. But he doesn’t primarily present himself to us as a vessel for our racial complaint.

That’s the mask traditional post-civil rights black pols generally wear, with pride. And it’s the mask white pols —fake or sincere—put on when they seek black votes. No one ever wore it better than Bill Clinton, and thus Hilary by proxy. But there’s something about this moment that is peeling this mask from Hilary Clinton’s face, right before our eyes," – the American Race.

Who can resist with speeches like this one:

Are we not equal in the sight of God?

If so, let petty differences disappear, in full-hearted endorsement of whatever programs I have been graced to envision. For "one hand full, with quietness," is, as we read in The Bible, better not only than "two hands full with strife," but than the benefits of so-called "free and fair elections."

A little child in Oregon said to me: "Mister President, be good to us…be kind," and pressed into my hand a crayon drawing of an ostrich. That drawing, today, rests in a place of honor on my desk – encased in Lucite, next to the coin which the first President threw across a river.

We will not be defeated. We must press on, looking neither to the right nor to the left, but looking forward – toward that day which even the most cynical among us must realize is The Future. There is a New Day dawning in America. Seven days a week.

It’s not Romney. Promise.

A smart take:

After each GOP primary so far, the winner has faced an immediate test. For Huckabee after Iowa, it was whether his appeal could translate beyond his evangelical base. Two primaries later, the answer seems to be no. For McCain after New Hampshire, it was whether he could use his momentum and what looked liked a favorable schedule to break through his 30-percent ceiling and become the front-runner. After tonight’s result, the answer likewise looks like no. Now it’s Romney’s turn to be tested: Can his Mormon, flip-flopping, starched-shirt northeastern self do well in Dixie? If it can – if he can compete strongly in South Carolina and Florida, and maybe win one of the two – then he’ll be off to the races. But the way this campaign has gone so far, I wouldn’t bet on it.

The consensus seems to be that the Republican race really is wide open. Powerline:

So who is the Republican front-runner now? There is none.

Mark Levin:

The primary process is wide open and remains wide open. Romney is the frontrunner — for now. But that can change.

Hewitt is relatively restrained:

Mitt Romney has now re-established himself as the candidate to beat over the very long campaign.

I’m with Larison:

I need a drink.

If Romney retools his campaign and presents himself as a moderate businessman able to bring better management to Washington, he finally has a message that could work. Of course, it’s just the latest poll-tested cynical ploy. But it’s working for Clinton! And she and Romney have one thing in common: two focus-grouped cynical dynastic holograms.

I need a drink.