Will Clinton Over-Reach?

Clintonwilliamthomascaingetty

The "bitter" spat is gold for Morris-Rove politics, which is why Clinton is exploiting it so baldly. It is exactly the kind of debate that has constructed American politics since Vietnam; it is exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been trying to transcend. Clinton will use anything at this point to destroy Obama’s candidacy and message; but by adopting Rovism at its reddest, the Clintons do risk looking too obvious. Check out the comments in CNN’s Politicker. At some point people will realize that the Clintons represent a continuation of the kind of politics that has made a serious engagement with this country’s profound problems impossible. Or is acknowledging profound problems now unpatriotic? Is this election about how to salvage the least worst option in the Iraq disaster? Is it about restoring some kind of fiscal sanity? Is it about doing all we can to unite Americans in a war against Islamic terrorism? Is it about restoring America’s compliance with the Geneva Conventions? Or is it again about red-blue culture wars? We know what the professional political class is comfortable with. We know what Rove and Bush and Penn and Clinton believe. What we will find out soon is if Americans want more of the same. It’s a free country – and people can vote. Goodbye to all that? Or hello again – for yet another cycle? A reader writes:

I am a rustbelt native. I live near Gary, Indiana and have never lived anywhere else. I’ll probably die here.

I read and, more importantly, listened to Barack Obama’s response to the Clinton cacophony after his remarks about blue collar/regular people/rustbelt voters. The difference between the two politicians is amazing. One is thoughtful and unafraid while defending a politically risky yet righteous position. The other is just noise.

My husband and I already have one child and grandchild living thousands of miles away and I fully expect the other to leave within a few years. I don’t blame them. In fact I always encouraged them to leave because I wanted them to realize the full measure of their talents and abilities and that isn’t possible here.

Obama’s right about guns and religion in that there simply isn’t much to do in an economically depressed area but hunt and pray. There’s nothing insulting or elitist about this, but people can be easily persuaded that an elitist has indeed insulted them.

That’s what worries me. People will forget their interests, will forget that their children are moving away en masse, will forget the political idiocy of the Clintonian hypocrisy that inspires Howard Beale-like angst in all of us. They may forget all of that just for the misguided privilege of feeling insulted.

And that’s their right. Americans have had the presidency they deserved these past four years; the war they voted to continue; the debt they voted to increase; the incompetence they decided to reward. They also get to pick who comes next. If they want more of the same, they know who to vote for.

(Photo: William Thomas Cain/Getty Images).

The Preamble

Ben Smith has more of Obama’s remarks in San Francisco. Here’s what preceded the passage jumped on by Clinton, McCain et al:

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism.

It is indeed easier to play the red-blue resentment game. We’ll see if it still works …

Clinton Pounces

She goes in for the kill on Obama’s "bitter" comments, as one would expect. The goal is to kill Obama’s candidacy – for now and in the fall, if she can. Noam thinks she’s playing into Republican hands. You think? Here’s the Rove Clinton soundbite:

"Sen. Obama’s remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch. The people of faith I know don’t ‘cling to’ religion because they’re bitter … I also disagree with Sen. Obama’s assertion that people in this country ‘cling to guns’ and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People of all walks of life hunt — and they enjoy doing so because it’s an important part of their life, not because they are bitter."

Whatever works – or might work. I still reserve judgment on how this eventually plays out. America is a little too angry and restless right now to be parsed once again into the red-blue divide, even if it helps the Clintons for a nano-second.

Just out of interest: how regularly does Clinton go to church, compared with Obama? An "elitist", of course, is someone reared by a single mother whose net worth is a fraction of the multi-millionaire former first lady. Al Giordano comments here. David Brody wonders what the big deal is here. Ambers on Obama’s "regrets" here.

So Fallows Is Fallible

We now have Japanese waistline mandates. Here’s Jim in a 1986 article on fitness in Japan:

Some Japanese friends tell me that things are changing. Kids are overeating now; adults are starting to worry about weight. I don’t believe it, but I take heart from their concern. When Jane Fonda’s Workout Book becomes a best seller in Japan, we’ll know that our industries have a chance.

Krauthammer vs Krauthammer, Ctd.

A reader notes:

Israel has had, for some time now, a nuclear deterrent in the form of its three (soon to be five) Dolphin Class submarines which can carry nuclear armed submarine launched cruise missiles.

Deployed in the northern reaches of the Indian Ocean, the submarines could easily reach any target in Iran. Since Iran has no deep-water navy, the submarines are in no danger from attack.

His source is this. More here. If accurate, it would render Krauthammer’s argument about Israel’s needing US nuclear protection from a first strike risk implausible.

The Decline of Grammar

A weekend Atlantic archive classic: Geoffrey Nunberg’s 1983 essay on the changing nature of grammar and its police:

The point of traditional grammar was to demonstrate a way of thinking about grammatical problems that encouraged thoughtful attention to language, not to canonize a set of arbitrary rules and strictures. And in the absence of an academy, our authorities traditionally were chosen by the consensus of a public that recognized questions of grammar as worthy of constant consideration and revision. But the new attitudes toward grammar — as evidenced by the ossification of the rules and the partisan tone of the discussion — have put the whole matter on a different footing. Prescriptive grammar has passed out of the realm of criticism, where it sat for two hundred years, to become instead a branch of cultural heraldry.

Face Of The Day

Alnuriwathiqkhuzaiegetty

A mourner cries during a funeral of Riyadh al-Nuri, a senior aide to the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the home town of al-Nuri in the Sadr City Shiite district on April 12, 2008 in Baghdad, Iraq. Al-Nuri was shot dead by unknown gunmen in Kufa near The holy Shiite city of Najaf on April 11, 2008 after Friday prayer. Seven people died when U.S. helicopters fired on homes and shops in Sadr City district early Saturday according to the Iraqi police and hospital officials. By Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty.