Category: The Dish

Jonathan Martin sees a new demographic pattern in the Clintons’ electoral support.

In a bunch of conversations – all casual, random, varied – with fellow journalists in Washington this past week, I’m struck when the talk moves to Iraq by one thing. I know no one who believes that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will actually remove any troops from Iraq beyond those that might conceivably be removed by John McCain. For those of you who believe that your vote in this primary season means anything, this might be worth passing along. Withdrawal in any meaningful way is off the table, as far as Washington is concerned. And when I have raised the serious possibility that this should happen, I am greeted with That Unserious Look.

Now, there are obvious pragmatic, short term arguments for staying with 150,000 troops or so in Iraq for the next ten years. There are also very powerful strategic, economic and moral arguments for getting out as fast as we can. But what troubles me is that these arguments are not really relevant. The Washington elites have already decided. It’s unthinkable for the US to leave Iraq at any point in the foreseeable future. This, as Greenwald would say, is the Serious Position. You can challenge it in the campaign or on the blogs, but no one actually believes anyone will actually do this. They’re humoring us.

And the primary candidate for maintaining the occupation indefinitely on the Democratic side is Hillary Clinton. As for Obama, I disagree with my fellow hacks. He will be in a very tough spot if he becomes president. But he will be able to leverage a unique movement in the country and a uniquely powerful honeymoon in world opinion with a uniquely potent rhetorical skill to at least attempt an exit from the quicksand of the Middle East occupation. He has a chance to shift the paradigm. The Clintons, to put it bluntly, will not. And Clinton will swiftly realize that the most potent antidote to conservative criticism of her at home will be buttressing her military image, working the Thatcher thing, constructing an Iron Lady persona that will both appeal to her white ethnic base and keep the Republicans at bay. She will no more withdraw troops from Iraq than John McCain will. Anything that could make her look weak – and it’s Hannity and O’Reilly to whom she will defer in this perception game – she will resist. She has so little raw political talent and so few rhetorical skills she will be a captive of polls and caution and, as always, self-preservation. Bush knows this, which is why he is so keen to prevent Obama from changing the Beltway consensus and to preserve his own legacy. In some ways, a return to the Clintons, his fellow dynasts, as long as they legitimize and extend his new empire, is what he really wants.

There are four candidates  still left in this race: Clinton, Clinton, McCain, and Obama. The first two are a seamless team. Only one has a small chance of extricating the US from a lifetime of occupation of the Middle East. It’s Obama. 

(Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty.)

The Clintons will not do what every other candidate does – release their tax returns – and they will not allow scrutiny of their period in the White House, the last time an unelected spouse exercized formal, unaccountable power (if nothing like what we will face if the Clintons both return to the White House in 2009). What are they hiding? The headline is misleading and more evidence of double-standards in the media with respect to the Clintons. This was ultimately the Clintons’ decision, not the archivists’:

That archivists’ decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton’s legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

My emphasis. David Brooks today argues that the Obama camp must not go negative. But this is one of those areas where the Clintons’ sense of personal privilege and passion for secrecy simply has to be challenged. Demanding answers to basic questions of accountability and transparency is not negative in the Rove-Morris sense. It’s called competitive campaigning. If Clinton is running on her so-called experience, why does she insist on keeping it under wraps?

Compared with McCain, Obama is a wonk’s wonk. Matt:

Strolling through John McCain’s policy proposals is a fascinating experience . . . lurking behind every link is a nearly-astounding level of vacuity.

Of course, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. I’ve never believed that the presidency is about mastering policy minutiae.

Survey USA’s data shows both Clinton and Obama beating McCain on electoral votes, but they win in different ways. Matt doesn’t buy it:

Each of these polls has a sample size of 600, so the margin of error will come into play. What’s more, there are 100 separate polls being aggregate here, so the odds are that several of these are just bad samples. On top of that you have all the usual problems with early polling…while I think this method is clever, I don’t really see it as methodologically sound — Clinton’s not going to lose Washington, Obama’s not going to lose New Jersey, and what happens in Michigan will have more to do with whether or not McCain runs demagogic attacks on the Democrats’ global warming plans than on who the Democrats nominate.

I agree with Matt. But the map does show the benefit of the Pennsylvania primary. The more time Obama spends there – down in the nitty-gritty – the better for him. Even against Rendell, he has a chance to do well.

What teachers encounter all the time.

Conservatives forgive.

A reader writes:

I don’t find it at all silly for Obama to select a nationally well-known and popular Senator from a large state that borders Pennsylvania and New Jersey, two states Obama would lose today according to SurveyUSA.

Also, selecting Clinton fits into Obama’s whole rationale.  He is the candidate who wants to unite the country, and what better display of unity would there be than selecting his fiercest electoral rival to date?  There is nothing silly about uniting the Democratic Party in a must win election year.

Finally, Clinton brings abundant policy expertise to the table and a network of highly motivated supporters.  Also, Obama would not have to deal with the frustration of the Clintons being somewhat insubordinate during the whole general election process by refusing to campaign for and with him, and by making statements that would compromise his ability to win.

A rather cute and somewhat stupid Israeli back-packer nearly gets eaten alive.