Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

As a long-time reader and big fan, I have to admit I’m disappointed by the turn your blog has taken recently. At your best, as in the Conservative Soul, you really do represent a conservatism of doubt, retaining a healthy dose of skepticism, willing to reconsider your opinions, always remembering that you might be wrong and admitting it when you are However, recently you have thrown all of that aside and become gushing, almost fanatic in your praise of Obama and in your contempt of the Clintons. Right now, I don’t see the difference between you and Hugh Hewitt, and that saddens me. Whatever Hillary does, you consistently show bad faith, interpreting her actions the way the Devil reads the Bible. Similarly, Obama apparently can do no wrong.

Moreover, if Obama ever does get elected, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment, just like you did with Bush. No man can possibly do everything you seem to expect of him. A healthy injection of skepticism would do wonders. Please take a deep breath and calm down. Useful mental exercise: Surely there must be something you like about the Clintons and something you dislike about Obama? Please, make your blog interesting again.

Here goes. I admire Hillary Clinton’s stamina, diligence and, at her best, pragmatism. Her political professionalism and discipline are amazing. At times, Obama seems to believe a little too much in his own messiah-ness, which is not the source of his strength. I don’t care for his proximity to organized labor. On the role of government, I’m far to his right. But after the GOP in the Bush years, I don’t feel like punishing the Democrats for being big government. I feel like punishing the Republicans. They’re the ones who’ve committed treason against conservatism, not the Democrats.

Substantively, I don’t have a massive policy case against Clinton if I don’t have one against Obama. They really do represent a very small difference. Clinton is also very able. Her work as a Senator for New York has been admirable. She’s straddled on the war but I don’t feel angry at her the way some of the netroots types do. God knows I have no leg to stand on. My case amounts to concerns that she would entrench a cynicism in politics that’s wrong for the times, that her polarization and trust issues are insurmountable, and that eight years in a White House should be enough for any power couple.

Does that help?

Buck Up

A reader writes:

Come on, that debate was meaningless last night. No one really said a thing of any substance and the entire racial issue was somewhat put to bed. The uncommitted vote in Michigan among blacks was at almost 70% which obviously augurs well for Obama. This thing will go past Super Tuesday. Let’s see what happens in Nevada and South Carolina. We already know how the Clintons will spin the Nevada loss but a big win in South Carolina will be a huge boost. Keep the faith.

Will do. I haven’t assumed a Clinton victory, despite the dispirited tone of this post. I’m just thinking out loud. In this campaign, God only knows what’s around the corner.

Chabon vs Cohen

Michael Chabon:

Alas for Mr. Cohen and for all of us, in the service of his own fear he resorts to employing the time-honored strategies (smear and guilt-by-association) and tactics (a false appearance of reasonableness, assumption of unproven conclusions, selective reference to facts not in evidence) employed by the very demagogues and masters of hate whom he is presumably trying to combat.

According to Chabon, Cohen’s attempt to associate Obama with Farrakhan has worked:

Having received a number of anxious emails from fellow Jews across the country, quoting from or including the entire text of the column, I can reassure Mr. Cohen that his efforts have not gone in vain.

More here.

Yglesias Award Nominee

"What about rendering unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s, and unto God that which is God’s? Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU. Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand," – Lisa Schiffren, NRO. She meant Caesar. But we didn’t all take Latin.

I wonder if Huckabee might even get some movement conservatives to re-evaluate the merits of political secularism.

Why Karl Rove Is Smiling

Rovewinmcnameegetty

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.)

Nevada Debate Round-Up

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.