Great post, shithead!

LOL. But, seriously, is there any indication that people actually have longer memories in the YouTube age? Any advantage in documentation seem to be lost in the sheer volume of stuff.

Primary "Collars?"

And people who refuse to vote because Obama or Hillary might get the nod are "shitheads," as in, self-centered and self-important [and politically immature] people who are too good for the process once their candidate loses.

They are the shitheads who will elect John McCain if they can't get their way.

I seem to have an anomalously long memory, so I'm not a good data point for this, but it does seem to me that Clinton is playing the double-or-nothing game -- if she wins the nomination, sure I'll support her, but if she loses, I'd expect this behavior would hurt her in the future. It's a bit of a meta-issue for Obama to ask whether we want to elect such a gambler as our president (and interestingly, it applies to McCain equally well, if you consider the games he played with his campaign funding), but it would be fun if it worked.

Am I alone in wondering what the big deal was about Clinton's comments? She pointed out that she has a resume that can match up with McCain whereas Obmama doesn't. There's no endorsement of McCain, just an argument that she's the better GE candidate. It's an argument that McCain would make anyway and Clinton having suggested it is unlikely to sway anyway in GE.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

I think all this primary name-calling is a really, really good thing. It lets people vent the poison that builds up in their day to day lives on people they'll never meet and who can feel free to spew it right back at them. It's actually a very healthy way to vent aggression. Probably primary vitriol venting has saved countless marriages.

It's a bad idea because it validates the belief that Republicans are the de facto authority on matters of defense and security; an idea, I might add, that the blogosphere and Dem activists have been railing against for as long as I can remember. And now Rasmussen tells us that 42% of those polled want "McCain to answer the phone". Thanks, Hillary.

I have to offer a "yeah, but..."

Meanwhile, as Hillary and Barack spar with one another, John McSame As Bush ( Thank you, Sam Seder, for that tag) is planning an overseas trip that will be Rovian in nature and designed to highlight his so-called foreign relations skills.

But you have offered an interesting post.

@Tom: Actually, it's stranger than that. Hillary suggested McCain was MORE qualified than SHE is. "Certainly" John McCain has crossed the CinC threshold, while she said "I believe" she had.

And to my mind, there's two different issues here. It's one thing to criticize your opponent in the primary-- that's what you have to do. It's another thing to endorse the other party's nominee. Compare these two hypothetical Obama statements:
"I'll tell you the truth, even if it isn't what you want to hear. Hillary changes her story depending on who's listening."
"John McCain and I have demonstrated that we're willing to give you straight talk about the issues. Hillary has not. We can't send a pandering triangulator out to take on a straight-talking maverick like John McCain."

If you don't see any difference there, or don't see anything out of line in the second sentence, then I have to wonder what you're smoking.

Your candidate is a shithead, asshole.

Just wait until Wolfson starts talking about secret babies by white women, cause Clinton INC will use that if the need to.

I agree with Kevin's conclusion that specific ads and attacks probably won't be used in the general election, but I do think that tone and narrative framing CAN trickle into peoples' unconsciouses.

So, no, the specific ads and arguments aren't used, but general negative opinion might persist.

Also, I think there's definitely a "fatigue" factor: most people who aren't political junkies don't like seeing political ads on TV, nor hearing about the campaigns on the nightly news. The longer the press is infatuated with this drama, I think it hurts some turnout. (Might increase in other populations too, though).

Obama was the new fresh hotness, but after a year of this stuff, he'll probably be just another politician.

(d) Completely different audiences in the primary and the general. The kinds of attacks that would be effective with primary voters (core, committed, partisans) won't have much effect in the general with the swing voters. Partisans aren't subject to persuasion in the general, and they are motivated by different factors.

Your candidate is a shithead, asshole.
Posted by: Pocket Rocket

No. Just some of his/her supporters.
Fucking moron.

As usual with me every primary season, I am irritated with the other candidate's campaign. Come fall, however, I am sure the Republicans will irritate me to no end.

Nothing novel to add... I think Clinton would make a good president but, unfortunately, the approach she has taken to try to win the nomination certainly has the potential to do harm to her or Obama's election chances. The "phone at 3AM" notion plays off of fear. Given the dynamics of the nomination race she may not have had any choice but to use fear to try to win the election, but fear is an emotion that plays more strongly into Republican hands. And when she went to the "threshold to be president" notion she went over the line - she's framed the presidency as, more than any other issue, one of some kind of "experience" thing. If she wins the nomination she'll have to try argue that once some imagined threshold of experience is reached more experience doesn't matter, but I don't see that being bought by many swing voters that may already be a bit leery of her. You can be sure that the Republicans will be trying to define Obama in the same light during this critical time when he has to divide his attention between fending of both Clinton and the Republicans "attacks". If Obama wins the nomination he will have a much harder job disabusing undecideds of this characterization. IOW, Clinton's tactics will make it that much harder for Obama to define himself for the undecideds.

Pale Rider: And people who refuse to vote because Obama or Hillary might get the nod are "shitheads," as in, self-centered and self-important [and politically immature] people who are too good for the process once their candidate loses.

This is nonsense.

The issue is not actually voting for one or the other Democratic nominee. Most voters, under most circumstances, are perfectly capable of simply voting for the least objectionable candidate when they are not thrilled with their choice. Nose holding has a grand tradition in any mature democracy. So, I'm sure most Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she happens to be. The real issue is one of enthusiasm. Enthusiastic voters put up yard signs and try to convince friends and relatives and neighbors to vote for their candidate, they work for the candidate, they attend rallies, etc.

I'm convinced that this primary will prove to be extremely divisive and corrosive. Maybe there were others, maybe the '68 one was also bad, and the Democrats almost won that general election, but both the media environment and the way politics is practiced now are thoroughly, fundamentally different. In my 30 years of paying attention to politics I've never seen Democrats so angry at each other. A few weeks ago the consensus was that we had two very good candidates. Now supporters of Obama and Clinton are arguing as if they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. The anger is not going to go away because we want it to. Democrats may vote for the Democratic nominee, but many won't work to support him or her. This can make all the difference in an election, especially a close one.

____________________________________________

In 2006, losing Republican gubernatorial primary candidate Marc Holtzman in Colorado lobbed the attack "Both Ways Bob" at his opponent, Bob Beauprez. That stuck, and though it wasn't used much directly by the eventual winner, Democrat Bill Ritter, it was heavily used by independent groups in their attacks on Beauprez.

Kevin, do you seriously question the use YouTube is going to have in this election?

There are ALREADY 30-second spots up there made by random people consisting of Hillary praising John McCain for his "experience." She's single-handedly fucked her own campaign.

Take it from an old sportswriter. Close contests in a contact sport breed animosity. But once the game is over, professionals (which Obama and Clinton surely are), shake hands and move on.
Fans on Internet message boards, not so much. But observing a contest through the point of view of its most demented semi-participants is unhelpful. Canada's population did not grow dramatically after Kerry lost to Bush, despite everything posted online around Halloween 2004.

At least we got the "monster" issue on the table. I haven't seen anyone effectively rebut the argument that Hill is indeed a monster. Unless she can persuade us now that she's NOT a monster, the issue will haunt her until November. If she is one and is comfortable with it, she should be upfront and admit it. This isn't 1958. There's room for monsters at all levels of our society. If they take their meds.

... several commenters suggested that things are different in the YouTube age.

YouTube changed everything. Well, 9/11 changed everything, but then YouTube changed it all again. Basically, things are pretty much the same as they always were.

Anyway, call it a hunch, but I think some enterprising 'winger somewhere will use those snippets if Obama's the nominee. It's a no-brainer. It's easy, it's cheap, it's viral -- and it's a two-fer. It shows Jesus-lovin' folks everywhere that Obama should, maybe, be running for student council of a madrassa, but certainly not for President of the Best Country in the World. It shows that even big-time Democrats think that. Oh, and it's a way of ensuring lots of finger pointing & name-calling... with the added bonus of stoking hatred on the left for the Clintons. I guess that makes it a three-fer. (Or a four-fer?)

Anyway, scribble it down somewhere so you can tell me how wrong I was when it doesn't happen.

Kevin,

You are probably forgetting about how effectively the Schwarzenegger campaign used the negative primary ads by Steve Westly against Phil Angelides. Granted it was a governor's race, and granted the Angelides campaign had a lot of other weaknesses, but those recycled Westly slams did have an impact. There is no reason to think the same tactic won't be used in this campaign.

Aris: "In my 30 years of paying attention to politics I've never seen Democrats so angry at each other."

I seem to recall that 1980 wasn't exactly a year of the warm fuzzies for Democrats. There are a fair number of older Democrats who still harbor a bitter grudge toward Sen. Ted Kennedy, contending that his self-absorbed primary challenge that year to incumbent President Jimmy Carter is what ultimately undermined the latter's political viability against Ronald Reagan.

Quite frankly, they can make a decent case.

McCain has been in the Senate for 21 years and Congress for a total of 25. Does anyone think it wouldn't occur to him to bring up the "experience" issue during the general election? The issue cuts both ways, anyway. Yes, McCain has more experience, but I am the outsider-candidate-for-change. Yes, McCain would rush to the phone at 3AM, and order random nuclear strikes on whoever because he is a hawkish jitterbug; I will actually listen to what the caller is telling me.

Donald from Hawaii: Quite frankly, they can make a decent case.

Carter was already quite unpopular, so I think he could have lost the election without any assistance. But I think you're right. Being challenged by Kennedy and Brown, and having the primary go all the way to summer, didn't help in the slightest.
____________________________________________

James: "... granted the Angelides campaign had a lot of other weaknesses ..."

... starting at the top, with the hapless candidate himself.

I might also argue that whatever outside chance Phil Angelides stood of ousting Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2006 was completely undermined by the self-serving symbiotic relationship that year between the governor and Democratic state legislators.

That bond enabled an opportunistic Schwarzenegger to claim a fairly good number of successful progressive policy initiatives as his own, kept the Democratic-controlled legislature happy, and neatly undercut Angelides' entire rationale for his own candidacy.

Primary attacks are bad, because when they are directed at my candidate I get my feelings hurt and then I get angry and I don't like it. So stop it you shitheaded assholic fuckwads!

"but I do think that tone and narrative framing CAN trickle into peoples' unconsciouses."

I think that's right. In 2000, Bradley called Gore dishonest and helped establish the tone.

I might also argue that whatever outside chance Phil Angelides stood of ousting Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2006 was completely undermined by the self-serving symbiotic relationship that year between the governor and Democratic state legislators.

That bond enabled an opportunistic Schwarzenegger to claim a fairly good number of successful progressive policy initiatives as his own, kept the Democratic-controlled legislature happy, and neatly undercut Angelides' entire rationale for his own candidacy.
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 9, 2008 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

There was a time,in the far distant past, when such behavior was described as "politicians doing the jobs they were elected to do."

Surely the more relevant question is whether there have been other cases of one candidate in a Democratic primary praising the Republican nominee as more qualified to be President than his Democratic opponent. Or vice-versa in a Republican primary. And I can't think of any. By openly claiming that only she and McCain can be trusted to be commander in chief, and therefore suggesting to Americans that they can only keep their families safe by voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee, Hillary Clinton has taken us into new and very dangerous territory.

things are different in the YouTube age

Definitely. Just google "squirrel catapult".

Surely the more relevant question is whether there have been other cases of one candidate in a Democratic primary praising the Republican nominee as more qualified to be President than his Democratic opponent.
Bingo.
And Kevin is clueless as usual.

I'm not worried about Democrats' attacks on one another because they're nothing compared to the bottomless Republican sleaze pit to come.

Still, I'd rather see HRC and BHO compete to drive up McCain's negatives instead of one another's.

a suggestion for obama:

the next time hillary uses the recycled red

phone ad, counter with one of your own. when the

phone rings in the middle of the nt.,have a

woman's voice,with a cultured wellesley accent,

say,"hold on" into the receiver. then she should

shout, "bill, it's for you!"

Bybe; openly claiming that only she and McCain can be trusted to be commander in chief, and therefore suggesting to Americans that they can only keep their families safe by voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee, Hillary Clinton has taken us into new and very dangerous territory. Posted by: Patrick on March 9, 2008 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

I believe this is an example of the behavior Drum was talking about. "You'll have to ask Senator Obama's campaign", which is what Hillary said, is hardly claiming anything, unless you think Obama can't answer the question. When folks like you overreact in this fashion you are the ones who make your candidate look weak and unprepared. Amusingly enough, another one of you followed up your post attacking Drum for being "clueless" on this, when Drum himself fell into the same trapin real time, and whined about Hillary saying "You'll have to ask Senator Obama" as well. But it's the whole world against you folks and your wonderful, brilliant, once in a lifetime candidate who's going to lead us all to the Promised Land, so everyone's an enemy, and deserves all the abuse you can heap on them.

The real bottom line, and danger, is that the left in every country has a tendency to fragment.

Analysts claim that the relatively obscure "blackguard" could make a comeback

If it does it'll be Hillary's fault.

Obama should ask Clinton whether she thinks McCain's stalwart support of Bush in the Iraq war disqualifies him from Commander in Chief.

I'll knock it off when Hillary's cronies in the Canadian government and the Chicago United States Attorney's office knock it off.

John McCain already has a great commercial with Hillary Clinton endorsing his commander-in-chief credentials. To save money, he's letting her run the commercial. After August, if she's the nominee, his campaign will book the commercial 24/7 on all major channels.

Unless Klinkner can show that Humphrey ran for the presidency in '72 or that McGovern ran in '68 I think that you have to toss one of his examples. I don't think that McGovern and Humphrey were ever primary opponents.

During the age of mass communication the Republican party has used two angles (publically) in campaigns. 1)You can't trust him\he's a flip flopper. 2)He won't defend us against the Russkies\Commies. Other messages regarding race or gay rights are typically accomplished via direct mail. The media reinforces those two angles or frames. It doesn't matter what HRC says, the media and the GOP will contend that Obama isn't ready to lead. He has to be ready for it.

Obama's camp should worry less about HRC and more about McCain. Win the nomination, beat McCain, govern.

Patrick: "... Hillary Clinton has taken us into new and very dangerous territory."

Not to single your comment out, but is such hyperbole necessary when expressing your opinion?

Surely, one can disgree with Hillary Clinton's campaign and candidacy, without also taking additional pains to revile her as the living reincarnation of the Empress Dowager Tz'u-hsi in the waning days of the Manchu Dynasty.

The truth be told, Mrs. Clinton's unflattering comparison of Barack Obama to John McCain really differs little from the tone of Obama's repetitions of shopworn GOP talking points -- going back to last autumn -- that she is divisive and unelectable.

Suffice to say that while both eye-roll-inducing statements are regrettable in terms of demeanor, they are also representative of a close and spirited primary contest.

However, let's also remember that both statements hardly undermine the fact that Democrats are currently fielding two very attractive candidates who are both light-years ahead of the propective GOP nominee, John McCain. Let's take pride in that.

However, let's also remember that both statements hardly undermine the fact that Democrats are currently fielding two very attractive candidates who are both light-years ahead of the propective GOP nominee, John McCain. Let's take pride in that. Posted by: Donald, that shithead asshole fuckwad from Hawaii on March 9, 2008 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Up yours, blackguard.

MG: "There was a time,in the far distant past, when such behavior was described as 'politicians doing the jobs they were elected to do.'"

When was that?

MG: "Up yours, blackguard."

Touché! Or maybe that should be "Douche" ...

;-)

When was that? Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 9, 2008 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

Ancient, ancient history. There was a time when the Roman Senate, under the threat of Hannibal, was able to work with military commanders, who were given near-dictatorial powers, for the good of the Republic.

I'm reliably told the Latin word for "bipartisanship", translated into English, has the dual meaning of "date rape."

rk: "I don't think that McGovern and Humphrey were ever primary opponents."

They were in 1972 -- and McGovern's supporters within the anti-war movement disparaged the former vice-president as a tool of the establishment.

Donald: The truth be told, Mrs. Clinton's unflattering comparison of Barack Obama to John McCain really differs little from the tone of Obama's repetitions of shopworn GOP talking points -- going back to last autumn -- that she is divisive and unelectable.

No, it really does. For your analogy to work, Obama would have had to do more than repeat GOP talking points; he would have had to say that Clinton is divisive and unelectable and McCain is less so. Obama didn't say anything of the kind.

Attacking your primary opponent's weaknesses or perceived weaknesses = within bounds. Saying your primary opponent is unqualified is even in bounds.
Adopting a new "strategy" that has you repeatedly elevating the Republican opponent's qualifications above your Democratic opponent's = not fucking okay.

That hurts Clinton in November, did she but realize it (Penn again, no doubt). It hurts Obama in November. It hurts the whole Democratic party, and by extension the nation, in November. It crosses far into "it's going to be me or nobody in the party" territory.

And I think all but the most partisan Clinton supporters clearly recognize this, which is why most of them aren't even trying to defend the indefensible.

I almost forgot: there's an example of primary attacks being used by the other side much, much closer at hand than 1980. The Republicans are already using Obama's attacks on mandated insurance against the Democrats. There was at least one widely circulated editorial in the WSJ, and I saw something in, I think Forbes magazine, as well.

"differs little from the tone of Obama's repetitions of shopworn GOP talking points -- going back to last autumn -- that she is divisive and unelectable."

Donald,

I haven't been able to find any reference to Obama saying anything of the sort last autumn or more recently. I did find a direct quote of 'divisive and unelectable' concerning Hillary Clinton attributed to Elizabeth Edwards. I'd appreciate a link to such an Obama comment if you're going to use it as a comparison to Hillary's McCain CIC comment. It really doesn't sound to me like anything Obama would say.

MG: "There was a time when the Roman Senate, under the threat of Hannibal, was able to work with military commanders, who were given near-dictatorial powers, for the good of the Republic."

And we all know what that led to, one hundred and sixty later, when Julius Caesar offended Roman politicians' sense of social propriety by his open dalliance with Queen Cleopatra of Egypt.

Of course, impeachment and removal by the Senate in those days was also fatal.

The problem is that the pundit class, including Kevin, who has had two bites at this apple, is glossing over Hillary's virtual "endorsement" choosing to focus instead on Wolfson's "Ken Starr" comment as a counter point to Power's "monster" mistake.

I can guarantee you the professional pols didn't miss the "McCain is better than Obama" screw up. I will be shocked if Hillary marches it out again.

Above somebody defended Hillary by saying that she never said Obama hasn't crossed the CIC "threshold" and she didn't, but does anybody who has listened to the entire comment believe that wasn't what she intended?

nepeta: "I haven't been able to find any reference to Obama saying anything of the sort last autumn or more recently."

Try right here, courtesy of by Nedra Pickler and The Associated Press. Admittedly, it's from January, but it'll do.

It's also old news, and not really worth arguing over. Let's move on.

Thank you, thank you for pointing a finger at "the usual bickering between Clinton and Obama supporters, which at this point has become considerably more irritating and vitriolic than anything the candidates themselves are saying."

And I think all but the most partisan Clinton supporters clearly recognize this, which is why most of them aren't even trying to defend the indefensible. Posted by: shortstop on March 9, 2008 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not a particularly partisan Clinton supporter (I was driven into her camp by the craziness of the Obamabots, left, and driven right back in by the craziness of the 'bots), so I feel free to speak up here.

There is nothing Hillary, or anyone else, can do or say that will convince the public that McCain is not ready to assume the job of commander in chief. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks; the vast majority of the public thinks he is ready, and will not be dissuaded from this belief by the most brilliant, soul-stirring rhetoric ever known to man. What exactly is wrong, then with acknowledging this and moving on? In sales, it's called "acknowledging a drawback" and is often done to establish your credibility. People figure if you are honest when it doesn't help you out, you're honest, period.

Do you think Obama, in a general election, could convince the public that McCain isn't CiC material, but he, Obama, is? If he could do this, nothing Hillary can do or say could possibly matter. But since Obama hasn't been able to even convince Dem primary voters, that Hillary isn't CiC material, I think it's pretty safe to draw certain conclusions about what he could do against McCain. It's a non-issue, a waste of tears and anger. It's a weak point for Obama, and nothing Hillary can do will make it any weaker or stronger. Admit it and move on to issues where Obama has strength.

Above somebody defended Hillary by saying that she never said Obama hasn't crossed the CIC "threshold" and she didn't, but does anybody who has listened to the entire comment believe that wasn't what she intended?

The person who floated that forgot to include this info: in addition to her wink-wink-nudge-nudge-ask-the-senator wording on that occasion, Clinton has said unequivocally on two other occasions since March 1 that McCain is more qualified than Obama.

MG: Do you think Obama, in a general election, could convince the public that McCain isn't CiC material, but he, Obama, is?

Of course not. I don't think Obama would be stupid enough to voluntarily frame the argument that way. The question is: why was Hillary?

No one thinks McCain isn't going spot the experience argument without us showing it to him. That doesn't make it appropriate or defensible for any Democrat to freaking endorse the man's qualifications over her or his primary opponent's. Remember, Clinton hasn't been running around saying Obama is qualified for the presidency except for this "experience" thing--she has yet to even clearly acknowledge his legitimacy, while she has now stated three times (I may be missing others) that McCain is more qualified than Obama.

Way to send a message that you don't mind taking the party down with you if you can't win the nomination yourself.

And way to cripple herself if she is the nominee. She has now identified her parameters for legitimacy as general "experience" and foreign policy expertise. In the former she holds only a slight measurable edge over Obama and comes nowhere near McCain. In the latter she has so little solid accomplishment herself that the GOP and McCain will make mincemeat of her in the general for claiming that she can stand up to him on it.

It was a stupid and craven strategy across the board--she hurts everyone Democratic, including herself, with it. And that says a hell of a lot about her experience and her judgment--not to mention her priorities and values.

shortstop is totally right. After eight years of Bush foreign policy, anyone looking to carry on that legacy represents the antithesis of "foreign policy experience". That's the message Democrats need to send nationally, and it's a message the Clinton needs to undercut because it reflects poorly on her in the primary.

One point I think many critics are missing is that whether or not you think that a Hillary attack or an Obama attack will be used in a GOP ad, most likely the particular line of criticism will already be used.

So for instance, the Hillary question about whether Obama has the experience to be CinC would almost certainly be used by Republicans whether or not Hillary ever brought that up. Similarly, the Harry-and-Louise Obama attacks against Hillary's health care plan were likely to be brought up by McCain.

The real question here is: how much damage will it be to say "Hillary Clinton was questioning Obama's experience to handle a foreign policy crisis" or "Barack Obama thinks Hillary's health care plan will force poor Americans to buy health care they can't afford"?

Frankly, I don't think it's much.

Also, I'd much rather that undecideds and independents be introduced to Hillary and Barack through Dem messaging and ads (which, despite the whining of some, particularly on the Obama side, are extremely tame compared to what we should expect from McCain) than through GOP 527 ads.

The extended primaries are a good thing for Dems, depending on how this whole thing ends.

MG,

It is wrong to assume that McCain is good CiC material. Yes, he has served in the military. Yes he has served in Congress for 25 years. That doesn't establish him as being qualified to be CiC.

Already lots of people are pointing out that he has a serious anger control problem. The last person we want answering the phone at 3:00 am is some ordinarily cranky old man made more cranky by lack of sleep.

Simply equating years in Washington with being qualified to be CiC is a big mistake. As far as I know none of the three has ever been CiC of much of anything. For that reason we can't look to what they have done as CiC to help us reach the conclusion that any of them might be a guide to the CiC job.

The way I look at it the qualifications to be CiC would include a lot of specific personal characteristics. The probably include temper, intelligence, stamina, judgment and a willingness to adapt. On the basis of age alone I would rank 71 year old McCain well below either Obama or Clinton when it comes to residual intelligence and stamina. So far, Obama has shown a coolness under fire that is very reassuring. No one has accused Hillary of being a hot head. As to judgment I would suggest Obama thinks he has the upper hand. As to a willingness to adapt, McCain is a Republican. There is no contest. He is frozen in the Republican world view. He simply can't adapt. All he can do is double down.

As a Democrat Hillary should frame the argument so that while both she and Obama are better CIC material than McCain, but she is better than Obama.

That isn't how she has chosen to frame the issue.

Donald,

No reason to argue. The AP piece you linked does not quote Obama saying that Clinton is 'divisive and unelectable.' Those were Pickler's words describing Obama's comments differentiating himself from both Clinton AND McCain, thereby destroying whatever analogy you were making in your 6:56 comment, not an apt analogy in the first place:

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.

"We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that is exactly what I will do," he said.

shortstop: "No, it really does."

I think we're arguing semantics here. She said he's less qualified to be commander in chief than John McCain. He said she's divisive and unelectable. In terms of both a campaign's tone and demeanor, there's no difference, which is all I said.

I suppose that I could make the additional point that Obama's statements were more personal in nature, because they obliquely disparage her character -- but really, what's to be gained by that? I plan on voting for either one of them in November, or perhaps even both!

Now, I'm not happy Mrs. Clinton said it. It's clearly a gaffe, and I won't defend it. Even as just a passing reference (as one spokesman in her campaign later claimed), she should clearly have known better that to make such a comparison. But nevertheless, it's out there in the ether, just as Obama's statements about her being calculating and divisive are. Gaffes are part of life, and we weigh them accordingly, and move on.

And that's all the more reason why we have to work hard to ensure that the voters' collective focus in November is properly affixed upon the lousy fucking job Republicans did in governance over the past eight years, and not on what one Democratic candidate may have said intemperately about another in the heat of the primary moment.

The bottom line is this: We're really all on the same ship, and it serves nobody's purpose to be drilling holes in the hull, in the mistaken belief that the port side will sink faster than the starboard.

Oops, it's bartending time. Good reparte and discussion, everyone.

Aloha, shortstop. Stay warm in Chicagoland -- and I'm glad to hear that your mother decided to join us on "The Dark Side."

nepeta: "No reason to argue."

Good. Then don't.

No one thinks McCain isn't going spot the experience argument without us showing it to him. That doesn't make it appropriate or defensible for any Democrat to freaking endorse the man's qualifications over her or his primary opponent's. Remember, Clinton hasn't been running around saying Obama is qualified for the presidency except for this "experience" thing--she has yet to even clearly acknowledge his legitimacy, while she has now stated three times (I may be missing others) that McCain is more qualified than Obama.

Way to send a message that you don't mind taking the party down with you if you can't win the nomination yourself.

The scent of oil is in the air. Has one of the 'bots sprung a leak?

I haven't seen these "three times" and you weren't so kind as to provide evidence of them (busy fixing the leak?). But let's say they exist. McCain is more qualified than Obama on security, at least in the sense of public perception. Nothing anyone can do will change that. As I already pointed out, Obama can't even compete with Hillary on this issue. Why is pointing it out somehow "taking him down"? He's that fragile?

I know this will come as a shock -- it might even cause a short circuit -- but Obama isn't perfect. And guess what? He doesn't have to be to win. One flaw isn't going to kill him, unless he and his halfwitted, fully crazed supporters let it define him. My guess is he's too smart to let it define him, but you folks are a whole different matter.

How can Obama supporters claim the high road, when they are saying things like this in the comments:

"At least we got the "monster" issue on the table. I haven't seen anyone effectively rebut the argument that Hill is indeed a monster. Unless she can persuade us now that she's NOT a monster, the issue will haunt her until November. If she is one and is comfortable with it, she should be upfront and admit it. This isn't 1958. There's room for monsters at all levels of our society. If they take their meds. "

If Clinton were "throwing the kitchen sink at Obama" or if she "would do anything to get elected," two phrases I hear echoed in comments ad nauseum, Clinton's people would be talking about the articles appearing in the tabloids about Obama's affairs with other women (and one man who claims to have slept with him) and about Michelle and Barack's screaming matches over other women. Both are in this weeks grocery checkout tabloids. When this stuff appears about Clinton, it somehow becomes mainstream news. When it appears about Obama (and probably just as false) it is ignored (as it should be). If Clinton were really the monster with the ability to control the message, as Obama supporters keep saying, why hasn't this stuff become the focus of national attention?

Disclaimer: I have no connection with Clinton's campaign whatsoever and thus am not a surrogate or proxy, but I do buy groceries and I can read.

Donald: As we've been discussing in these threads, the CinC comment of March 6 was not a standalone remark. Twice earlier last week (check the GOP Bad News Watch thread below for exact quotes and dates if anyone actually missed them in the blogosphere this week), Clinton made almost word-for-word statements that "Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience, I brings a lifetime of experience, Senator Obama gave a speech in 2002."

I will note, then leave it for the evening, that once is a gaffe; three times is a strategy. There ain't no "heat of the moment" going on here.

Night, all.

I don't think the danger is that McCain will use Hillary's attacks.

Rather the danger is that Hillary is planting seeds of doubt into her supporters over Obama's fitness for office which they will continue to have in November. Not all of them but even if only 20% of her supporters still feel that way about Obama it could sway the election.

I think an interesting topic for a future post, Kevin, would be to ask the "hive" whether they think that Obama going negative would backfire on him or not.

I haven't seen these "three times" and you weren't so kind as to provide evidence of them (busy fixing the leak?).

Sigh. I don't know where you've been all week, MG, but glad to help:

"... (McCain) will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." -- Hillary Clinton, 03/01/08

"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." -- Hillary Clinton, 03/03/08

"And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy." -- Hillary Clinton, 3/06/08

Why is pointing it out somehow "taking him down"? He's that fragile?

Despite several people having explained the wider implications to you, you seem to be microfocused on some idea that this negatively affect only Obama, while ignoring what it also does to stupidly frame Democratic issues in the elections. You particularly ignore how this is not a winning strategy for HRC, should she get the nomination.

Well, onward toward the cliff, friend. Don't slow down and by all means, don't look ahead.

Night!

Glacier

Marc Ambinder asked his readers that question. Answers are in the comments section.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_brokers_will_they_step_in.php

Jezz, Kevin, if we're calm, how can we possibly comment?

I'm not sure that bickering is what the Obama and Clinton partisans engage in here. I see useful (if at times bitter) polemics and counter-polemics--a valuable exercise that winnows out the chaff. What else are we to do? Celebrate teh awesome that is Hillary/Obama? We're partisans. It's an election year, f'r christ's sake.

Will campaign history truly be much of a guide this year?

McCain--At Least I'm a White Man! Clinton: Validate Your Paltry Existence. Vote for Me! And then Obama, the most transgressive (i.e., boundary violating) and therefore most threatening candidate to things as usual.

One primary-election theme you will not see in the GE: Misogyny. She's already wrapped up the sympathy vote on that score; it won't work for her in the GE, if she's the nominee. Oh, and Obama will get her voters in the General. I don't see either male nominee using misogyny against each other.

But expect to see Hillary as victim used a lot, by McCain! Yes, it has become hackneyed among the Dems. But it's got legs for the GE. A former POW is a superior victim. I see a nice contrast and compare of her victimhood--misting up with a softball question, how do ya do it, girl?--against five and a half years on a concrete slab.

The Power "monster" remark, similarly, may work for McCain. There's an ominous YouTube video of Hillary as the Cookie Monster, that McCain could likely make light of. Hillary, a monster? nah, he'd say, referencing, again, his acquaintance with his Vietnamese captors.

Worst of all, Clinton's primary election claim of a lifetime of experience, while providing some short-term benefit against a more charismatic Obama, will be deadly for her in the GE.

Here's why: she sounds delusional. Now, I don't doubt for a second that Clinton truly believes she was Bill's co-president. That the country elected her too in 1992. That she absorbed all of his two terms in office in every fiber of her being and that she is as a result the most qualified to run the country. This is really what she believes.

But McCain will have a field day, for example, with her claim that she helped to broker peace in Northern Ireland. He will reprise dirty hippies/Woodstock museum/martyred POWs. McCain could even develop ads mocking her delusions of experience with a slideshow of her hair morphing over time. Now that would be, you know, mean. But it's not illegal.

Against Obama, McCain has only a bigot's game: smears on race and religion. And a semi-valid on on experience, easily countered with a wisdom/judgment case.

So you can expect, as junebug said--wait, I scribbled it down, here--that we'll be treated to intimations that

Obama should, maybe, be running for student council of a madrassa, but certainly not for President of the Best Country in the World. It shows that even big-time Democrats think that. . . .

Look for it this fall. It won't work with most Americans. But McCain'll sure get the frightened haters.

Despite several people having explained the wider implications to you, you seem to be microfocused on some idea that this negatively affect only Obama, while ignoring what it also does to stupidly frame Democratic issues in the elections. You particularly ignore how this is not a winning strategy for HRC, should she get the nomination.

Well, onward toward the cliff, friend. Don't slow down and by all means, don't look ahead.

Night!
Posted by: shortstop on March 9, 2008 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

What devastating, underhanded attacks! All the more so because they are essentially accurate; Obama has almost no experience in these affairs. And that's what's really bothering you, I suspect.

Hillary saying she has the experience to be CiC is "negatively framing" herself, and somehow bringing her own campaign down? Keeerist.

I give up. You can't beat the bots.

> The way I look at it the qualifications to be
> CiC would include a lot of specific personal
> characteristics. The probably include temper,
> intelligence, stamina, judgment and a willingness
> to adapt.

The first qualification to be President, in my mind, is the courage to acknowledge that the President is "CinC" of the **armed forces only**, not the nation. As I read the Constitution that only very specific and unusual circumstances. And that the "CinC fetish" that has swept the nation over the last 8 years is incredibly corrosive of our Constitution and Nation.

Cranky

Of course, I meant "Jeez, Kevin . . ."

> What devastating, underhanded attacks! All the
> more so because they are essentially accurate;
> Obama has almost no experience in these affairs.
> And that's what's really bothering you, I suspect.

I would still like to see those 2-3 examples of documented instances where Hillary Clinton answered the phone at 3 AM and made executive decisions with national or global consequences. I suppose it is just barely possible she did that when she was on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors but if so I haven't heard the details yet.

Cranky

Methinks the doom-and-gloom over the effects of the Dem primary contest on the general election are overblown. By historical norms the vitriol seems pretty mild, and offers at best weak ammunition to the Rep's (although I admit my memory is a bit fuzzy).

Consider that over 27M people have thus far voted/participated in Dem primaries. If those numbers are close to reality, that represents over 20% of the votes cast in the 2004 general election. That's a helluva start.

That's no reason to become complacent. But in any case, while some of the primary tactics may be disagreeable, I have yet to see anything from either side that threatens to sink the ship.

Several people have noted this, and I'll just repeat a comment from above: "Surely the more relevant question is whether there have been other cases of one candidate in a Democratic primary praising the Republican nominee as more qualified to be President than his Democratic opponent."

Kevin, you simply missed the point, as did many others above. Clinton ceded the commander-in-chief label to the Democrats reThuglican rival, McCain. She said of course he is ready for that, and she said it again and again with slightly different phrasing. She validated his credentials in about every way she could. That will make any attacks against his record much harder in the general, whichever Dem wins the nomination.

Oh, and in keeping with the general subtheme, your candidate is a shithead.

The most obvious question is why does there need to be a precedent? There's always a first time, especially when it's gift wrapped in with such a pretty bow.

Cranky Observer: And that the "CinC fetish" that has swept the nation over the last 8 years is incredibly corrosive of our Constitution and Nation.

Agree. Since when did the ability command in war become the primary criteria for selecting the POTUS? Since when did the ability to command the use of force become the primary criteria for selecting the POTUS? WTF, why not just make head of Joint Chiefs the POTUS and be done with it.

Why is Drumm et. al so damn timid and acting like NYT or WSJ?

Are the Clinton’s such scary thugs that the bloggers are afraid to ratchet up and expose their deception, lies and immorality??

Get some balls Kevin (take a cue from Marshall who has an intellect and balls) and start talking about the gutter, immoral, destructive politics that are the Clintons…

Ken Starr???

FU!

Cigar anyone? Smells good, right good ole corrupt cracker boy? How them Chinese donors these days, or is it the dictator of the oil rich state of Kusyagotgonarhera?

I suppose it could happen, if McCain was trying to pick off disaffected supporters of the losing Dem candidate -- he's well situated for this kind of attack. But in most cases, it doesn't work well to run that kind of attack ad because the campaign is just too invested in demonizing everyone from the other party for it to have much impact.

This kind of thing does work well in debates, but it's a minor point scored, not a crushing blow.

The big effect, though, is that these kind of attacks help shape and reinforce narratives that will be spread by other sources: Obama is inexperienced, Clinton's health plan will force people to buy something they don't want. That's the real danger.

“You’re saying that Senator Obama doesn’t have the experience? That he’s too naïve to be president?� Pelley asked.

“No, I am saying that I have that. And if the phone rings at 3:00a.m., I think the American people would want me to answer it first,� McCain replied.

wvng: She said of course he is ready for that, and she said it again and again with slightly different phrasing. She validated his credentials in about every way she could. That will make any attacks against his record much harder in the general, whichever Dem wins the nomination.

That only matters if "experience" vis-a-vis CiC is the primary issue in the general election. I hope it isn't. And while Hillary may use it against Obama, that doesn't mean she'll use it against McCain. (She'd be stupid if she did, and since she's not stupid, I expect/hope she has another card.) Obama has already made his position clear, running on judgement vs. experience.

The thing that bothers me most about the "whose going to answer the phone..." advertising is that Hillary finally answers it on the 6th ring.

I'd love to see a UTube spoof with all three candidates shouting "I'll get it", and making a mad dash for the phone, while tripping over themselves and each other.

If Hillary Clinton's last name was Smith, and not Clinton, and if she was a man, and not a woman, then she would not even be heard of, let alone considered for the nomination. The two things that got her ahead are her gender and her last name. Thanks to those, she gets votes from ignorant Bill Clinton fans (who think that First Lady is some kind of substantial office of power) and ignorant women (who vote for Hillary because she shares her gender and they "think its time we had a female in office").

Meanwhile, Obama has gotten ahead because he is a good speaker, period. If he spoke like Al Gore, what would he run on? His immense achievements? His experience? His vision?

All Obama is is a damn tired old liberal with the same old liberal cliches. For example, he thinks that spending more money in schools will result in better education. So if we have nicer school buildings with better carpeting and cleaner windows and better heating all the teenagers out there will stop getting pregnant before marriage and will stop doing drugs. Yea, good one.

And yes I'm aware McCain sucks too. But just because McCain sucks doesn't mean the Democrats rule. Anyone who thinks in such dumb zero-sum ways doesn't deserve to vote.

This election sucks, and I hope a Democrat wins begins then Obama and Hillary will be put in a position where they will either have to anger liberals or moderate Democrats

Kevin: there hasn't been such an important election since 1932. Hillary's negative campaign is egotism and divisive. I posit that it is the only way democrats can lose in 2008. That is why I am so angry at her campaign. I have never in my life seen democrats so angry at one another. I feel she is destroying the party. Her actual policy is now dwarfed by her ambition. In my almost five-decades of life, I have only seen this level of selfish behavior in a candidate only once: G.W. Bush. If Obama can keep the party from changing the rules, he will win in a landslide. There is no there, there for Hillary.
She really has already lost the nomination. Still we have fence sitters like Washington Monthly playing like she could win honestly. It is like the way UCLA gets a top seed in basketball after this weekend. You must suspend the rules and hope the outrage doesn't overwhelm the Potemkin victory celebrations. . .

rove: This election sucks, and I hope a Democrat wins begins then Obama and Hillary will be put in a position where they will either have to anger liberals or moderate Democrats

So you hope the democratically elected POTUS, put into office while our country is is dire need of effective leadership and unification, will be put in a no-win situation. Asshole. Please do us all a favor and move to a third world country.

rove said: "Meanwhile, Obama has gotten ahead because he is a good speaker, period."

Utter horseshit. Obama is ahead because he has run a staggeringly good campaign, with a ground game that has all his compettition shaking their heads, and a 50 state strategy that synergistically enhances the Dean DNC 50 state approach.

Sparko: She really has already lost the nomination.

No. There are plenty of people still rooting for her, and many who think her willingness to fight and hit below the belt when needed are what is required to win the general election. Those people won't go quietly into the night, nor should anyone expect them to.

This rapidly degenerated into the usual bickering between Clinton and Obama supporters, which at this point has become considerably more irritating and vitriolic than anything the candidates themselves are saying. So even though it's off topic, the best comment came from lobbygow:

Kevin, I still think this is being exagerrated (by you too, now, it seems-- and another post? What, to put how "grating" Obama-Clinton internicene war supposedly is? C'mon!) and it doesn't help us. If people think our politics is grating and annoying, they're not going to pay attention liberal politics and they're going to avoid it. This is no more vicious than politics usually is. When people get rude, if any adult person reading a blog finds it annoying, presumably they can ignore it. Please stop contributing to the circular-firing-squad bandwagon, Kevin.

What, to put how "grating" Obama-Clinton internicene war supposedly is?

Uh, I meant: ". . . to put it right on the frontpage in front of all our faces, instead of leaving it to the morons in comments?" Sorry. So now we've got TPM putting a stpry like that up, the Carpetbagger Report doing it, and you doing it. You guys are turning into the mainstream media. Next you'll headline a story "Liberals have low self-esteem and hate themselves" and present us an argument about how little we think of ourselves.

“If Hillary Clinton's last name was Smith, and not Clinton,�

How about if Hillary Clinton had a sex change operation…

I think she would be more effective as a women. Really, not to be unkind, but she is sounding more and more like Jason Robards after a long night of whiskey and cigarettes.

Sparko: She really has already lost the nomination.

I agree completely....however, she is floating this trial balloon now:

"There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and super-delegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose," Hillary told Newsweek, when asked how she can win the nomination despite the current delegate math.

"Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process."

So you see, if she doesn't win by getting MI and FL seated and getting the superdelegates to put her over the top, she'll win by simply stealing Obama's delegates.

The arrogance and dirty tricks on display by Clinton really is astonishing.

So, is 60 Minutes higher or lower profile than a YouTube spot?

(unidentified): "I give up. You can't beat the bots."

Excuse me, but shortstop is not a "bot".

She's from Illinois, and she supports the candidacy of her home state's senator, Barack Obama. Furthermore, she remains respectful of others in her interaction with them, even though she might disagree with their points of view.

And while she and I can engage in robust and vigorous discussions over candidates and strategy (see our exchange upthread), I'll never doubt her heart or her commitment to furthering the progressive values that are the hallmarks of our country's heritage.

The real "Obamabots" and "Hillbots" would do well to emulate her example.

Joe: "So you see, if she doesn't win by getting MI and FL seated and getting the superdelegates to put her over the top, she'll win by simply stealing Obama's delegates."

My God, is their no end to this woman's underhanded chicanery?

Why, the way she and her campaign talk about Michigan and Florida, you might even think that there were somehow record primary turnouts in both those states, and that she actually won with over 50% of the vote in each!

She's from Illinois, and she supports the candidacy of her home state's senator, Barack Obama.

One of these statements doesn't necessarily follow the other, but I am and I do--now. I certainly didn't start out as an Obama supporter (you can find my fact-based criticisms of him on these threads dating back to 2004), but that's where I've ended up.

Furthermore, she remains respectful of others in her interaction with them...

Oh, pshaw. I've displayed my share of disrespect and I don't whine about others' "civility"; I'm not going to complain about some low-information voter showing a little elbow, especially after he just got back from a week in Antarctica and all. Look, thanks for the kind words, but anyone paying attention to these threads and to the campaign knows I've been no one's bot throughout this campaign.

I'd much rather have seen you address my correction of your erroneous depiction of Clinton's oft-repeated remark as a one-time "gaffe."

...and that she actually won with over 50% of the vote in each!

Mmmm, I hope you're not equating the Michigan primary with the Florida primary? Because that would be...well, no matter now. Looks like there'll be a revote in Florida and either a revote or a caucus in Michigan. Then we can lay this one to rest.

To clarify: I certainly didn't start out as an Obama supporter in this primary season, but that's where I ended up. The events of the past week have fully cemented that.

Your general thesis makes sense, but I think we are in a new era with so many folks having internet and youtube access. So this time may be different.

Ron Byers: "As a Democrat Hillary should frame the argument so that while both she and Obama are better CIC material than McCain, but she is better than Obama.

That isn't how she has chosen to frame the issue."

Amen, and to what shortstop has said as well. Hillary's gambit reminds me of something I'm told Bill Bradley once told me about the Clintons (her husband, mainly I guess). They are tactical, not strategic. They excel at the battle looming immediately, usually, but don't think of the battle coming up three battles from now. This may be why Team Hillary ended up so wounded when it did not perform well on Super Tuesday. They didn't plan too much further ahead. It also seems to be why she's now going for Obama's jugular