White Culture and the Democratic Party

Why Krugman is Wrong - Andrew Sullivan

This interesting post by Sullivan argues against two items in Paul Krugman's latest op-ed on Sen. Clinton and some comparisons she has made throughout her campaign. The two items Sullivan has problems with are Sen. Clinton's comparison of this campaign to that of Robert Kennedy in 1968 and the comparison of her own self as an LBJ to Sen. Obama's MLK. Krugman argues that such comparisons and the resulting charges of tone-deafness on the part of the Clinton campaign are nothing more than manufactured scandals. Sullivan believes Krugman's full of shit, which I agree with, even if I don't think the word scandal is appropriate (stupid and ignorant yes, scandal no).
What makes Sullivan's rebuttal interesting though, is his contention that Sen. Clinton, particularly with the LBJ comparison, is arguing that black and gay Democrats should rally behind her because she is taking the standard line of "you vote for us, we'll take care of you. And "we" is always white and straight and connected." That contention on Sen. Clinton's part is exactly why she is losing large and traditionally loyal parts of the Democratic party to Sen. Obama. It's also why Sen. Obama's supposed gaffe over the bitterness of poor and struggling working class families hits the mark. Sen. Obama understands better than Sen. Clinton that what many Democrats and independents are looking for is not someone who will "take care" of them but someone who will provide the opportunities and incentives to take care of themselves. It's a strange position for a progressive politician such as Sen. Obama to take since it implies a more hands off approach to progressive politics. Yet it makes sense in the type of message Sen. Obama is campaigning on--a message that government can help you but you will have to make some efforts on your part as well. It's the type of message that runs counter to the traditional charge that liberals wish to create a nanny state while maintaining the values that make Sen. Obama liberal.
But more than a shift in approach to pushing liberal values, Sen. Obama's platform of post-partisan change drastically pivots away from the attitude of older Democrats like Sen. Clinton by saying that minority Democrats will no longer have to rely on the white, straight and connected members of the party. Could one consider that a subtle playing of the race card? Perhaps, but I think more than playing the race card, Sen. Obama's message is saying that the race card doesn't matter any more. It's a brilliant positioning of himself against Sen. Clinton. Where any comment that might imply Sen. Obama is using his race against Sen. Clinton comes off as an attack on Sen. Obama's race by Sen. Clinton, the position Sen. Obama has struck makes it difficult for anyone in the Clinton campaign to use the race card in the necessary subtle manner. The typical dog-whistle attacks become obvious almost immediately. And while I still don't think of such attacks as scandals, I do think that they show a grave misunderstanding of the movement Sen. Obama has inspired.
It's that misunderstanding of the approach Sen. Obama has taken that has so harmed the Clinton campaign. The allusion to Robert Kennedy's assassination is only the latest in a long line of comments that fail to undermine Sen. Obama's campaign while making either the Clinton campaign or Sen. Clinton herself look out of place and of a previous generation of politics. Even though Sen. Obama has claimed a massive majority of the black vote it wasn't due to anything Sen. Obama or his campaign did but a response to the ingrained white superiority attitude of the Clinton campaign. Although, I must mention that I don't think Sen. Clinton is bigoted against blacks, but much like the gays of the 1990s, the Clintons and their campaign simply expected the black voters to fall in line. It's an attitude about whiteness that the baby boomer generations have trouble understanding. It's also an attitude that post-boomers lack, or at the very least are far more aware of than the boomers are.

Unity '08

Can I just say that I'm pretty damn tired of all the posts on an Obama/Clinton unity ticket? It's just stupid pandering to Clinton supports. Sen. Obama, once he does secure the nomination, should pick who he believes is the best running-mate, not the bloggers and pols out of DC. At least there are a few like George Will who believe Sen. Clinton should pack it up and go home already.

It's the Games, Stupid

Yankee Fan Go Home - George Will @ Washington Post

No time for real commentary, but the op-ed is pretty good, or at least amusing. Have a read by one of the best and real conservative writers still out there.

Chelsea's Generational Problem

Too Solemn for Her Generation? - Ian Shapira, Washington Post

I have to say, I never felt that Chelsea Clinton was part of my generation. She's only a year older than me, but even so, I think of her as this uber-privileged kid. She's the student who organized the bake-sales for women's shelters, the car-wash for the youth center and spent three summers overseas in various Third World countries 'doing good work'. She'd have a whole cadre of people who hung on her every word and action. And the rest of the student body would have hated her, not because of her work, but because she's using her privilege to advance only her interests. She's boring and while she may have a strong grasp of all the details of policy, she has no head for theory, or rather, she can't see the forest for the trees.
My generation is politically active in a way the previous generations were not. Now with that banal observation out of the way, I can say that Chelsea acts as if she's from the previous generation, from the earliest of the Gen-Xer's or the last of the baby boomers. She Cares Deeply about Important Things and does Good Work, but what the hell does that mean? More importantly, so what? Chelsea comes from a mindset that still believes in American exceptionalism, that merely by being there we can turn things around for a foreign nation. Perhaps it's the cynic in me but sadly, I don't believe in such nonsense.
Contrast Chelsea's experience with that of Sen. Obama's during his time as a community organizer. Yes, the critics will say Sen. Obama was jockeying for a political position and perhaps there is some truth to that, but so what? At least he was consistently on the streets and doing what he could for communities hit upon hard times. It wasn't glamorous or lucrative and it's a difficult path to take to political office. Chelsea, on the other hand, hasn't had to fight for anything in her life. She hasn't had to prove herself and while her support for her mother appears genuine it leaves someone like me feels as if she hasn't shaken off the belief that whatever her parents to must, by virtue, be good. Of course, the rest of my generation has shaken off this belief.
And perhaps that's the key to why Chelsea doesn't appeal to me as a surrogate for her mother. She is a goody-goody as Shapria argues; a goody-goody like a twelve-year-old is, not like someone in their late twenties. And all the talk of how well-spoken she it and how respectful she is only serves to reinforce that image in my mind. I look upon a world beset by problems on all sides and see the complexities in attempting to solve even one of those problems. Not to say that I believe we can't do great good, but I don't believe, as it appears Chelsea does, that our parents can wave a magic wand and everything becomes better. Someone who looks to their parents and atill believes that they can fix all the problems in the world is someone I can't trust because that simply isn't true, even if your parents are a powerful political family.
Chelsea's disconnect from my generation stems from this absolute faith in the abilities of her mother. It's sincere but it's not honest. Again, contrasted against Sen. Obama and his wife and all the negative questions both of them have negotiated to the taboo of asking Chelsea anything too serious and again you see a sheltered twelve-year-old. If Chelsea can't stand on her own and face real political fire then she isn't a trustworthy surrogate but merely a mouthpiece. I, for one, have had enough of mouthpieces.

Why You Can Hate Hillary Clinton

Politics as Sideshow - David Kurtz @ TPM

Kurtz posts an email sent in by one of TPM's readers and there's a striking quote about Sen. Clinton that I hadn't thought about before. It reframes the issue of sexism somewhat in disliking or outright hating Sen. Clinton.
Quote:
"Can you hate Barack without feeling racist? It's not easy. But with Hillary it is. You can hate her without feeling sexist, because she's a Clinton."
I think this feeling is a predominant reason for why the mainstream media doesn't pull its punches when it comes to the Clintons. Sen. Clinton is not just a female senator from New York, she's also the wife of President Bill Clinton and candidate for the Presidency herself. Nearly twenty years of arguing over the Clintons has left the media with the sense that nothing is really out of bounds. Had any other woman run for president, the media would treat her with kid's gloves for fear of falling into sexism. Additionally, the animosity that the Clintons engendered during their time in the spotlight has allowed the American public to either love or hate them without reservation. Sen. Obama, on the other hand, hasn't been around long enough for a large number of people to form a solid opinion of him.
I think also that Sen. Obama has gone about things in a completely different way than either Sen. Clinton or the rest of the politicians out there so it confuses people somewhat. After the whole Reverend Wright issue came up, Sen. Obama stood up and gave one of the greatest speeches on race in America since the Civil Rights Movement. Instead of ducking and hiding, trying to evade the issue, Sen. Obama went to the mat over it. That shows a lot of guts and it's hard to hate someone who shows that kind of moxy. It's the same reason why the media still loves Sen. McCain, despite his less than stellar platform. So we're left with three people of who two do their best to make it hard to hate them while Sen. Clinton, by virtue of being Sen. Clinton, has trouble crying sexism when she has done so well for herself in the last two decades. No one is really convinced when she cries sexism because she's Hillary Clinton. Strange, I know, but the political game itself is more than strange.

Attacking the Mirror Does No Good

Chutzpah - Ezra Klein

So Harold Ickes of the Clinton campaign is bitching about the potential fate of the Michigan recount, calling out Sen. Obama and all that to meet him on the blacktop at 3:00. All well and good. Except Ickes was one of the people on the DNC panel that not only warned Michigan not to move it's primary date up but voted for the punishment they received. And who says you can't have it all?

Why We Need Hope

The Feminist Case for Obama - Adele Stan @ WaPo

Coming from a male perspective it's a bit of mental gymnastics to understand the loyalty many women feel towards Sen. Clinton, however misplaced I think that loyalty is. I can understand the humiliated wife who stood by President Clinton as he took the nation through his affair (albeit, one that hardly comes close to an Eliot Spitzer type of affair). I can understand the women who have waited for generations for a woman to come this close to the presidency. And I can understand the argument that a woman like Sen. Clinton is representative of second-wave feminism as well as a woman of the baby boomers. Adele Stan, writing for the Washington Post puts all of this forward in writing about her decision on who to vote for in the Democratic primaries. And she has one of the most compelling reasons for why she put her mark next to Sen. Obama's name.
At this juncture in history we need an individual like Sen. Obama who can lift our spirits and help us believe again in the American dream. For all of Sen. Clinton's intelligence and grasp of policy details, she does not inspire the people. After the Bush presidency we need a new kind of politics and a renewed vision of America as that shining city on the hill. Yes, electing the first woman president would stand as a testament to how far we have come as a nation but electing the first black would do far more.
I had a conversation with a close female friend last night about this divided loyalty. But when it came down to taking a side, my friend believed more in Sen. Obama's ability to lead this nation. Looking at the way Sen. Clinton has acted and presented herself throughout this primary season, my friend could not help herself from being angry. How can a woman who has acted in the way Sen. Clinton has deserve her vote? And how can that same woman walk into the White House and expect to achieve anything significant?
Both my friend and Adele Stan have recognized what this election means to the nation. The inspiration Sen. Obama would bring as president and his abilities to unite and do the work of a president far outweigh the moral victory of electing the first woman president. There are future elections and future presidents. We will have a woman as president, that much is true. But the woman running for president at this moment in our nation's history is not the person we need as president. It comes down to what kind of America we want and the candidates we have at hand who will bring such an America about. That feminists can see past gender loyalty to vote for a man tells me that yes we can have that America and perhaps an even better one for a woman president to inherit.

Proud Son of Gaffney

Remember the Definition of a Washington "Gaffe"? - Alex Massie
Say It Ain't So - Josh Marshall @ TPM
The Contingency of Candidacy - Matt Yglesias
What If? - Ezra Klein

So Geraldine Ferraro makes an stupid comment and the blogs light up like Vegas. The comment, that Sen. Obama would not be where he is if he wasn't black, was clearly not helpful for the Clinton camp, of which Ferraro is a supporter. The argument amongst the more leftist bloggers is whether the comment is true or not. For the most part, everyone falls on the side of true, but the question lingers of what that means exactly. Apart from Massie, the other bloggers have come to the conclusion that yes Sen. Obama would not be where he is today if he were someone else. It's a tautalogy. Of course if Sen. Obama were someone else he wouldn't be the black Democrat running for the presidency. But being black with a foreign sounding name and a diverse heritage and childhood do not make him somehow lucky. I'm fairly sure that millions of black men are not finding it exactly easy to make their way in the U.S. The same goes for women, gays, atheists and several other maligned groups. It's exactly his blackness that make Sen. Obama unique, just as Sen. Clinton is unique as a white woman running for the same office. So while Ferraro's comment is true, it doesn't mean anything and it certainly isn't an advantage for Sen. Obama. What the comment also says is that Ferraro would rather make the issue about race than about the issues of the campaign. Thus, once again, a Clinton surrogate is attempting to inject race into the nomination when the person being attacked has taken a strong stance that we as Americans should transcend race or gender. It's sad to see a woman come out against another maligned group of people for the sake of politics, particularly a woman who has long advocated for civil rights. Even a true comment is sometimes a stupid one.

And There Goes Logic Out The Window

Obama Slams Clinton Veep Illogic - Marc Ambinder

Perhaps it's due to my Clinton Derangement Syndrome or my deep desire for Sen. Obama to win the nomination, but it's things like this that once again prove how just plain silly the Clinton camp is. In all of their attempts to win the nomination, the "he's not ready but he'll make a fine veep" logic just falls like a quadriplegic with epilepsy. You know you shouldn't laugh but you can't stop laughing long enough to help. At least we don't have to worry about Sen. Clinton swallowing her tongue...oh, wait.

Hey, It's Only Politics, It's Not Like Anyone's Life Is On The Line

Clinton's Hawkishness Ruffles Feathers in Obama Camp - Eli Lake @ NY Sun (via Spencer Ackerman)

Oh well, that's just peachy. So Sen. Clinton is against the war (finally disavowing her vote for it after what, six years?) but will 'listen to the generals on the ground' first before making her decision on withdrawal. A) This sounds like President Bush and his rhetoric; and B) this sounds like another CTV type scandal where Sen. Clinton's rhetoric won't match what she actually does. In other words, a vote for Sen. Clinton is a vote for war, unless the politics are just right. And we've already seen that she can't confront dictators and warlords face-to-face. If she can't say to his face what she says about Sen. Obama alone in front of the tv cameras then how can we expect her to stand up to dictators around the world? No wonder she's arguing that the lowest level of diplomacy is the most she's willing to do. Scared of dictators and unfavorable politics in withdrawing from Iraq. That's exactly what we need in a new president, a continuation of the old president. Oh yeah, get ready for real 'solutions'. Sen. McCain is going to slaughter her in the presidential debates. I can't wait to see a 71-year-old man throw Sen. Clinton to the ground like a sack of potatoes.

Samantha Powers vs. The Monster

You Racist, You Bigot, That's Not the Problem, Now is It? - Spencer Ackerman

I sincerely hope no one from the Clinton campaign runs into Ackerman any time soon, because I'm pretty sure some one will end up dead and Ackerman in jail. You do not fuck with a campaign like this, period. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination then I will vote for McCain now. No one who acts like Hillary Clinton has deserves to win the presidency.

Fear of a Black President, Pt. 2

Why is Obama's Skin Blacker than Normal in Hillary's New Attack Ad? - AMERICAblog

Ah, thank you Spackerman for pointing this to me. Yeah, I think I have to agree that when it's about the tenth time that your campaign has done something to clearly allude to your opponent's race you can't claim that you knew nothing about it. Either Sen. Clinton and staff is so utterly clueless not to figure this out or they are doing it on purpose. Now, which of those options makes Sen. Clinton a better president again?

Politics of Fear - Politics of Hope = Politics of Frustration

Andrew Sullivan has taken a day to put the hammers to the Clinton campaign. It's a bit of venting of frustrations from Tuesday's polling results. A lot of bloggers have gone back to look at the prevailing winds and come to the conclusion that Sen. Clinton's attacking of Sen. Obama on his NAFTA rhetoric (while saying the same things to the Canadians) was what pulled enough votes away from Sen. Obama to prevent any more upsets. Oh, and apparently one of the pro-Clinton 502s thought it appropriate to darken Sen. Obama in campaign ads run in Ohio. So there's a bit of racism thrown in there for fun as well. But however you explain it, Tuesday was a depressing night for Obama supporters like myself. I've heard enough stories from Republicans who followed Rush Limbaugh's advice and voted in the Democratic primary just to help out McCain by voting for the weaker candidate. I've also heard the same people spouting the same "Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent" bullshit. So all in all there has been little good news to come out of this past election. Except for this--Sen. Obama still leads in pledged delegates, he still leads in the popular vote and he still hasn't taken the gloves off.
But for Sullivan, the important thing is to throw Sen. Clinton against a wall and have her try to explain her tax reports, why she hasn't released them and, if there's nothing scandelous there, then why the hell did the campaign take so long in releasing them? This is a case where we might just have an over-cooked ham or a conflageration the campaign is desperate to avoid making public. Either way, it's all to familiar to those of us who have watched the Bush administration block requests for information at every turn, even when that information might bolster their positions. It's this absolutism over secrecy that I, and Sullivan, find so troubling. We don't need another four years of this, if Sen. Clinton even makes it that long. An impeachment of President Clinton isn't a surprising thought really. Not when you still have enough Republicans ready to sink their teeth into the Clintons once again.
The other matter that Sullivan only lightly touches on is the need for Sen. Obama to rally back with some Chicago-style crowbar politics. Of course, Sen. Obama himself cannot place himself that the center of such a tactic, but certainly he should have surrogates out there pointing to all the inconsistancies and lack of unity within the Clinton campaign. I, on the other hand, do think that Sen. Obama should place himself front and center of such an attack as it shows that he can fight just as hard for what he believes in as the Clintons can for power. Taking Sen. Clinton down at the knees would scare the hell out of Republicans while potentially securing the nomination for Sen. Obama. It would become a clarion to Sen. Obama's 'toughness' and show that he is willing to get his hands dirty. Besides, it's far easier to lob these kinds of attacks from the position Sen. Obama is in and any retort by the Clinton campaign of 'unfairness' will come off as whiney. I say bring out the crowbars and show the Clintons how their kind of politics is actually played by the real pros. It's the schoolyard moment where the hero who has thus far not taken the baiting of the bully finally throws the knockout punch. Do it, Sen. Obama, and make it clear who did it.

Texas Primary

6:24 PM – Just voted in the primary. A big black mark for Sen. Obama. The woman who I followed into the polling station was a serious Clinton supporter. She was nasty to the Obama supporters outside the precinct building (100 ft and all that) and said, upon entering the building and being asked which primary she wished to vote in, “Do I look like a Republican to you?”

6:30 PM – So far there have been a steady stream of people walking to the Democrat side of the precinct. I was told when I received my caucusing card to expect a crowd. The caucusing is slated to begin at 7:15 but I haven’t the slightest clue when they will start seating people.

6:36 PM – Forgot to mention the news crew outside. I figure that: a) they are waiting for exit polls and; b) this is the closest precinct to their news station. Beyond that, I don’t know nor really care. I wonder though, if the assumed crowd does come, where will they park? And what kind of parking hell will occur once everyone leaves?

6:41 PM – A lot of friendly talking going on. I live in a liberal neighborhood but if yards signs are any indication then this precinct will go for Sen. Clinton. I wonder what the caucus will actually look like? I’m eager to see if I need to beat a Clinton supporter with my laptop for being uppity. I swear I will not let some two-bit Clinton camp worker hijack this caucus, even if I’m the only person on Sen. Obama’s side.

6:45 PM – More white people. White people annoy me.

6:46 PM – Warren Ellis is threatening to change his name to WOLFMANGLER. Or GOATGOUGER. Damn Twitter.

6:48 PM – Youngish 30-something with a soul patch. Beginning to wonder about the sanity of my neighborhood.

6:49 PM – Ah, finally some black people have arrived.

6:50 - 7:22 PM - We waited in line for the caucusing for nearly half an hour. We were the lucky ones as the line continued to increase. By the time we left (we didn't stick around for the delegate election) the line stretched down a forty foot hall and out the door and up the parking lot. I would say somewhere around 150 people were there, along with the TV broadcasters. There were an awful lot of whiteys in line while I noticed only two black couples in the caucus.

8:12 PM - So the races for the Democrats are too close to call for the most part. Sen. Obama leads in Texas while Sen. Clinton leads in Ohio. Vermont has gone to Sen. Obama but Rhode Island hasn't been called yet. This is a bit of a nailbiter night for me, as I want Sen. Obama to take all the states. So now I wait.

Winning on Hope

Advice to Clinton (and to Obama who already knows it): "Keep Your Sunny Side Up" - Paul Finkleman @ Balkinization

A very interesting post by guest blogger Paul Finkleman about the promise of hope in a presidential campaign leads me once again to the conclusion that Sen. Obama would whip Sen. McCain in a general election. It's not so much based on the organizational structure Sen. Obama has built that will work in his favor (although it certainly will), but the televised debates that will seal the deal for the American electorate I think. The image of the young, proming, animated and hopeful Sen. Obama debating the merits of the war, taxation and universal healthcare with the old, hardly mobile and quick to anger Sen. McCain will naturally favor Sen. Obama. For all of the times that either Sen. Clinton or the moderators of the Democratic debates tried to goad Sen. Obama into an angry response, you would witness a person who tempered his anger with smart, considered replies that, often times, allowed Sen. Obama to come out of the moment looking and acting presidential.
The sense of hope that Sen. Obama has based his campaign around isn't a false hope either. It's not uncommon to find Sen. Obama chiding parents for not taking a more active role in their children's lives, or pointing out how, while being the president affords him a great deal of power, the changes he wants to bring about in America rely just as much on the American people as they do on his leadership. Unlike Sen. Clinton who claims she is in the 'solutions' business, Sen. Obama's solution is to raise people up and offer them a promise of hope that is contigent on the American public taking a more active role in politics and governance. To me, it is the difference between a nanny-state of Sen. Clinton's doing and a self-governing state of Sen. Obama's making.
When it comes to a general election between Sens. Obama and McCain, you only have to look at how Sen. McCain has responded to criticism and how he has lead in the Senate to give you the sense that, while a great legislator he may be, a leader of a nation, of domestic and foreign policy, he is not. It's that promise of hope for a better future that Sen. Obama offers while Sens. Clinton and McCain offer only promises that they will try but if they fail then it's of no fault of their own. They will claim the American people were duped while Sen. Obama will personally admit momentary defeat and then go out to re-energize the American public. I get the sense that an Obama administration will see great victories and great failures while a Clinton or McCain administration will only see the same patterns of governance of the last twenty years.
I'm 27 years old now. The last twenty years of politics is not what I want. So, to put it simply, fuck McCain and Clinton.

Ohio Debate Recap

I think Sen. Obama succeeded quite nicely in parrying Sen. Clinton's thrusts while not appearing to draw too much blood from her. Moreover, I think Sen. Clinton inflicted her worst wounds on herself (her snark about receiving the first question and whether Sen. Obama needs more pillows for his ass was particularly stupid). It was good that the debate over healthcare was dispensed with first as it has dominated the last couple of debates. Refreshing arguments over foreign policy, campaign tactics and rhetoric were welcomed.
Sen. Obama owned the first half of the debate but had a weird return after the commercial break. Sen. Clinton looked far more composed after that break which leads me to think that perhaps the 'kitchen sink' routine her campaign was promising wasn't so promising a tactic. Still, Sen. Obama kept his professorial air about him and never seemed fazed by some odd questions. His response to the Louis Farrakhan endorsement, while a little stilted, was appropriate and segued nicely into his potential problems with the Jewish vote. I think Sen. Obama could go a long way to repairing the divide between Jews and blacks in America. On the other hand, Sen. Clinton's 'me too' addendum to that question was rather self-serving.
The NAFTA question and the foreign policy questions were clearly Sen. Obama's best arenas. He struggled a bit with the public financing pledge, parsing his words carefully in a way I wasn't quite comfortable with. But I do take comfort that the way the Obama campaign has gone about raising fund through small donations goes a long way to supporting him philosophically if he doesn't take public financing, since, in a way, he already has.
Sen. Clinton had few moments to shine. Her closing remarks were good but not as good as in Austin a week earlier. Her defense of not releasing her tax returns was strained at best and her decision to continue hammering her 'fighter' aura was strange considering who the Democratic nominee will face in the general election. But at least she finally recanted her AUMF vote. I doubt that will do much good now but at least she made the effort.
I did like how both Russert and Williams continued to pressure the candidates for more direct answers and kept them within a certain set of time limits. The moment that Brian Williams had to cut off Sen. Clinton was both snarky and brilliant all at the same time. Overall, I enjoyed the MSNBC moderators better than CNN's. While there were a few good questions in the last debate, Sen. Clinton derailed them too often. This time around she wasn't able to do that and thus wasn't able to score some serious points over Sen. Obama.
In the end, Sen. Obama didn't exactly blow Sen. Clinton out of the water but he did continue to do what he has done in ever other debate. He remained claim, considered and composed at whatever was thrown at him while Sen. Clinton seemed to struggle at times once the healthcare debate passed. It was a good debate and Sen. Obama's refusal to let himself get drawn into a pissing match allowed him to maintain his presidential look. If he's able to keep this kind of attitude during the general election debates then there's no reason why he can't overwhelm the more antagonistic Sen. McCain. But there's still next Tuesday to get through and we'll see who has the nomination locked up by then.

Best Live Blog Quote

10:32 — "Barack: You know what I regret? Meeting God when I was 22, and becoming divine and immortal. Sometimes I want to live among the humans, you know? They have such nice things." The Wonkette

Being a Grammar Nazi

Clinton: Obama is to Foreign Policy as Bush was to Foreign Policy - Marc Ambinder

“We’ve seen the tragic results of having a president who didn’t have neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We can’t let that happen again.”

Now I'm not one to nit-pick (actually, I am) but the first sentence is really bad: "didn't have neither"? I can understand when giving speeches one can get their words a little mixed up but for someone like Sen. Clinton to make a freshman mistake like that is just silly.
On a more serious note, Sen. Clinton just made it easier on Sen. McCain on the national security front. If an election between Sens. Clinton and McCain was decided solely on foreign policy experience alone then Sen. Clinton would find herself beaten a foot into the ground by Sen. McCain. It's simply stupid of her to go on the attack on foreign policy when she doesn't have much of one and to claim experience in the matter when she will face a giant in the public's mind on national security.

One-Armed Political Fighting

The Foreign Policy Failure - Matt Yglesias

Yglesias makes a salient point here concerning the foreign policy positions of the two Democratic candidates. Sen. Obama has made it clear for some time now that he has put together a serious and dramatically different foreign policy than Sen. Clinton, who has attempted to avoid any deep probing of the issue. More than just the issue of meeting with our enemies are the issues of weapons technology and nuclear stockpiles. Yet the mainstream media has failed to grapple with the issue in any real way, most conspicuously in the arena of op-ed pieces. Yglesias points out that in the case of the Washington Post their op-ed staff lack someone who would tackle the foreign policy issue of the Democratic candidates in anything approaching even-handedness.
This lack of attention becomes a problem for the candidates, most particularly Sen. Obama, when their is little distinction between their domestic agendas. While Yglesias makes the point that the president has a greater freedom of movement in the foreign policy arena, I think the more important point is that the lack of foreign policy discussion has allowed not only Sen. Clinton to avoid any serious embarrassment during a debate, it has allowed Sen. McCain the opportunity to go unopposed when he turns his attention to foreign policy in his speeches. For a presumptive front-runner like Sen. Obama to have half of his entire policy agenda ignored is strange and potentially harmful when it comes to countering Sen. McCain's policy points. Outside of the regular blog readers, the majority of the public has little in the way to assess Sen. Obama on national security, an important issue for many still.

Shame On You!

Clinton Unloads on Obama's 'Destructive' Tactics - WaPo

So Sen. Clinton has decided to go on the attack about health-care a week before a debate on a network her campaign claims is against her. Also she decides to call out Sen. Obama on campaign tactics, thus opening up the debate to questions about her desire to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates along with her attempts to persuade the super (or automatic if you prefer) delegates to override the popular sentiment of the public thus far. Oh, and she complains about how Sen. Obama is able to draw large crowds. See for yourself and think it over.



Personally, I see a Senator losing her shit on national tv over ads that have been in circulation for a while now. I'm puzzled though. Why now? And why in this way? The video makes her look angry and verging on unhinged. Why bring up campaign tactics when her campaign has made the biggest missteps so far and has used far more underhanded tactics? Why attempt to force an entire debate on the one issue she has some seriousness about, health-care, when the moderators aren't going to let her do that. Unless she plans on taking over the debate and looking even more unhinged in the process, she will have to calmly detail where Sen. Obama is wrong and how. Moreover, she will have to rile Sen. Obama up to make him look like an angry black man, but thus far he has taken the hits with a cool sense of confidence and an air of wisdom about him. The soundbite lines Sen. Clinton has thrown out have all fallen flat while Sen. Obama continues to produce speeches that pull on the best of past speakers and his own sense of good rhetoric. The Hillary Clinton I saw today differs vastly from the calm and sensible Hillary Clinton of this past Thursday's debate. It's as if no one in her campaign told her about the fliers until today. Very strange.