Comments on: Clinton on staying in the race.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:52:44 +0000

Analiese: you claimed that we had had a “fight” but not a “disagreement”. I don’t know how you could come to this conclusion, unless you had simply not given any thought to my words hereMaybe because you are both in favor of the same candidate? Ana/Analiese, I do not see how you can say that GL is being disrespectful. Almost everyone I read or hear is either rabidly in favor of Clinton or rabidly in favor of Obama. Except Greg who seems to be thinking about the campaign rather than picking sides and vehemently disagreeing with the other side. Myself included in that.Greg: I thing there is a very large difference in the amount of vote scrounging being carried out by H.C. vs. B.O. But, as an Obama supporter I admit I may be biased.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:59:53 +0000

Ana: Really? Not a single instance of critical thought on the Obama campaign? Oh yeah, that’s because you don’t know of anything worth criticizing there. Despite that I and others have mentioned a few areas of concern, you don’t seem willing to consider those possibilities.The reason I started posting these posts in this way was to elicit these (and other comments). To give this discussion a place for my eleven (now ten, I suspect) readers to talk about this.I have already made it clear that my preferred candidates are a) The Democrat; b) Clinton; c) Obama. Obama’s positions are vacuous and poorly defined. I have not said much about them (virtually nothing as you’ve pointed out) because it is kind of hard to tell what they are.I am entitled, when Clinton is scrounging votes, as all politicians (even Obama who’s supporters claim otherwise) do, and going a little over the top, to have a less than loveydovey opinion on that.That is more explaining of what I chose to blog or not blog than I care to do, but out of respect, as a matter of ribbing, and by way of flattery, I figure, “what the heck.”

By: Analiese

Analiese — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:17:16 +0000

Did you hope I would just “go away”, Greg? ;)Sorry, I was on vacation.I said earlier that I preferred your ribbing to your flattery; let me amend that now with how I prefer your flattery to your disrespect. Despite that you give no indication of interest in my opinion here and prefer, in an ah-so-Obama-like manner, to dismiss and distract, in the interest of clarity and self-defense I will yet explain where I was coming from.With regard to my technical bullshit:Back in April, Barack Obama made some stupid comments that alienated a large block of would-be, or could-be, Democrats. Hillary Clinton chose to campaign for them, talking about her personal history, working to give them the sense that they were understood, respected, and a valued constituency. Rather than work on repairing his image with these voters, Obama chose instead to focus on Cinton, and to do so by attacking her character. This is a classically sexist strategy. I would point you to literature here, Greg, but am confident by this point (what after all your belligerent and obfuscating talk of special protection for ovaries) that you wouldn’t read it. Not deeply, anyway.Here are Clintons comments on learning to shoot a gun, and on why she thinks guns are important to some people:”You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl. You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”And here is Obama’s response to her having worked as a candidate to repair the Democrats allegiance with critical voters:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzQxFtM9cfkShame on her why? She knows better what? Oh yeah, because she was still campaigning, and winning, and that was a problem for Obama (and for you).I’m sure that part of my sensitivity to this play of Obama’s is specific to my adoration of Annie Oakley herself (she was my hero, once upon a pigtail) as a champion for women and as one who took a lot of flack for it during her time. She really did know sexism, and slander, and often took it to the courts. But Obama doesn’t refer to that Annie Oakley, no, he makes a caricature of her memory in order to deride his competition rather than face his own idiocy. And then, of course, he says that it’s all just Clinton playing politics. Kind of like how you, Greg, responded to me here.What happened to this guy, who seemed to know a thing or two about communicating and engendering support:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFmV6j6ULEcThen again, it’s really Charlie Rose here who gets the “don’t offend ’em” angle, isn’t it.Notice also that it’s men who hunt. Women go to church.Responding from the Clinton camp:For months, Barack Obama and his campaign have relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton’s character and integrity by using Republican talking points from the 1990s. The shame is his.Sen. Clinton does know better, she knows better than to condescend and talk down to voters like Senator Obama did. Senator Obama’s outburst won’t change the fact that he has embraced his characterization of the millions of Americans who live in small towns.I think they’ve got it pretty much right, there.With regard to your second point, Greg, that I’m somewhere around a line (that you have defined) with regard to support, let’s just look for a moment at your own words throughout this online debate:First was the appearance and steady increase of racist rhetoric coming from Hillary Clinton and some of her supporters.Following the race card being played by the Clinton campaign, we then saw a sexism (or anti-feminist) card also being played by Clinton spokespeople.Clinton scoring points in her campaign that were harmful to the party’s medium term goalï¿½We (or at least I) are/am not interested in pushing Hillary Clinton aside. We just don’t want the Democratic Party to fuck up. Again. As usual.Is it OK for Clinton or Obama (but so far this is mainly or exclusively been Clinton) to damage the party’s chances with certain campaign tactics at the primary level?That makes me mad at Clinton….a record of her being willing to cross that line of damaging your same-party opponent for the general election.Hillary Clinton was not born yesterday and did not enter politics yesterday.I like her but for reasons that make me feel a little icky.She did not need to go there to make the point.I feel that this was a violation of the party loyalty.She handed the Republican a sound bite that he can use later in his ad campaign against Obama….an unelectiblity she has herself fostered by stepping outside the party’s own boxing ring…So at this point, not only do I think she should get out of the race, I also think she should get out of the Democratic Party.Hillary should get out of the race.I did not mind her staying in, but then she went over the line and must now go away.(Edwards may) help undo the damage Clinton has done with ‘white voters’.A 2% victory by Clinton would be a blow to her campaign (but still a win, technically)….the other factor is what will it take to get Hillary to go away?Even though I originally supported Clinton, I would really like to see Obama win by a few percent causing an upset and ending it.Obama is fully qualified to a) be president (which he is) and b) represent the Democratic party (which he is…At some point in time, several weeks back, it became numerically Obama’s race, barring highly unlikely events.At some point I realized that Obama was going to win the nomination.There are Obama supporters who are absolutely foaming at the mouth at Clinton. They will go on and on (totally justified, by the way) about how Clinton is ruining the party, etc. etc. etc. But then if you ask them “OK, but if she’s the nominee, who will you vote for” and they always say “Well, Clinton, she’s the Democrat.”Blacks who are voting for Obama are voting for the first viable African American, and they will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. White males in Virginia voted for Clinton because she, as a woman, was the lesser of two evils….conventional wisdom says that there is a number of percentage points reflecting Clinton’s expected win above which this would truly count as a win for her, and below which it could be perceived as a victory for Obama.I”m going to present two models, one moderately favoring a shift towards Obama, and the other strongly favoring a shift towards Obama.There is not a magic number above which a Clinton victory is a real win, and below which it is not. There are two. Above X, she kicked ass, below Y, she bombed, such that X is greater than Y by art least a few percentage points.Really? Not a single instance of critical thought on the Obama campaign? Oh yeah, that’s because you don’t know of anything worth criticizing there. Despite that I and others have mentioned a few areas of concern, you don’t seem willing to consider those possibilities. At least you’re consistent. But your strategy of “don’t look, don’t tell” with regard to the golden boy (which according to you has been the greatest violation of the Clinton camp and which leads to almost all your vitriol) will not hold for November.You sent me an e-card a couple of days ago in which you claimed that we had had a “fight” but not a “disagreement”. I don’t know how you could come to this conclusion, unless you had simply not given any thought to my words here. I have disagreed with you on any number of points; just because you have declined to address them (for instance, your holding my “feet to the fire” without defining what fire though I had asked for clarification there any number of times) does not negate the disagreement. I also wholeheartedly disagree with your first decision to vote in the primary for a candidate who had what you saw as “momentum” despite your claims to feeling that another candidate, Clinton, was the stronger. In fact, you continue to argue that she is the stronger candidate. Why would you do either of those things? I have my ideas, but since you have shown so little interest thus far in those, I’ll leave it at that. Consider yourself.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:36:40 +0000

NO! not at all. I’m just better at speling Clinton’s second name than I am at speling her first name. Like you.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:30:55 +0000

You expect consistency in spelling? :)

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:28:59 +0000

Joel: I guess it is possible that Greg could have meant Hillary really would make a good president, but given Hillary's status as Lord of the Evil Empire, I'm inclined to think the comment was meant as scarcasm.I started out preferring Clinton and I still do. However, I know when I've (she's) been beaten and switched to the other Democrat. But I may be wrong about being beaten and I'm willing to listen.At the same time I have some real criticisms of Clinton's campaign. I've been involved in democratic campaigning since I worked for George McGovern, and I've seen it done a lot of ways, and I haven not quite seen it done this way (the closest was Kennedy) ... of course all campaigns are different.This whole discussion here started, really, because I was feeling very disturbed at the apparent emergence of a line one must walk, or not cross, or whatever, in criticizing the Clinton campaign before being called a sexist or losing one's credentials as a feminist, or whatever. I am now starting to believe that the feminist argument is starting to get exploited. I am seeing very disturbing things on TV and I'm not talking about re-runs of Little House on the Prairie.But then, I'm extremely bitter because I'm a white working class guy, who has neither guns or religion to cling to for comfort. :)I recommend getting a WiiStephanie: Clinton isn't evil. Obama isn't evil. But everyone is concerned that someone will make the big gaffe that puts McCain in the White House. When the pundits are screaming about every ill-made remark, well, it's easy to get tense and twitchy. I'd really rather we didn't expend our election energy being tense and twitchy at each other.That is so absolutely perfectly what I am thinking.My vote is for last, since it's customary and I won't have to remember whether Hillary has one L or two.I feel the same way, and I don't mean it in a sexist way. (Although isn't the number of 'L's related to the gender of the person, like HiXary Clinton vs. Sir Edmond HiXary???? )

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:19:17 +0000

Joel, I think the difference is that I took Greg at his word in this extended conversation when he said he started by preferring Clinton. That, and I had my moments of deepest bitterness a few months ago. I hadn’t really considered going target shooting as a way of relieving the bitterness, though. Hmm… :)Clinton isn’t evil. Obama isn’t evil. But everyone is concerned that someone will make the big gaffe that puts McCain in the White House. When the pundits are screaming about every ill-made remark, well, it’s easy to get tense and twitchy. I’d really rather we didn’t expend our election energy being tense and twitchy at each other. I’m not really calling you biased as much as I’m asking that we all try to work around our biases. If we don’t have any at this point, we’re not really invested in the election.And while we’re discussing -isms in the race, can we please decide whether we’re using first or last names for all the candidates? My vote is for last, since it’s customary and I won’t have to remember whether Hillary has one L or two.

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:14:19 +0000

Now I get the Annie Oakley thing may be considered funny, I really don’t follow these guys around 24×7, but one could also say given that sexism is a serious problem in this country, it was in really poor taste and bad judgement for Obama to have made that comment and is due some criticism for it.

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:46:42 +0000

Stephanie Z, In the off chance that it was a serious question and I really didn’t understand why Obama calling Hillary Annie Oakly was funny and questioning Obama’s claim as a working class regular guy is another example of Hillary’s political caculation that makes her uniquely qualified for the office of president maybe you could give me the benefit of doubt that my mind isn’t rampant with bias.I guess it is possible that Greg could have meant Hillary really would make a good president, but given Hillary’s status as Lord of the Evil Empire, I’m inclined to think the comment was meant as scarcasm.But then, I’m extremely bitter because I’m a white working class guy, who has neither guns or religion to cling to for comfort. 🙂

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:15:19 +0000

Ana,Do you really, honestly believe that Obama calling Hillary Clinton Annie Oakley in the context of of the New York Senator donning plaid flannel shirts and downing boilermakers with the good folks of rural Pennsylvania is sexism of the worst kind? Sexism of the worst kind? How does that work?That, technically, is bullshit.With all respect (and I honesty mean that) I call "politics"! There is a difference between talking about how people run their campaign and simply campaigning for your person. I think you may be somewhere around that line, Ana.