Archive for category Hillary Clinton
I did not want to do another blog post about Mitt Romney. In fact, I had already started one that veered away from the world of politics. But I can’t ignore this.
Here are quotes from a video secretly taken at a Romney fundraiser, unearthed and now publicized by Mother Jones:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…
Our message of low taxes doesn’t connect…so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful….”
Get that – Mitt Romney just put down nearly half the population as people who want government to take care of them. Anyone who doesn’t pay federal income taxes is unworthy of respect, they are not ‘thoughtful.’
In other words, Romney’s embracing the “givers vs. takers” mentality, claiming that he represents hard working Americans who pay taxes, and Obama is the President for moochers: People who feel “entitled” to health care, food and shelter.
The arrogance of that statement is hard to overstate. That these words would come out of the mouth of a candidate for the Presidency is astounding. In Romneyland the working poor and lower middle class are not struggling and needing help, they are the enemy.
I know these people who don’t pay federal income taxes. Some teach my children, others take classes at the university, work two jobs and still don’t make enough to pay federal income taxes (though they do pay a variety of other taxes). I know people who have been laid off and desperately want a job. I know many conservative Republicans who don’t make enough to pay federal income taxes. The scandal should be that income distribution has become so warped that so many people don’t make enough money to pay federal income taxes.
Now, I expect rhetoric like that from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. It’s infuriating, but it’s part of the partisan talk show emotional entertainment meme. But from the Republican standard barer?
Oh, but there’s more.
“My dad, as you probably, know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico… and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot at winning this…But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico…. I mean I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino.”
Ha ha. At some point I’ll have to read through the transcript, though already the video is going viral. And this:
“When I was back in my private equity days, we went to China to buy a factory there,” Romney is heard saying. “It employed about 20,000 people. And they were almost all young women between the ages of about 18 and 22 or 23. They were saving for potentially becoming married.”
He goes on to talk about how wonderful it is for Chinese workers to have this opportunity, and compares that to America where life is “95% settled.” This makes it hard to accept the hard line on China, or whether American jobs are his number one concern!
To be sure, President Obama has been dinged by leaks from secret fundraisers. In 2008 he talked about western Pennsylvania saying people there are beaten down and “cling to their guns and religion.” That did serious damage to Obama’s campaign. Hillary Clinton was able to frame Obama as an out of touch elitist, and won a series of primary victories before Obama was able to win the nomination on the strength of his early caucus victories.
In this day and age from Abu Ghraib to photos of a topless Duchess of Cambridge there is no true secrecy or privacy. Candidates cannot let their guard down for fear of saying something embarrassing – the infamous gaffe. Indeed, the Romney campaign based it’s Republican National Convention theme on a gaffe of Obama’s. In trying to say “you didn’t build that” about infrastructure he timed it so that it sounded like he said business owners didn’t build their own businesses! The Romney campaign pounced.
The reason gaffes become paramount is because campaigns are so scripted. Candidates say what has passed the test of focus groups and media specialists. Campaigns fear unscripted moments, and train candidates on how to respond. Candidates are to only show the public the image the campaign wishes to convey.
So when a glimpse of what they really think comes forth, whether Obama’s disdain for the “guns and God” crowd, or Romney’s contempt for the poor, it’s a big deal. Obama’s 2008 gaffe was in the primary season, and it took him months to overcome it, with some damage permanent. What will this one mean for Romney? The next few days will tell how the media react and if this story has legs.
Given Governor Romney’s lack of connection with voters and the negative image painted this summer by the Obama campaign of Romney as an out of touch elitist, this video has the makings of Marie Antoinette’s famous “Let them eat cake” statement on the eve of the French revolution.
If you believe Jonathan Alter, there is a good chance this could happen next year if Obama’s re-election prospects look questionable. His argument is simple. Obama, Biden and Clinton all get along well and like each other. Obama doesn’t want to make a change, but they all agree that the threat of a total conservative take over all three branches is unacceptable. They will “do what it takes” to win, even if that means what Alter calls a “switcheroo.”
Back in 2008 Joe Biden seriously lobbied to become Secretary of State. He’s always had a strong interest in foreign policy, and probably had the inside track for the job before Obama offered him the VP slot. To move from VP to Secretary of State would be something Biden could honestly embrace as a positive career move. Rather than presiding over the Senate and making speeches at ceremonial events, he’d be in the rough and tumble world of foreign policy. The Secretary of State position is substantively more important than the Vice Presidency.
Hillary Clinton has already said she plans to retire after the end of Obama’s first term. The Secretary of State position is especially demanding, and she has been an active and effective top diplomat. Moving to Vice President would be the one way she’d stay active in the Administration. First, it puts her a step closer to the Presidency and makes her the odds on favorite in 2016 should Obama win or lose. In 2012 she turns 65 meaning she’d be 69 if she ran in 2016. It would probably be her last shot.
Second, it keeps her close to the action without the kind of pace and demands her current job has. This would allow her more freedom to expand her pursuits yet still be in the center of big decisions. If Obama loses no one could blame her or the Clintons for any lack of loyalty. If Obama wins, the odds of her becoming the first woman President increase.
What would it do to the campaign dynamic? For Obama it could shore up his liberal base and his appeal with women voters. Women put Obama over the top in 2008 and recent polls show his support in that demographic group is slipping. If the Republicans nominate Mitt Romney he’ll probably draw a lot of female voters from Obama (Rick Perry or Herman Cain not so many). Hillary’s supporters, some of whom remain lukewarm to Obama, would be energized even if they remain a bit bitter.
That’s really what Vice Presidential choices are usually about – you try to keep a party united and avoid the kind of collapse that Jimmy Carter suffered late in his campaign. Carter looked in position to eek out a victory against Reagan in 1980 but a bad debate performance coupled with news that the Iranian hostage situation had no end in sight coming days before the election pushed tepid Democrats to Reagan. Clinton as VP might be a firewall against that. Even if Obama loses, the Democrats need to avoid the Senate and House loses that gave the GOP de facto control of all branches of government in the early eighties. The Democrats lost 33 House seats that year and held a majority — but the conservative southern Democrats sided with Reagan and gave him a working majority. Hillary as VP candidate might be the best bet at keeping the Senate in Democratic hands.
Beyond keeping the base faithful, the choice of a VP candidate usually doesn’t matter much. Arguably choosing Sarah Palin hurt John McCain, however, and when McGovern dumped Eagleton in 1972 that hurt him. This suggests that a candidate can be hurt by a VP choice if it reflects poorly on the candidate’s judgment. When Roosevelt dumped Wallace in favor of Truman in 1944 that didn’t hurt; Ford was probably helped by replacing Rockefeller with Dole in 1976 (though he narrowly lost the election).
So the big question for Obama is whether or not pulling a switcheroo would make him appear weak or be exercising poor judgment? The latter would have to be no; very few people would think that Hillary would be a bad Vice President and the fact that Biden would be given his dream job means he won’t be seen as throwing Joe “under the bus.” But the Republicans would paint that as an “act of desperation” due to Obama’s “failed Presidency.” He needs Hillary because he’s “in over his head.”
That would be a political problem for Obama, but the people most likely to believe that rhetoric are those who won’t vote for Obama anyway — many of whom still don’t like the Clintons. Obama could, of course, turn the argument around. ”Given the depth of this crisis, I feel we need to make sure we have the best personnel where they are needed. The politically easy thing to do would be to avoid criticism and keep things as they are. I am not afraid to be criticized for doing what is best for the country.”
Praising Hillary profusely, he could argue that her work as Secretary of State has helped guide the US through a dangerous period of draw downs in Iraq, a policy to turn Afghanistan into a success, and on going counter terrorism efforts which netted many top al qaeda targets including Osama Bin Laden. Now her talents need to be harnessed to address on going economic difficulties. Biden’s been good in that regard, but his passion is foreign policy. The subtext would be clear: Bill Clinton’s hand would be present, and we all remember the budget surpluses and low unemployment during his term.
The more I think of it, the more the move makes sense. If Obama’s team is reasonably confident about the election, they might fear this would muck things up. President Obama clearly would rather not be seen as being ‘rescued’ by the Clintons, but he’s not the type to let pride get in the way of making a smart decision. It would certainly bring excitement to the Democratic campaign, especially if this were announced in mid-summer.
At the very least it would bring the bitter 2008 primary feud full circle. Next year should be entertaining in any event.
At this point in 2007 a few things were virtually certain about the 2008 Presidential race. First, we knew who the Democratic candidate would be. Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee, a front runner so far ahead in money, endorsements, “super delegates” and polling support that as long as she didn’t collapse in scandal the race in the Democratic party was to see who might be the Vice Presidential nominee. Barack Obama was a possibility, though he lacked experience.
John McCain, after appearing to be a darling of the media in the past, had faded. His support for immigration reform was a nail in his coffin in terms of getting GOP support, and he was all but written off. Mitt Romney, Rudy Guilliani and Fred Thompson were getting more buzz.
Of course, McCain ultimately cruised to the GOP nomination despite active opposition from talk radio jocks and the right wing of the party. Hillary Clinton was shocked by upstart Barack Obama, and the two fought a long, sometimes bitter and for political junkies extremely entertaining battle for the Democratic nomination.
In June 2007 most people assumed the Iraq war would be a major issue in 2008. And while some people were warning that the sub prime debacle and housing bubble could portend a major recession, most thought that the economic slow down might be over by late 2008 and wouldn’t be a major factor.
Well, the world changed tremendously between June 2007 and November 2008!
Right now President Obama looks reasonably strong against a relatively weak Republican field, yet vulnerable due to economic woes. His success in ordering the assassination of Osama Bin Laden exist alongside an unpopular intervention in Libya and on going conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
By mid 2012, things could be much different. First, a Republican nominee could emerge that captures the attention and support of independent voters. Jon Huntsman seems the most plausible choice to fill that role, but if you look way back to June 1979, the Carter White House thought Ronald Reagan would be the weakest candidate they could face, and if you told George Bush in June 1991, still enjoying high post-Desert Storm ratings, that Bill Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, he’d have known his re-election was assured. The idea that the GOP field is weak is pure speculation, in hindsight it may appear strong.
On the other hand, the economy could bounce back. Oil prices are dropping, which means gas prices will fall and that will stimulate the economy. Uncertainty over the debt ceiling and other issues may be slowing the economy, and once resolved, late 2011 could see some good economic news. If that’s the case, the dark fears of a double dip recession may give way to “Morning in America II,” as Obama cruises on good economic news to victory. Romney reminds me of Mondale in some ways.
If the economy does slip into double dip recession, Obama’s chances start to decline dramatically, as few Presidents have ever governed during four years of recession and kept their jobs. You have to go back to Roosevelt for that. To be sure, Obama didn’t cause this recession, and it’s a stretch to say he’s done anything to prevent recovery. We’re suffering 30 years of imbalances that can’t be cured over night, or perhaps even over four years. But that’s a case that will be difficult if not impossible for Obama to make in 2012. If the economy isn’t looking better, he’s likely to suffer the same fate as Bush the Elder and Jimmy Carter. The assassination of Bin Laden will be as helpful to him as Desert Storm was for Bush.
I’d be shocked if Gadaffi is still holding out in Libya by the end of this year. If Libya appears a success — the rebels overthrow Gadaffi and are reasonably successful at creating a government that is neither extremist nor anti-western, what now is a liability for Obama may become an asset. If the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan continue with no major setbacks, Obama’s foreign policy could well be a strong point, perhaps enough to keep him competitive even if the economy remains sluggish.
Of course, setbacks in Iraq or Afghanistan, a shocking reversal of fortune in Libya, or crises in Iran and Pakistan could create problems. The Mideast is unpredictable. Another terror attack could help or hurt Obama, depending on what it is and how it gets handled. Instability is a liability for a sitting President.
It does seem unlikely that Obama will face a serious challenge in the primaries. Still, depending on the economy and foreign policy, even that could change. Simply, it’s too early to have a real clue on how the election will go. Obama’s campaign team is proven, can raise money and get out the vote. That will probably be enough to make it a competitive election, but in and of itself not enough to win.
So at this point predictions are predictable. Republican leaning pundits will write columns predicting Obama’s demise and try to paint him as the return of Jimmy Carter. Many will believe it, others are trying to shape the discourse. Democrats will do the reverse, mock the Republican field and make it sound as if Obama has a relatively easy course ahead. I suspect fewer of them believe it, until the economy picks up Democrats are worried about the election.
In Congress there is similar uncertainty. Democrats won the special election in New York that had appeared safe for the GOP, thanks to public reaction to GOP plans to cut medicare. This is the kind of seat Democrats would have to win a few of to get back the 24 seats necessary to bring Nancy Pelosi back into the office of Speaker of the House. That is possible — 24 seats aren’t that much, and given the turn out dynamics in a Presidential election, a number of districts are almost certain to shift back to the Democrats.
On the other hand, the Senate could swing to the Republicans if bad economic news persists in 2012 – the Democrats will be defending 23 Senate seats, while the Republicans will only be trying to hold on to 10. Senators don’t go down to defeat often, but the Republicans need only pick up four to get the majority, and that’s the same number of Democratic incumbents who have so far announced their retirement.
A victory for Obama with the Democrats holding the Senate and bouncing back to retake the House?
A victory for a Republican with the Republicans holding the House and taking the Senate?
Both are in my opinion equally plausible. Statistically the latter is more likely than the former because 24 seats in the House is tough. But there is so much uncertainty at this point that anyone making confident predictions is either faking it or a bit deluded. It’s simply too early to have much of a sense of what 2012 will bring.
As rebel forces take town after town originally held by forces loyal to Gaddafi, a strange dilemma faces the international forces aligned against the dictator: if the rebels threaten Sirte, Gaddafi’s strong hold, would it not be the rebels rather than the Libyan army threatening civilians? To be sure, Gaddafi’s forces have a track record of violence against civilians while the rebels arguably have had public opinion on their side and opposed the military. There have been no complaints of rebels targeting civilians as they retook Ajdabiya, Brega, Uqayla, and Ras Lanuf. Still, in Sirte these differences become problematic, and any video of civilian casualties threaten to undermine the international mission.
So far, those videos and pictures have been scarce to non-existent. Tours arranged for international media in Tripoli to see civilian damage end up either coming back with nothing (“we couldn’t find the address”) or showing a site where any damage is ambiguous — perhaps it was caused by NATO, but perhaps not. And with Gaddafi snipers and mercenaries in operation, it’s hard to pin any civilian deaths on the coalition at this point.
That means that right now the UN backed mission in Libya still holds the moral high ground, at least in relative terms. All that could change if the rebels, not under clear control nor guided by one over-arching ideology or aim, start taking revenge on pro-Gaddafi civilians or turning on each other.
This means that it is imperative that the UN and NATO plan and execute an end game as soon as possible, perhaps in time to be announced Monday night when President Obama addresses the nation. The end game must include: a) a cease fire on all sides; b) a way for Gaddafi to go into exile with a credible chance at avoiding persecution for war crimes; c) a peace keeping mission including and perhaps dominated by the Arab League and African Union; and d) a clear plan for moving to democratic elections.
If the UN can pull this off, the message to other dictators is clear: the international community will no longer allow an abstract claim of sovereignty to protect their grip on power. Even if Libya is sovereign, Gaddafi doesn’t necessarily get to claim the right to sovereignty just because he has power. That notion of sovereignty is at odds with the principle of the UN charter.
The US wars against Iraq and Afghanistan have allowed dictators to breath easy. The US certainly won’t get involved in another conflict after those have weakened the country and divided the public! With the American economy still wobbly and still in danger of further decline, the US seems certain to become more isolationist. Gaddafi certainly was thinking that way when he launched his counter offensive.
President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates were thinking that way early on too — it’s a rational position, one mirrored by the military establishment. But French President Sarkozy and ultimately Secretary of State Clinton realized that if a truly international coalition — one without the US as the leader and motivator — were to be able to succeed rather easily, that would have the opposite effect: dictators would realize it’s risky to use force to stay in power. Decisions like Mubarak’s to leave freely would seem more rational than those like Gaddafi’s to fight for power. That’s why it was so important that Obama remain relatively on the sidelines and not highlight the US role (even if in practical terms US firepower dominated the response).
This also means that should Gaddafi finally be compelled to leave — and the pressure on him is mounting — a new Libya can be constructed on Libyan terms, without it seeming like the US or the West is imposing a government on the country just to control its oil or engage in neo-colonialism. If that works it could have a chilling effect on other Arab dictatorships, especially in Syria where the government has already unleashed a crackdown.
The calculation is simple: the US wouldn’t be stupid enough to get involved in anything like Iraq again since once the bombing starts, you have to see it through. The failures of the US in Iraq cause Syria’s Assad to believe he’s invulnerable as long as he can crack down on his population. But if Libya proves that the international community can mount an effective low cost counter to dictatorial crackdowns, then the calculation changes. In a best case scenario, dictators decide early on to leave freely in exchange for a relatively comfortable retirement.
Gaddafi, of course, could still fight to the end, meaning that the intervention becomes costlier and this model of countering dictators fails. And who knows what kind of government might emerge in Libya after the fighting. But whatever problems may come, it’s important now that NATO and the UN push for an end game so that this does not drag out. There is reason to believe the end may be in sight.
I just got finished reading the book Game Change by reporters by John Heileman and Mark Halperin. It was a typical post-campaign book by reporters, giving inside information about what went on behind the scenes including juicy gossip like Elizabeth Edward’s insufferable behavior, John McCain’s love of the “F” word and constant tirades, and the odd relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton. What strikes me most about the book is the clear sense that putting politics aside, and going just from personality and character, the right man won the election in 2008.
Turning first to McCain vs. Obama. Two incidents from the book stand out as emblematic of why Obama was so much better suited for the job. First is the choice of Vice President. Obama leaned towards Biden early, but wanted the process to be thorough. Even though his staff did not like the idea of Hillary as VP (or even as Secretary of State), Obama kept putting her name out there. Only when the vetting was complete and the pros and cons of each candidate discussed did Biden get the formal nod.
McCain, on the other hand, was leaning towards Lieberman, and appeared set to choose him before he decided that such a choice would risk a divided GOP convention. At the last minute he scrambled. Most people were pointing to Minnesota Governor Pawlenty as a good choice, but McCain and his staff wanted a “game changer.” Someone to shake up the race and stop Obamamania. That’s when the name Sarah Palin came up. They were so enamored with her potential impact on the race that they did a very truncated vetting (they didn’t have time for more), and McCain went from the gut. He had hardly talked with her, his staff had no idea how little she knew of politics outside Alaska. It turned into a fiasco. Palin was loved by the extreme right, but pushed moderates away. The book gives an example of a focus group of “undecideds” where one woman was calling Obama a socialist and a Muslim. Puzzled, the Obama aide asked if she thought that why she was undecided. “Because if McCain dies then Palin becomes President,” was her answer.
Second was the financial crisis. McCain pressured President Bush to call a summit meeting with him and Obama attending. He wanted to ride in as the white knight and bring about a deal. Instead, he was marginal, didn’t really understand what was happening, and went with the flow. Obama was prepared, talked for the Democrats (the Senate and House leaders talked for the GOP), and was so impressive that one Bush aide decided then and there to vote for Obama.
Simply, McCain was erratic, somewhat lazy, went from the gut, preferred lofty slogans and missions to hard work and detail. Obama was steady, prepared, willing to compromise, and take his time on making difficult decisions. Obama focused on process and data, McCain on instinct and action. Obama’s style has its own weaknesses to be sure — sometimes the President has to act quickly on instinct — but in these two cases McCain’s style lead to disaster.
The case of Obama vs. Clinton is a bit more ambiguous. Clinton definitely is a driven ambitious politician whose life revolves around policy and politics. Like McCain, she felt Obama was not ready for the job, and didn’t think he’d be able to survive the GOP campaign of ‘personal destruction’ that would most assuredly be launched. She was ruthless at times, but seemed to have self-awareness of even her faults, understanding earlier than her husband that she would not be the nominee. It took her awhile to get why it was that the “superdelegates” weren’t streaming to her, she was so convinced that it was obvious she was the better candidate. In the end it’s less her faults than Obama’s strengths that make him the better choice.
One of Obama’s best traits in the book was his apparent refusal to hold grudges. He quickly forgave those who slighted him, and developed genuine respect for Hillary Clinton by the end of the campaign. At the end the book describes how Obama offered Hillary the Secretary of State job. She decided to refuse it, and told him. He responds by giving her one more day and saying that the economy is worse than people realize, and he needs someone big enough to handle foreign policy without a lot of Presidential oversight. She’s the only one who he believes has the stature to do that. “I need you, the country needs you,” he told her. He not only did not hold a grudge, but admitted that he did, in fact, need her help. The next day, she accepted.
Of all human traits, I have immense respect for the ability to forgive and not hold a grudge. You need self-confidence to do that. A confident person doesn’t feel diminished by, for example, telling Hillary he needs her. A confident person doesn’t feel like slights or insults from others do any real damage. Holding a grudge is a kind of back handed way of saying “you really hurt my feelings and it still stings.” This also increases rational thinking. Grudges are emotional, and create biased reads on the situation, causing the attribution error (if an opponent does something good, it’s the situation, if an opponent does something bad, it’s his nature; if I do something good it’s my nature, if I do something bad it’s the situation). Grudges cause people to see others in a worse light and themselves in a better light than is warranted.
Now, the policy preferences and politics of the candidates is a different matter than personality. Ultimately, though, I’d rather have a person I respect and whose personality seems right for such responsibility, then one who agrees with me more on policy. I come away from reading about Obama the man with increased respect and a sense that in these difficult times, at least we have someone of strong character at the helm.
Satire Alert: For those who are humor impared, this is a satire of the silly anti-Obama websites put up by so-called Hillary supporters who soldier on, despite failing to stop Obama. The sites being satired: Hillbuzz, The Confluence, Noquarter and Texas Darling. I am, for the record, an Obama supporter. Start satire now:
Well, it had to happen, didn’t it. For Barack Obama, it wasn’t enough to steal the election from first Hillary Clinton and then John McCain, now he has the unmitigated gall to foist the most shameful humiliation onto Hillary Clinton. He must delight in demeaning women and sticking a fork into Hillary Clinton, despite the fact his minions like Howard Dean and Donna Brazile forced her to pretend to support him during the election campaign. Now President Elect Barry Sorterobama wants the most distinguished Senator and should-be President Elect to become nothing but a mere Secretary. Kicked in the shins so often by the party that they built from the ashes left by Obama’s intellectual mentor, Jimmy Carter, the Clintons seem willing to consider it.
Yes, word is that Hillary Clinton is being considered for the position of Secretary of state. Can you believe it! Clearly, Obama knows that his path to power is not complete. There are law suits pending, proving that he was born in either Kenya, Indonesia, or that he renounced his citizenship and thus is not a legal American citizen. That means that there are three other possibilities than his having been born in Hawaii as he claims. That’s a one in four chance, only a 25% probability he’s a native born citizen. That alone should get him disqualified. Perhaps he knows that secret paperwork from Kenya is on its way, and he wants Hillary out of the way.
The electoral college has also not spoken. What will happen when the video that the Obama campaign has paid Fox news millions of dollars not to release — the one showing Michelle Obama screaming “death to f***ing Whitie!” while wearing a T-shirt of Adolf Hitler in black face with the caption “we need one of these!” — finally gets released? Will the electors still vote for this Muslim who worships in a racist Christian church?
Or, perhaps, he simply wants to prove to Hillary that he is dominant, and she is nothing but a Secretary. Instead of chugging down Crowne Royal with the unemployed steelworkers of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, she’ll have to sip fine wine with French President Sarkozy and his model wife. Yup. Hillary will be forced to hobnob with women who defy her spunk and energy and instead simply want to be beautiful and snag a powerful husband. Instead of beer in Columbus, it’ll be tea with the pinky extended with the Queen in Buckingham palace? Can you think of anything more demeaning?
Recently an insightful Georgia Congressman compared Obama to Hitler. Hitler should be the one feeling insulted. Hitler was a courageous courrier in World War I, a job with 80% mortality rates. He was an artist, a soldier and he suffered in prison for his political views. If you doubt Obama is worse than Hitler, can you see Hitler embracing the teachings of Reverend Wright? Obama, on the other hand, is an empty suit. Moreover, he’s an obviously evil empty suit because he’s managed to fake accomplishments like graduating from Harvard Law school, serving as the first Black Harvard Law Review chief editor, working in community action, serving in the Illinois Senate and then moving on to the United States Senate. All these “accomplishments”, as well as his campaign and debates have fooled Americans into not recognizing he’s just an empty suit. Clearly, the media has been in on the scam from day one.
Why? Well, it’s clear Obama is a Marxist. He had classes with Marxist professors in college, and we know how hard you have to look to find a Marxist in academia! He never came clean on his relationship with William Ayres, including the allegations that they have had a homosexual love affair for years, including a sado-masochistic ritual with the safe words “bomb the Pentagon!” Clearly, this is a man bent on destroying America.
But most import to us Hillary Clinton supporters, he wants to destroy the one savior who could unite the country and bring us to a new paradise. Instead of the gritty and determined heroine, we get this guy who people treat as the messiah, “the One,” adoring him and looking over obvious hypocrisies. Hillary is honest and forthright. Yeah, she told us she supported Obama and she campaigned for him, but that was because Howard Dean and Donna Brazile threatened her, and her loyalty to the Democratic party — a trait that shows strength — meant she felt she had to support a man she knows isn’t up for the job. What a woman she is! Can we have Hillary back, PLEASE?
I’m sure Obama is a decent father, his kids seem to like him, and I’m not saying he is himself fundamentally evil. But we don’t know him. We do know that he went to a racist church, likely muttering “Amen” to Rev. Wright’s continual calls to God to damn America. Clearly he was raised on ‘black liberation theology,’ an obscure sixties movement that Rev. Wright was part of. Since he went to the same church, he clearly holds all the views of that movement, from Marxism to anti-white racism. To deny that would be irrational; the fact the media didn’t point this out shows they hate America so much they’d rather have a ‘big story’ then a good President.
And his clear sexism in wanting to make Hillary a Secretary should send up warning signals to women everywhere. The way the Democrats and the media savaged Sarah Palin, that brilliant strong woman who gave us hope after Hillary was denied her destiny by the media-DNC partnership, shows that the elites in journalism and the Democratic party hate women. What other explanation can there be?
Moreover, if Obama hadn’t bussed in tens of thousands of ACORN volunteers to Iowa, Hillary would have won those caucuses and gone on to vicotry. And all the close states — the margins of a few hundred thousand voters easily could have been ACORN fraud. Could have been? Anyone who doubts it has obviously been sipping the koolaid, believing the preposterous claim Obama won fair and square. When people start falling for outlandish things like Obama as a legitimate President, you know they’ve slipped off the deep end.
My friends (and we know that’s the proper way to address a collective mass, most of whom we know nothing about), Hillary Clinton should stand up and say what she really thinks about Barack Obama. She should fight back against the abuse and say “I ain’t gonna be no Secretary!” Because you know, if she accepts, the President of Ecador or somewhere will be visiting, and Barry will ring up the Old Executive Office building and say to Hillary, “Sweetie, I’m meeting with a foreign leader and I think you should be here…could you bake up some of those delicious oatmeal scotchies and bring them over too?…thanks.”
Only those completely out of touch with reality could possibly hold such bizarre views as those being shown in the mainstream media, the world press, public opinion, and especially on college campuses (those young snots don’t know what experience means, after all). We see clearly the truth, that Obama is a false messiah, and Hillary needs to be raised from the dead! Fight on!
(End of Satire)
Back in the 1990s as the right reeled from the fact that Bill Clinton actually won in 1992, and some on the fringes launched a mythology about him and his Presidency that gathered a life of its own. Rather than just being a superb politician from Arkansas with a hard driven intelligent wife, the Clintons were portrayed as the essence of evil, akin to an organized crime gain or mafia gathering power. How else could one explain their rise, how else could one explain why the Americans rejected the Republicans for the Clintons?
This myth gathered steam. He sold us out to the Chinese! (Note: the Clinton policy towards China was essentially the same as that of George H.W. Bush and later George W. Bush). When a family friend committed suicide, it was called a murder, ordered by Hillary to hide improprieties of a land deal (eyes rolling), and when a Treasury Secretary was killed in plane crash in Bosnia they claimed it was some nefarious plot. Everything the Clintons did was interpreted through this narrative. To these Clintonophobes the Clintons were not merely the first family, they were something like a James Bond villian, powerful and running an organization that could manipulate scenes around the world.
So when Bill left office and it was clear that Hillary had her eye on the White House, they became convinced that the deal had been made, that this would be an inside job, that nothing could stop here except, perhaps, an heroic effort by the Republican party to save the country from her — that (in their minds) evil, conniving, amoral powerful hungry she-beast. Der Rodham. And, of course, her desire to campaign ultimately on strength and experience fed into this. She was a machine, not a woman, a villian, not a human.
When Obama made his move, most of the Hillary haters chuckled. She’d make quick work of this punk from Chicago. She was the Godfather, he was some young hood in waaaay over his head. The predictions were that she’d steamroll him so fast he wouldn’t know what happened. This was her party and her nomination, how could a James Bond villian be bested by an inexperienced neophyte? The idea Obama had a chance simply showed the naivite of Democrats who somehow didn’t realize that their party was being led not by political leaders, but by cold hearted ruthless beasts.
Yet, that didn’t happen. Obama persisted. The superdelegates shifted to him. The Democrats in a close race (and if Hillary was that horrific creature the far right paint her as, she’d have been able to sway a close race) ultimately chose Obama. There remained tensions, but mostly from Hillary supporters who had gotten caught up in a kind of personality cult (ironically accusing the Obama supporters of such a cult). Bill seemed put off, but compared to say, Ted Kennedy in 1980 or Ronald Reagan in 1976, she embraced Obama like a champ. What gives?
Well, the Hillary haters figured that she was just letting Barack hang himself. Clever, this one. She would allow him to self-destruct from some scandal or mid-summer tragedy, so she could save the party and not be seen as having pushed out the black man. A scandal involving Michelle or Barack’s alledged ‘anti-Americanism’ would break on Independence day, a video tape would emerge with racist rants, or something would come up to utterly deflate the Obama candidacy before the convention in Denver. There is no way Der Rodham, the powerful she-beast, could possibly let Obama take away her candidacy.
So caught up was the right wing in this bizarre myth about the Clintons that they took it up until the convention, convinced there would be ‘blood on the convention floor’ as Hillary would pull out all the stops to get “her rightful” nomination. But last night, that myth was laid to rest, as were the fantasies of the far right that the Clintons were some kind of mafia like evil force. Hillary’s campaign had been mismanaged, stories came out, and strategic errors had been made. Obama had a plan B that allowed him to pull it off. Of course in a close campaign there were hard feelings, but Hillary recognized reality, embraced Barack Obama and gave a stunning and powerful speech for him last night. She couldn’t pressure herself onto the ticket, and didn’t try.
She’s human. She’s a politician. She’s not a beast, not der Rodham, not some kind of cold blooded powerhungry bitch from hell. She’s a hard nosed, intelligent politician whose values are those of Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and the Democratic party. And while Hillary haters may legitimately disagree with those values, they need to let go of their fantasies about some kind of evil Clinton machine that has occupied the naive Democratic party to unleash its horrific plans. People caught up in those fantasies betray more of how their own minds work than anything about the Clintons — and its not pretty.
The Democrats have celebrated two fantastic speeches so far — Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton (though I also enjoyed Montana Governor Brian Sweitzer’s talk — even as he seemed to be channeling Louis Black). Those looking for division and rancor are finding the Democrats on the same page. This leaves the Hillary haters puzzled. Rather than realizing their view of the Clintons has been silly, they are now thinking its a plot for 2012, or there is some other angle here. No. It’s just that however good or bad the Clinton Presidency was, the kind of weird mythology some embraced about the Clintons was, in a word, silly.
It seems I’m in a zone of talking electoral politics the past few days. I’ll snap out of it soon. Today will be a short one.
The media seems to be full of commentary that Obama has “blinked” and given in to Hillary Clinton to allow her not only to speak at the convention, but have a major prime time role, and roll call vote. To many, Obama is risking letting her take center stage.
I have no idea how anyone can think a campaign that was so disciplined and successful to this point would really make such an error in judgment. Hillary and Bill will speak in a way that will not only urge her delegates to vote for Obama (many would anyway) but give passionate support for Obama’s Presidency. The reason is simple: if Hillary is to have any chance to run as the Democratic nominee in 2012 she has to both distance herself from the anti-Obama ‘puma’ folk who have gone into full groupthink mode and seem to have lost touch with reality, and she has to erase any impression that she in any way, shape or form hindered an Obama victory. If people blame her and her supporters for a potential Obama defeat, she’ll have no chance four years from now. Of course, that’s for the cynical. It’s probably the case that she wants Obama to defeat McCain and have a Democratic majority, so as a Senate leader she can craft historic legislative accomplishments.
So expect Hillary and Bill to be talking about Obama, in a way that is passionate, and will have Obama’s supporters screaming approval. Expect Hillary to urge all her delegates to vote for Obama, and give the Republicans a strong message. Expect the hopes of some for some kind of divided and bitter conference to be completely dashed. If Hillary can pull this off, she’ll erase lingering doubts that a lot of people have concerning her trustworthiness in supporting Obama and having it not be “all about her.” Bill Clinton also has a chance to regain his position as a party statesman, an ex-President the Democrats can be proud of. His reputation is now tarnished, a strong performance in favor of Obama will go far to redeem him.
There is no way Hillary can gain the nomination. Obama’s raised a lot of money, she’s in debt, and Obama has an army of committed volunteers ready to fight in the fall. If all this got turned around by insider “super delegates,” the Democratic party would collapse. The party leaders know that, they won’t let that happen. More importantly, Hillary knows that. If she really had wanted to fight it out in Denver, she’d not have ceased her campaign and called so aggressively for unity.
So expect a lovefest between Obama and the Clintons. They may not mean it, but it will not only go far to undo the bitterness of the campaign, but help Hillary and Bill recover from the beatings their reputation took towards the end of the campaign. It’s Hillary’s hour, moreso if she gifts it to Obama.
Hillary Clinton ran an excellent campaign during the primary season, and if the structure of the primaries had been different, she might have been the nominee. She has handled herself with class and grace since the defeat, quickly reading the writing on the wall, apparently having an easier time coping with reality than her husband. Yesterday she met with Barack Obama in Unity, New Hampshire — a place where they split the vote evenly during the New Hampshire primary — to reinforce the idea that they are working together to defeat Barack Obama.
What I find more interesting are the “Hillary Cultists” out there, almost psychotic in their rabid hatred of Barack Obama (and his supporters) determined to claim some kind of victimhood over their candidate’s loss. You can find their rants at “the Confluence,” which sounds like they are trying hard to convince themselves they are right, or “no quarter,” a place where the man who gave us the Michelle Obama video rumor continues to try to fly rumor whispers about Rezko, Obama’s birth certificate, or probably soon, his association with Martians. And though he has been shown to be wrong so often, the true believers who want to believe that Obama will somehow disappear keep coming back. Finally there is a truly bizarre site, “Hillary is 44,” with a photo of Hillary which appears to be from back when she was 44 years old. These folk wear their hatred of Obama on their sleeves as they whine about how they’re victims to the sexism of the Democratic party. Lastly, there is “Hillbuzz,” which seems to be obsessed with with the Chicago gay pride parade (huh?)
What drives these people? To be sure, if Hillary had won and Obama had lost I would probably be posting about Obama diehards, who would be complaining of racism, cronyism, and inside party big wig deals. They would be perhaps even more evident on the web, given that Obama’s supporters tend to be more active in the blogosphere and web discussion groups. This isn’t about Clinton or anything particular about her supporters, it’s about that subset of supporters in both campaigns who can’t let go of their emotion and instead become dogmatic, irrational, and angry.
Moreover, this does not include everyone who doesn’t switch support from Clinton to Obama. Many people aren’t driven by ideology and just go by who they identify with more. Some who liked Clinton just prefer McCain to Obama. Some have decided that they want to support Nader. That’s fine. I’m talking about that small minority who hold on to their bitterness and anger, turn it into rage against Obama and his supporters, and despite claiming to be life long Democrats or progressive/liberals have decided they prefer McCain to Obama. I mean those people who have fallen into a state that brings to mind the phrase the ‘cult of personality,’ where they are so focused on the person they identify with that the issues and larger picture becomes secondary. They truly believe the DNC conspired against Clinton, that this is unfair, and that they have been mistreated. It is not a rational belief.
The most bizarre argument they make is that Roe v. Wade doesn’t matter because the Court already has the votes to overturn it. That’s doubtful, but if that were true that would be all the more reason to take that issue seriously, you would think they’d want a President who could change that balance, or at least prevent it from getting even worse. But they are definitely not thinking rationally, it’s raw emotion.
Part of this is par for the course in politics. Campaigns are emotional, and people naturally become very intensely bound up in their candidate, especially if they are contributing money, time and effort on her behalf. It’s not easy to break that; it’s not easy to go from seeing the opponent and bad, someone who must be defeated, to accepting that the game is over and while close, your person lost. People want to blame the loss on nefarious elements, people in our culture embrace a victim mentality.
Most pundits believe that despite it’s close and hard fought nature, the Clinton-Obama fight was relatively mild; both held back because they knew that going negative would hurt them in the eyes of the Democratic electorate. Yet in the emotion of a campaign, supporters remember those moments when there was something offensive said, or an attack that seemed unfair. They remember process questions they lost, things that maybe should have been done differently. They fixate on these, go over them in their minds until they become so important that they construct a barrier that makes it impossible to let go. Both sides do it, but the winner can more easily let go since they have the prize; those on the losing side find it difficult.
On top of that, websites and discussion groups allow supporters who don’t want to let go of the emotion and accept that they lost to reinforce each others’ sense of victimization and unfairness. They bolster each others’ denial. And because of their bitterness, they draw angry comments from the other side, insults from Obama supporters which serve only to reinforce their sense of righteousness and victimhood. In fact, I suspect a lot of Republicans are playing this game pretending to be Hillary or Obama supporters in order to try to keep bitterness alive.
So the result is a small cadre of true believers, unable to distinguish reality from their emotional connection to an individual, driven to hate the other side and the other candidate. They feel self-righteous, believe that they see better the reality than do others, become more like cultists than activists. And if they are active on those websites, they’ll start feeling a groupthink loyalty to other like minded folk, and thus push aside any temptation to rethink their position. It becomes more jihad than political campaign.
The sad thing is that if Barack Obama wins, they will not enjoy the Democratic victory. While most Democrats would feel that this would clear away the wounds of the 2000 election, and create a chance at a real Democratic majority (since the Democrats are almost certain to gain in the House and Senate), the Hillary diehards will feel angry and impotent. They will be those few Americans who felt cheated in both 2000 and 2008, unable to join their fellow progressives and Democrats in celebration. If Obama loses, they’ll have a Pyhrric victory. It’ll be the kind of petty “I’m glad something bad happened to someone I don’t like” satisfaction, even while watching their policy preferences become less likely to be achieved.
For their sake, one hopes that the group of Hillary diehards slowly wake up to reality, and the emotion of the fall campaign starts pushing out the residual emotion of the spring campaign.
Everybody’s a victim! Hillary got mistreated by the sexist press, Obama’s losing voters due to racism, and McCain is questioned and ridiculed because of ageism. Amazing that three people so victimized could have been the top contenders for the 2008 Presidential election!
Of course, these are indeed real issues. I wrote myself awhile back on Obama’s problem with racism, Hillary Clinton certainly had to endure some sexist rhetoric, and people are openly wondering about John McCain’s competence at age 72. On the other hand, Geraldine Ferraro was probably right that Obama wouldn’t be where he was if he were not black, Hillary would not have been running for President if her husband hadn’t been one first, and McCain is using his years of experience to dismiss Obama as unprepared and unqualified.
Not only that, but late in the campaign there was a surreal (and luckily short) moment where some (male) Hillary supporters seemed to like talking about her having testicles. A union leader said she had “testicular fortitude,” and James Carville even said “if she gave Obama one of her cojunes they’d each have two,” making it seem like we should elect the first woman President because she has balls. Talk about mixed messages!
However, in the way in which many each candidate’s supporters are ready to see themselves as victims of some kind of discrimination shows a rather disturbing aspect of American culture – we like to blame others for our problems. As I noted that in the Oil Denial blog a few weeks ago, that the response to high oil prices was that people went around pointing fingers at OPEC, big oil, or “speculators” as the culprits. It can’t be that we have an unsustainable lifestyle at a time when oil production is peaking, that would mean having to take responsibility and make hard choices. Blame someone!
Many of Clinton’s supporters can’t let go of their emotion and accept that she made some mistakes and Obama ran an awesome campaign. Clinton was a victim, she deserved to win. If Obama loses in the fall, many will no doubt attribute racism as a primary cause, while if McCain loses, people will say the country choose the ‘young and charismatic’ one over the competent but elderly leader, or complain that people voted for Obama because they didn’t want to be called racist.
Politics reflects life. Our culture sees to have two contradictory impulses. We value strength and victory in our sports, military endeavors, and business ventures. The New England Patriots may have been 18-1 last year, but since the lost the Superbowl, the season was a failure. On the other hand, we don’t seem to do losing gracefully well. Moreover, our culture is seeing this passed to the next generation, as parents get into brawls and arguments about childrens’ sports, sending a strong message that if you don’t win, you’re nothing. And, of course, if you don’t win, you get angry and blame someone or some injustice.
Humans are natural competitors. You can see it in children and it makes sense, given our biology. Yet we are not competing any more for survival and scarce resources. We are competing for fun, profit, and power. Some win, some lose, but rarely are the consequences of defeat dire. And, as I noted in Emotion and Politics, people often compete vicariously through others, connecting with sports teams, political leaders, or superstars. The loss thus can evoke emotions as real as those our ancestors experienced when some beast managed to hunt down the stag they were tracking.
Thus our leaders owe it to us to give us perspective. It is not healthy for our culture if people cannot accept losing, or believe that since only the weak lose, they have to blame their failures on some other person or thing. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t talk about the roles of sexism, ageism and racism in this campaign. But the candidates themselves should be warning against the blame game. Like a sports star who refuses to blame a lingering injury for poor performance, noting it’s part of the game, politicians should not be fostering a culture of victimhood where it appears victory is something one is entitled to.
To be sure, none of the candidates overtly claimed victimhood; Clinton’s speech last week found a balance between recognizing the reality of sexism without making excuses. Obama has tried to avoid running a racially charged campaign, and McCain is trying to make age an advantage. The campaigns, however, have subtly played up these issues rather than directly and unequivocally rejecting any sense of being a victim of some kind of ism. There are real victims out there; but Obama, McCain and Clinton are not among the victims; they are some of society’s most privileged.