« Barack Obama in 1990 on Black Churches and race politics | blusage's Blog | Obama's state senate records scrubbed ??? »
NYT 2007 Axelrod Profile worth a 2nd look
Axelrod knows that each of these characteristics has its flip side — optimism can be read as naïveté, independence as ideological unmooredness, unjadedness for a lack of experience and bipartisanship as an instinct to avoid necessary combat.
This is Axelrod's anticipation of some of Obama's problems way back when (4/1/07).......
The piece also supports my thoughts about how much Obama's candidacy, via Axelrod, is tied to the revival of the Chicago "political machine". I view his candidacy, in many ways, as a move by that same Chicago machine, to take back their former power position in the Democratic party from the Clinton/Arkansas "machine", which has dominated for 16 yrs.
Very poignant 3rd reason to read it is the story near the end about how much Hillary did personally, at the height of the Monica scandal, for Susan and David Axelrod's foundation on epilepsy and how his campaign for Obama is another "Judas" move against Hillary.
h/t eriposte @ left coaster
Advertisement
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
This is the link
March 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Connect that with the "Senator maker" Emil Jones and with the "moneybag" Tony Rezko.
March 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and you still have nothing, Lalo, NOTHING. Nothing but one candidate that's trying to tear the party apart for her own ambitions, and one that's trying to expand the party for the good of the country.
Sad, pathetic, little dead-enders you guys have become.
March 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point exactly. We just think don't agree on who that candidate is.
March 25, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I have never heard the Obama campaign dredge up the many, many associations that will in the hands of republicans be used to show that the Clintons are shady. You don't hear Obama talking about Whitewater and the pardons, and Johhny Chung and Norman Hsu, etc... And yet it is the Clinton campaign (I mean the candidate and her chief spokespeople)that haves pushed the Rezko association repeatedly. Why?
Why? when any objective reading of history shows she has far more Rezkos in her closet than he.
Why? when they had to suffer false allegations for years and years based on nothing but baseless insinuation, fabrication, and guilt by association would they peddle false accusations of their own.
Why? when they know the insinuations of corruption are false.
Why? It's to tear down their opponent and make him toxic to the electorate. The fact that the opponent is relatively new on the scene just makes the tactic more appealing and potent.
So either you tell me why you think Obama's rezko is more troubling than Clinton's HUbbell, Chung, Rich, Hsu,McDougal,blah blah blah or admit that the bringing it up is a political tactic to tear down Obama. Give me one shred of evidence that this is not politics of personal destruction.
Lots and lots of loyal democrats went to bat for the Clinton's in the 90's against these type of scurrilous accusations, so it is particularly disgusting to see them practice the same dark arts with such relish. Maybe you are too young to know that.
March 25, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see too many people being shy about calling Clinton out on donors, lobby, lies and everything else you can think of. Fair enough.
I happen to think that Obama is a fabricated phenomenon. Like Spice Girls, Obama is a brand, a product of marketing that happened as a result of convergence of various external forces, each with agenda. That's not to say he is not talented, because he is.
March 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
you go right on believing that. I'll be over here in the real world.
I did like your turn of phrase, though. Nicely done, even if 100% wrong.
March 25, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Because they figured out early on that Obama was not going to use those (many) things against them so they had a free pass to jump all over Rezko and anything else they could find. Could it come back to haunt her in the general, should she win? Of course! But one thing I've learned watching this campaign, the Clintons may be very smart and savvy but they DO NOT look ahead.
Do you think there wouldn't be a slight damping down of enthusiasm for her in the general in those states that she as pronounce "insignifican"? in the states whose caucuses she has ridiculed? among the various parts of the electorat, like blacks and 'latte liberals', that she's decided don't matter? and even many of her own supporters that were left without a thank you in states she lost (e.g., SC) or who were tricked into supporting positions that they later found out were based on untruths, like those poor women in NH? ----- But none of that seems to matter. I guess they figure that when it comes to the general, they will demonize their Rep opponent so much that all the people they've insulted and dismissed will have no choice but to vote for them. ..........
This time, however, they are wrong. I really believe that. If she should become the nominee, I wouldn't be surprised to see a wave of people changing their party registration the next day. I know that's what I intend to do. And this is NOT any sort of "Obama mainia" or "sour grapes" because my candidate didn't win. -- I've voted for every Democratic candidate for over 40 years: some were exceptional; some I liked, some I tolerated but supported because of things like general policies, Supreme Court, etc. But I have never voted for someone whose treatment of others and utter disdain for the American people turns my stomach and makes me ashamed to be a Democrat ... and I won't.
March 25, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing Hillary is doing is about tearing the party apart. It's just wishful thinking on your part. Things would be just perfect for Obama if only Hillary would do the right thing and disappear. I don't think so.
Expanding the party by taking a Republican position on health care and appealing more to independents and republicans than to real democrats is not building the Democratic party, it's making it more
Republican.
Read the article. Obama may not be able to close this deal with Democrats. Axelrod knows this. Obama said as much himself in a radio interview played last week on XM radio POTUS '08 You might open your mind to the possibility.
March 25, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't want to be on the other side of a Patrick Fitzgerald indictment!
March 25, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if the "Judas" comment was meant only for humor, but on the off chance that it wasn't: why does her contribution to Axelrod's foundation on epilepsy mean he should support her bid for presidency? Is it not possible that he simply thinks Obama is a better candidate? If so, shouldn't he support whoever he thinks is the better candidate?
March 25, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poignant part is how he had to betray a real friend, to promote Obama's candidancy against her.
March 25, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
One way to look at that is that he must have had really good reasons for going with Obama, since naturally one would have expected him to have a Clinton bias.
Another way to look at it, I suppose, is that there's never a valid reason to "betray" one's friends, even for the sake of your country. (I realize that's somewhat strawmanish, but I suppose I don't understand this whole "betray" argument.)
March 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of one of those manufactured bands. Like the Monkeys.
March 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah.... He's 'NSync! With the voters, that is.
March 25, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Economides, it is naive to think Obama is not practicing character assassination of Hillary.
I have heard Axelrod use Hillary's donor list to counter charges about Rezko.
Go to the Chicago Tribune or Sun Times and search their articles about Tony Rezko and Obama. These are not written by the HRC campaign. It is not hard to see that this is a problem of Obama's own making. He called his own judgement in the real estate transaction "boneheaded".
March 25, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey hey We're the Monkeys! great analogy they were hot hot hot. the first album I ever bought. Boy did I grow up when I learned they were created in a PR shop somewhere and not a real band. hmmmmmmm does sound familiar.
March 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
this whole line of thought is nonsense, but I'll play along for one minute because I have one tiny bit of trivia to contribute...remember who opened for the Monkees on their first (?) tour of the U.S.?
Some guitar player, name of Hendirx...
March 25, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK - a bit of lighthearted fun:
Hillary is the Beateles. They were the real thing.
The producers (Axelrod) of the Monkeys saw the phenom that was the Beatles - which included very high negatives, by the way- and very skillfully fabricated a new band (Obama) - using the Beatles selling points, that, for a moment, captured the Beatle fanbase.
I actually think Obama is pretty great. If I were Axelrod I'd hitch my wagon to his star. but only if Hillary were not running.
But I'm not 12 anymore and I know and trust Hillary for the presidency right now.
He would have a great opportunity to prove his metal- to eveyone in America -if he were VP for 8 years. I think he's man enough to work as # 2 to Hillary. He's married to Michele.
March 25, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, between Bosnia and today's "Wright would never be my pastor" garbage, Hillary is quickly becoming the Rutles.
And Obama is really the Stones in your comparison.
March 25, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
...wait, no, he's Hendrix, and she's Janice Joplin. No, he's Nirvana and she's Pearl Jam. No, no!
He's Sonny Rollins and she's John Coltrane. Wait! No! She's Beethoven and he's Mozart!
No NO NO NO I'VE GOT IT!!!! She's Hootie and the Blowfish, and he's They Might Be Giants! No, wait...
Damn, now I've lost it.
March 25, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
on betrayal:
In politics, rightly, you build relationships built on trust.
Hillary's participation in the weekly prayer breakfasts with mostly republican senators created a tremendous well of trust because people opened up to each other and discussed their personal problems. She is a workhorse in the senate to build credibility and trtust (BHO more a showhorse)
Hillary had done a magnificent job of building relationships with all the important players on all sides. She "should" win.
When Kennedy peeled off it was seen as betrayal of Hillary. I saw it as part and parcel of the effort by the Chicago machine to re-assert it's power over the Clinton machine. I remembered that it was Richard Daley who stole the election for Jack Kennedy, so it was really Ted Kennedy's loyalty to the Chicago machine that tipped his play.
(I took solace that Bobby's kids chose Hillary for policy reasons.)
Another reason that betrayal is an issue in this contest, besides Richardson, is the degree of hostility and ugliness thrown to Hillary's black political leaders who have supported her. Death threats to Tavis Smiley. Primary challenges to John Lewis if he didn't back Obama etc etc.
gotta go to work now-bye
March 25, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink