The Mythic Clinton Narrative
There's something that I've been puzzling over for a bit now and, especially since it's been almost ten days since I've written anything here, I've decided that it's time to address it. Somehow, the moment in the campaign seems right. So, here goes.
The Clinton campaign has run with a narrative that I'm sure everyone is now very well-versed in. This is, I hope, fortunate because I intend to fundamentally call it into question. My impression is that the key word for her is "experience". As we've seen in the last week, there's good reason to doubt this even when attempting to take her story at face value. However, I would like to break this down into two key aspects: "toughness" and "wonkiness".
First, let me address "toughness". Fellow blogger clearthinker has previously addressed a perspective on Clinton's status as a "fighter" that I would gladly link to if the site software permitted me to locate it. Recently, destor23, a Clinton supporter, has also examined his own relationship with this perception. Personally, I find this quality to be almost entirely subjective. If I may paraphrase clearthinker, he proposed that Clinton is a fighter not in the sense that she is wiling to fight for things, but rather that she is willing to fight with people. I would have to agree and I certainly see her as frequently and unnecessarily contentious for all of the wrong reasons (the current state of the campaign being a case in point), but again I think that this idea of "toughness" is hard to measure. So, let us ask: In what way is she "tough"?
It seems a good starting to examine what political battles she has won. As far as I can tell, the answer appears to be none. She certainly did little if anything at WalMart to stop their trends toward anti-union and generally anti-labor policies. As the First Lady, we know that she did not win the healthcare battle. Of course, we can't really know how or why because she will not release the documentation. Though I don't really believe her, if we take her at her word about NAFTA then we can say that she did not win this battle either.
What about as a Senator? She's done little if anything from what I can tell to provide opposition to the Bush administration while in the Senate. She certainly didn't oppose the Iraq war which is probably the single most important event during her tenure. I've carefully looked over her Senate record at thomas.loc.gov and I see no legislation of any great significance that bears her name or indicates her involvement. Certainly nothing that looks like a clear win on her part indicative of any kind of political "toughness".
So where does this perception come from? It seems that at least part of it may be that she has been a frequent target of the right and for this reason some see her as a "survivor". This may indeed be an indicator that she has thick skin, but it seems that desirable political toughness is shrewd and persevering to the end of accomplishment, not simply the toughness of a boxer's heavy bag or meat that has been left out too long. I think there may be another reason for this perception, but I will address this shortly.
What about "wonkiness"? The assertion that she is a master of policy is something that I frequently see and hear, but again I ask: Why? Where is the evidence of this? Perhaps there may be some evidence of this in the documentation of her pursuits in healthcare reform, but all that I really know is that she didn't get it done. She won't let me examine what her specific proposals were and so I have no idea whether or not the policy specifics were well-crafted. She may very well have been the instrument of her own failure for all I know. Watching the way she has campaigned, this does not seem far-fetched to me.
Again, we come back to her Senate record. Where is the legislation that would indicate a mastery of policy? It simply isn't there. I would expect that someone who is frequently regaled as the wonk's wonk would have perhaps gotten something done in this capacity while serving two consecutive terms in the Senate.
So I'll return to my question: Where does this perception come from? I have one suggestion for an answer and I'll present it in the form of an anecdote. Years ago, a friend of mine, who is a bit given to more fanciful flights of thought, told me with impressive certainty that the average person swallows seven spiders in their sleep during a lifetime. Now, this struck me as incredibly odd and so I basically asked the same question that I'm asking now: How would anyone possible know this? What evidence could exist for this? How could one possibly devise a scientific experiment that would accurately measure such a claim? Of course, it's simply an urban legend: Something that people think is true because they hear it repeated and something that people repeat because they think it is true. It's a kind of circular logic that makes nonsense seem real, a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Of course, repetition is known to be a powerful tool for shaping perception. This isn't lost on advertisers. Many commercials rely simply on repetition and nothing more. There's a great example of such an advertisement that is currently in rotation. If you watch any television you've no doubt seen it, but I've linked to it here so that the uninitiated can witness it for themselves.
Listen to the ad: HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead. Are you running out to the store yet? Not so fast. This is a marvelous piece of advertising. Notice that not one single claim about the product's function is made. You're simply told to apply it to your forehead over and over. Now, here's the rub. The reason for this is that it's simply a stick of wax. As you can see here, it contains only two active ingredients in very small quantities. One is a homeopathic 'remedy' with no scientifically verified indications and the other is actually a known carcinogen! I especially enjoy that they inform you that this product is available without a prescription. So it is with any product without any sort of active medical compound.
Aren't you glad you didn't apply this product to your forehead or apply your wallet to its purchase?
I sure am. So, no, I will not apply HeadOn directly to my forehead and I will not simply accept that Clinton is tough or that she has a mastery of policy. I want to see the evidence because I want to be sure that I'm not just rubbing wax on my forehead because someone told me to do so.
It may sound strange, but that's just how I roll.
The Clinton campaign has run with a narrative that I'm sure everyone is now very well-versed in. This is, I hope, fortunate because I intend to fundamentally call it into question. My impression is that the key word for her is "experience". As we've seen in the last week, there's good reason to doubt this even when attempting to take her story at face value. However, I would like to break this down into two key aspects: "toughness" and "wonkiness".
First, let me address "toughness". Fellow blogger clearthinker has previously addressed a perspective on Clinton's status as a "fighter" that I would gladly link to if the site software permitted me to locate it. Recently, destor23, a Clinton supporter, has also examined his own relationship with this perception. Personally, I find this quality to be almost entirely subjective. If I may paraphrase clearthinker, he proposed that Clinton is a fighter not in the sense that she is wiling to fight for things, but rather that she is willing to fight with people. I would have to agree and I certainly see her as frequently and unnecessarily contentious for all of the wrong reasons (the current state of the campaign being a case in point), but again I think that this idea of "toughness" is hard to measure. So, let us ask: In what way is she "tough"?
It seems a good starting to examine what political battles she has won. As far as I can tell, the answer appears to be none. She certainly did little if anything at WalMart to stop their trends toward anti-union and generally anti-labor policies. As the First Lady, we know that she did not win the healthcare battle. Of course, we can't really know how or why because she will not release the documentation. Though I don't really believe her, if we take her at her word about NAFTA then we can say that she did not win this battle either.
What about as a Senator? She's done little if anything from what I can tell to provide opposition to the Bush administration while in the Senate. She certainly didn't oppose the Iraq war which is probably the single most important event during her tenure. I've carefully looked over her Senate record at thomas.loc.gov and I see no legislation of any great significance that bears her name or indicates her involvement. Certainly nothing that looks like a clear win on her part indicative of any kind of political "toughness".
So where does this perception come from? It seems that at least part of it may be that she has been a frequent target of the right and for this reason some see her as a "survivor". This may indeed be an indicator that she has thick skin, but it seems that desirable political toughness is shrewd and persevering to the end of accomplishment, not simply the toughness of a boxer's heavy bag or meat that has been left out too long. I think there may be another reason for this perception, but I will address this shortly.
What about "wonkiness"? The assertion that she is a master of policy is something that I frequently see and hear, but again I ask: Why? Where is the evidence of this? Perhaps there may be some evidence of this in the documentation of her pursuits in healthcare reform, but all that I really know is that she didn't get it done. She won't let me examine what her specific proposals were and so I have no idea whether or not the policy specifics were well-crafted. She may very well have been the instrument of her own failure for all I know. Watching the way she has campaigned, this does not seem far-fetched to me.
Again, we come back to her Senate record. Where is the legislation that would indicate a mastery of policy? It simply isn't there. I would expect that someone who is frequently regaled as the wonk's wonk would have perhaps gotten something done in this capacity while serving two consecutive terms in the Senate.
So I'll return to my question: Where does this perception come from? I have one suggestion for an answer and I'll present it in the form of an anecdote. Years ago, a friend of mine, who is a bit given to more fanciful flights of thought, told me with impressive certainty that the average person swallows seven spiders in their sleep during a lifetime. Now, this struck me as incredibly odd and so I basically asked the same question that I'm asking now: How would anyone possible know this? What evidence could exist for this? How could one possibly devise a scientific experiment that would accurately measure such a claim? Of course, it's simply an urban legend: Something that people think is true because they hear it repeated and something that people repeat because they think it is true. It's a kind of circular logic that makes nonsense seem real, a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Of course, repetition is known to be a powerful tool for shaping perception. This isn't lost on advertisers. Many commercials rely simply on repetition and nothing more. There's a great example of such an advertisement that is currently in rotation. If you watch any television you've no doubt seen it, but I've linked to it here so that the uninitiated can witness it for themselves.
Listen to the ad: HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead. Are you running out to the store yet? Not so fast. This is a marvelous piece of advertising. Notice that not one single claim about the product's function is made. You're simply told to apply it to your forehead over and over. Now, here's the rub. The reason for this is that it's simply a stick of wax. As you can see here, it contains only two active ingredients in very small quantities. One is a homeopathic 'remedy' with no scientifically verified indications and the other is actually a known carcinogen! I especially enjoy that they inform you that this product is available without a prescription. So it is with any product without any sort of active medical compound.
Aren't you glad you didn't apply this product to your forehead or apply your wallet to its purchase?
I sure am. So, no, I will not apply HeadOn directly to my forehead and I will not simply accept that Clinton is tough or that she has a mastery of policy. I want to see the evidence because I want to be sure that I'm not just rubbing wax on my forehead because someone told me to do so.
It may sound strange, but that's just how I roll.
Advertisement
Translation: Clinton is not tough. She is not a master of policy. She is a myth born of repetition.
Reductio ad absurdum, predictably.
And an interesting way to draw a contrast between two candidates, one a myth of repetition and the other an act of self-hypnosis.
March 28, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I welcome you to provide any evidence for these assertions, but of course you won't because you're just a troll and that's not you job.
March 28, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely, you mean my "assertions" in contrast with your "facts", painstakingly researched and backed by extensive bibliography.
As for name-calling - don't hold back, there is no better way to defend demagoguery.
March 28, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you familiar with the burden of proof? The assertion is that Hillary Clinton is tough and a wonk. I say I don't see it. I call you a troll because you perpetually make irrational arguments to inflame the discussion without any intention of backing your claims up. This is the definition of a troll. If you believe that these assertions about Clinton are true then you're welcome to prove me wrong on all counts, but there's no way for anyone to prove that something isn't there. If you had gotten an A in your logic class you would know this. Maybe you're not disingenuous and not a troll and you're just not capable of critical thinking. Again, I welcome you to prove me wrong.
As for a bibliography, I even gave you a link to her record on thomas.loc.gov. I've read it. Have you? If you disagree with me, all you have to do is go click and find me an example. Go ahead, make my day.
March 28, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am familiar with a burden of proof, that burden is on you and you fail.
You take a character description (tough person, fighter, survivor) and contend that it's "a key aspect" of experience. It's like saying Obama is likeable, therefore competent.
Then you look for proof how someone's character dictates legislation they sponsor or battles they pick. It's like saying Obama loves a good speech, therefore let's look for earth-shattering education battle in his Senate record.
Your point about "wonkineess" is similarly twisted, but I will avoid the repetition so the irony of your own argument becomes more apparent.
That's basically how you frame you entire post.
You provide a link, but you don't analyze it one way or another (except for dismissing it). In fact, you prefer the educated guesses from other commenters to help you reach your conclusions.
You can accuse me of irrational arguments and call me any name you want. But arguing irrationally and inflaming your own post is not a good predictor of an earnest discussion.
Because, as you correctly point out, there is no way to prove or disprove something that doesn't make sense.
That's why I had both meanings in mind when I called your post reductio ad absurdum.
March 28, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say it was a key aspect of experience. I said that experience is her narrative that from this experience she is said to be tough and wonky. I don't agree with this description of Senator Clinton and apparently neither do you so I suppose we're done here.
Obviously you don't understand the burden of proof. Let's make this easy: Clinton isn't tough or wonky. If you disagree with me, you must now prove it. Negative assertions cannot be proved. You are asking me to prove God doesn't exist. Can't be done. Neither can I disprove the existence of the invisible purple unicorn.
I take it by your reaction that I'm right on the money and that even her most fervent supporters can't prove this claim. Again, you're welcome to prove me wrong, but you won't. And my guess is because there is no proof for these claims. It's not my job to research and argue for you.
March 28, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's all you have? I'm less and less impressed.
1. "...My impression is that the key word for her is "experience". ...... However, I would like to break this down into two key aspects: "toughness" and "wonkiness"..."
2. "Burden of proof (Latin, onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations"
March 28, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your opinion, is she or is she not tough? Is she or is she not a wonk? To wit, does she have a mastery policy? I'm not making these assertions. I'm saying, these assertions have been made by others and I see no evidence of this. These are the positive assertions in question. I'm making no such assertion. I contend that this assertion has been made without proof. You're welcome to stop playing games and provide said proof, but you won't ever do it because:
1. You're a troll
2. There likely is no such proof
March 28, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not making any assertions.
To the contrary, you wrote an entire post making an allegation that Clinton is not who she says she is (or what the perception may be).
So if you don't believe this to be true, it's up to you do disprove it. That's what the burden of proof is about.
So far, you haven't done it. And instead of address my comments, you are hiding behind the game of termninolgy. I call your game sophistry.
As to troll, I don't care if you are chanelling Buckely, Chomsky or both, it's not really working at all.
March 28, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotcha.
Exactly right. And I'm not buying what's being sold anymore than I'm buying HeadOn. If you have no problem with that then we're done here.
ClintOn: Apply directly to the Presidency!
Thanks, but I'd rather not.
Hmm.. I like the way that sounds. Maybe I'll make my first viral video this weekend. ;)
March 29, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck.
I hope your first viral video will not be as twisted as your logic and as fluffy as your facts.
Over and out.
March 29, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I thought.
March 29, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, why won't you play nice?
DF said Hillary's the Queen of Darkness and cheats at cards as well. It's your duty to prove him wrong or he's right. If you can't prove him wrong, you're either a troll or a deluded fellow traveller. Isn't it simple?
March 30, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, why bother to actually back up anything you say with evidence or examples when you can just assert that I'm wrong? Oh, I know: Because people other than you and Lalo expect this sort of thing if they are to be convinced. Not that you will likely understand this.
I find it terribly amusing that I'm essentially soliciting a genuine contrary argument and neither of you tools will do it, but expect me and others to believe that I'm wrong simply because you say so. And then I'm supposed to be the one who's being shallowly dismissive. You're a real piece of work. Truly impressive feats of unreason.
March 30, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, "As to troll, I don't care if you are chanelling Buckely, Chomsky or both, it's not really working at all. "
Yes it is working; you're looking more and more ridiculous with each evasive and childish post.
March 29, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Lalo, I think no one can convince you so I would not, despite your throwing around fancy Latin words, say that because you are not convinced he has failed.
But having read Lalo's posts I do see she is imminently qualified to comment on assertions not being backed up by fact.
March 29, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo never responds to the posts that ask him to set forth a coherent argument leading logically from a set of facts to a conclusion. He only makes vague generalizations and opinions without providing any support. Either that, or he accuses you of going off topic, as though he was in charge of determining what you are or are not allowed to say on a blog discussion post.
March 28, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm pretty much just humoring his nonsense for my own amusement. He's a troll. Reasoning is antithetical to his mission.
March 28, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, Lalo, you're right - there is some reductio ad absurdum here. Only, DF's not the only guilty of it - you are.
You've reduced HIS argument to the absurd. You've extracted the conclusions without any of the surrounding explanation, which of course is going to lead to absurdity.
One of the key markers of the reductio ad absurdum argument is that one simply makes the absurd argument and leaves it at that - as you've done.
You didn't bother to refute his points. This is how I know you've engaged in the absurd reduction.. not DF.
March 29, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.. not only did he not refute anything, but he did a bang up job of not refuting anything. I mean, this guy put in some serious work.
March 29, 2008 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
A quick note on wonkiness because I'm in a rush -- this tends to be what we hear from folks who have worked with her, particularly when she first joined the Senate. Remember, there was a lot of coverage about whether or not she was doing a good job and a lot of people came out and said "This woman is really smart, she really gets policy, she really gets the process."
Of course, these are a self-selected group of people who either liked her or knew they'd have to work with her so...
I still think the wonkiness is true, though. A lot of her proposals, like freezing foreclosures and interest rate hikes, are very smart. That is the sign of a wonk.
Maybe her wonkiness isn't at issue. Maybe what you're really asking for is evidence that she is superior to Obama in this regard. That's a case I'd find much harder to make.
March 28, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect, I'm asking precisely for more than hearsay. Why is her moratorium on foreclosures a smart move? What's the economic basis for doing this? What are the long-run implications?
March 28, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freezing foreclosures is very smart?
Remember, she wants Alan Greenspan back in the mix and even her boy Paul Krugman says that is stupid.
If she was truly smart, she would connect the dots between water, energy, and our present lifestyle in America. I've yet to hear her (or any other candidate) do this yet.
But whomever is the next POTUS will have to address these very issues. There is nothing in Hillary's methods to attack problems (pull in yes-men, pull in old guard that got us here, etc.) that shows she is capable of this.
March 28, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, I think McCainPal might be a relative of Sinbad:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/i-am-john-mccains-best-friend.php
March 28, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading over McCainPal's maiden post again, I'm thinking that maybe someone forgot to log back into their regular account. ;)
March 29, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
She IS a wonk, just like her husband. they are both engrossed by the details of government and politics. they both command amazing amounts of information from memory and could run institutions like the presidency very well (well, we know bill can, but I would assert that Hillary would make a very smart and competent president).
That doesn't make freezing foreclosures a necessarily smart move in a big picture sense.
March 29, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not know that about HeadOn. I knew the commercials were annoying and that I never intended to buy the product, but I did not know they were one of those homeopathic cures.
After such an education, I feel compelled to offer one in return: The term reductio ad absurdum doesn't just refer to an absurd idea or argument—it means proving the opposite by showing the fallacy in a given assumption.
March 28, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but St. Anselm's famous ontological argument for the existence of God (and probably one of the most famous reductio ad absurdum arguments) followed a similar form: God is defined as great, existence is greater than non-existence, therefore God exists. This is similar to the logic behind assuming that something is true because it is oft repeated (conventional wisdom). After all, people would not repeat it were it not true, would they? The Latin actually means "reduction to the absurd", but I'll give you that it is more traditionally used to mean the proof by contradiction which is what you describe.
March 28, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I believe what you're describing is what is (correctly) referred to as begging the question, an expression that has been used incorrectly for so long that its "incorrect" usage not only is more common than its "correct" usage, but so much so that many scholars now consider the "incorrect" usage to be simply an "alternate" usage. As I'm sure you can imagine, holy wars in philosophy schools get fought over far less. :)
March 28, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes.. I'll have to concede that you're correct here. This is definitely more accurate. Suffice it to say, I don't think that this error detracts from my larger argument.
As for the holy wars, I don't have to imagine.. I've seen a bit of that first hand. :)
March 28, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF: between this and your discussion on another -ahem- thread, I think you are the official Latin scholar on TPM.
Were you brought up Catholic?
March 28, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm nowhere near a Latin scholar, but rather quite the amateur. No, I was not raised Catholic. My father's side is Catholic, but he had thought better of it and renounced his faith by the time he reached adulthood. My fairly limited knowledge of Latin comes from studying philosophy and science.
March 28, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh. i might actually be the closest thing to a latin scholar here, too. i was raised catholic, took 3 years of latin in high school, and another year as an undergraduate. i''ve also been a fan of greco-roman mythology since i was a kid, and greco-roman history since high school. by no mean am i an expert, but i've always thought i had a pretty decent resume. i could probably claim a classics minor and no one would know the difference.
March 29, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome, DF. You went from a discussion of propaganda and the meaning of memes ("history is a bitch") and rolled it right into ads for products that do nothing... and politicians.
I think the first issue ("fighter") is a bait and switch as has been mentioned. She is implying "leader" but can easily switch to a meaning of "brawler".
A question that has often been asked is why she is so proud to be a "fighter" anyway? After all, Sun Tze said
Some prefer the idea of war rather than win their objectives.
Instead, the "fighter" moniker is used almost as a victim's cry. She keeps taking punches but somehow she manages to stand back up. It's as American as apple pie and it warms the hearts of Americans who traditionally love an underdog.
But to elect someone president on that basis? I think not!
Besides, she can no longer be considered an underdog.
On to the second word: wonk. We used to want our politicians to know history, now we want them to be "wonky". Bill Clinton, like the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, while a master of politics, had no obvious grasp of history or it's sweep. The Boomer Generation -- who gave us the presidents Clinton and GWB --
was raised on sound-bites, broadcast media, and instant gratification. Is it any wonder that both of these politicians tend towards myopia and campaign as if they were the latest brand of deodorant? The Dems and GOP have led us to the Coke vs Pepsi wars where the two majors have relatively stable market shares and everything is about the fraction in the middle. Does this sound like the campaigns for the last 20 years?
Hillary is no exception, here, and shows no sense of history. I am often saddened by seemingly intelligent people who talk in terms of making her Senate Majority Leader like Lyndon Johnson. These people have no sense of history: there is a reason that Johnson's biographer called him Master of the Senate. To get policy and legislation through Congress is no easy feat. And Johnson rose in the Senate to become one of the freshest majority leaders and proceeded to work with the opposition party down the street in the White House to pass major legislation.
Can anyone picture Hillary doing this? Honestly? And yet, no one called Johnson a "wonk." He'd probably settle for "horse trader."
I don't believe Hillary is thick-skinned as you imply. Every indication is that she surrounds herself with people willing to give her what she wants to hear. This is a decided lack of self-esteem. In fact, I believe her temper is on a par with McCain's. She simply doesn't ever look relaxed when questioned directly.
The genius of Bill Clinton is that he always looked friendly, even if he was (apparently) very arrogant as he has now shown. Hillary can't seem to pull this off.
I believe her first job in Washington: working behind the scenes in building a case for the Nixon Impeachment was her first, best job fit. Alas, Hillary craves the limelight, and reading torts and writing reports isn't a good way to get people to notice you.
Just as one wonders about how history would have changed if Castro was drafted into the major leagues, one wonders what would have happened if Hillary had passed her Washington DC bar. She surely would not have followed Bill to Arkansas.
Interestingly, she *gave up* on the bar examine in DC after failing it the first time.
Not much of a fighter there, right?
March 28, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah.. you know, after Clinton won the March 4th primary there was talk of the underdog analogy around here. There was someone, I want to say Billy Glad, who compared her to Rocky Balboa. It reminded me of Stallone's own account of how Rocky was born:
So the inspiration for Rocky Balboa was actually a loser. Keep this in mind as I'm sure we'll no doubt revisit this analogy after she comes up with a likely win in on Rocky's home turf. Of course, when she ultimately loses in the 15th round most people won't ever know just how true this analogy really is.
March 28, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch DF, you credited Billy Glad with my post? The cruelest cut...
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/of-underdogs-and-old-boxers.php
March 29, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh! Sorry, Genghis! See, if the site weren't so, er, wonky right now I probably could have found it. I stand corrected, sir!
March 29, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's OK. I give you credit for even remembering it. I think that all of 4 people read that post.
March 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it may have been the gloating that Billy was doing on other threads by way of similar imagery at that time that stuck in my head. Humility doesn't appear to be his concern.
March 29, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if you considered these, DF, but I think you've overlooked a couple of fundamental indicators that I think are persuasive to HRC supporters.
All arguments about sexism aside, I think there's a persistent impression that she is tough... for a woman. I don't hold that view in any way, but whether or not it's appropriate to address in public discourse, I do believe there is a relative judgment going on in which HRC, compared to other women, is considered tough. And I think quite a bit of that comes from how she weathered all these years by the side of a philandering husband. (Again, I don't personally give her a whole lot of credit for having done so, but I'm certain a good percentage of her supporters do).
On the wonk side, I'll just share my own subjective impressions. The woman is a damned good debater, with a phenomenal recall for policy details and a knack for articulating them smoothly and in generally impeccable grammar. Now, I don't know how genuinely well-versed she is in reality, but she certainly does project an air of someone who knows what she's talking about. In my mind, it's no reason for us to prefer her over Obama, but I think it helps to explain where the perception comes from.
Sorry if I'm approaching this too reductively, but you didn't mention either of these phenomena in your post, both of which I consider to play a fundamental role in how HRC's supporters perceive her.
March 28, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that there is a perception that she is tough. That is, in fact, my premise. You add another dimension by bringing up her marriage, but this isn't really aside from my point: She's known for taking shit. Okay, but how does that translate to political toughness that gets results?
Why is she a good debater? She doesn't really seem to have much poise or eloquence. In fact, her technique in debate is rather unpolished. She has a list of facts that she's going to hammer and she does so with diligence. Think of the last debate where she relentlessly repeated her healthcare bullets for 16 minutes straight. I'd recommend going back and watching Chomsky versus Buckley:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI
Now, I don't admire Buckley for his political positions, but this guy was a master of debate. Chomsky's style is more similar to Clinton's, although you can tell that his depth of knowledge far surpasses her and he's lot more comfortable with the back and forth. Buckley, on the other hand, had not only a mastery of factual information, but he had the total package: poise, eloquence, demeanor and even, dare I say it, charisma.
But this really doesn't address what I'm asking which is: Where is the evidence for her policy mastery? As Lis notes below, it's not that tough to cram your head full of bullet points and bang them out. Where has she demonstrated a mastery of effective policy-making? Here's another to way to look at it: If she retired from the Senate at the end of the year, what would her legacy be? Would this perception be, in fact, justified?
It's not that I don't understand that people have the impression that she knows the issues, quite the opposite. I'm asking what, beyond the marketing, is evidence of this? Is this mere perception or can we substantiate this claim with factual evidence from her record?
March 28, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive me for misinterpreting you. I thought you were asking where the perceptions were coming from. I certainly don't have an answer for why people think she'd be politically tough in a productive way as president. All the evidence is to the contrary, IMO. And, hell, it's definitely unfair to hold up Chomsky's performance against Buckley as a standard for debate. That was an unbelievable tour de force appearance by Chomsky, making the venerable Buckley look downright weak-kneed! (Buckley would have eaten HRC alive in a real debate, no?)
At bottom, I guess you'd like to see an HRC supporter substantiate the assertion among her supporters that she's tough and a policy genius. Don't hold yer breath, DF, we look forward to more thought-provoking posts from ya.
March 28, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Buckley versus Chomsky as a standard, I disagree. That's what standards are all about. Where is the bar? I guess I just think it's a little odd to call Clinton a "damned good debater" and then balk at a comparison to two genuinely damned good debaters and protest that this comparison isn't fair. I mean, is she a damned good debater in the same sense that the Washington Generals are damned good basketball team?
Personally, I'd agree that Chomsky more or less mopped the floor with Buckley, although I prefer factual reasoning and so does Chomsky. It's no that Buckley didn't, but he was far more prone to relying on rhetorical device. Chomsky's debate against Foucalt was also something to behold.
I'm actually not sure that I would like it if someone provided evidence because I'm pretty comfortable with my judgment that these assertions about her simply aren't true, but if any of her supporters would like to provide such an argument I would still gladly examine it. :)
March 28, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chomsky debated Foucault?!?!?!?!? holy crap, must find video.
March 29, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hbUYsQR3Mes
March 29, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she gets credit for being wonky (a word I simply adore, by the way, because it always makes me think of Gene Wilder, but that's beside the point) -- I think she's called wonky because she is very good at quickly absorbing the minutae of an issue.
I think she crams for every upcoming debate, newsbite, crisis, etc. as would a college student. She digs into the numbers, memorizes them, and is then able to let them rattle off her tongue while in the midst of a speech or Q&A or debate because she's memorized the little details.
She knows it makes her sound smart. She knows it makes her look as though she understands every tiny detail.
I did the same thing in school.
It's called being "teacher's pet".
She's good at it.
BUT -- for all the cramming and memorizing I did back in my high school days, I'll be damned if I can remember half of it now. Why? Because all I was training myself to do was to win a test. And then another. And then another.
Until I dropped out. :-)
March 28, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comment, Lis. As I'm sure you can probably guess, I would tend to agree that this is something people have been made to believe by impression rather than by substance.
March 28, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lis,
Thanks for the very personal revelation.
I used to tell my students if they wanted to get an A in class, they should learn the material.
The A would come to them in that case.
And it always did.
I agree with you: I think Hillary wants to win a campaign, but I don't know why she wants to be president. She certainly doesn't seem to like *leading* people. From news stories, she does like telling them what to do.
I think Obama really wants to *lead*. And, zenlike, the POTUS gets closer to him as a result.
I think people understand this intuitively because early on we saw things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM
March 28, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you're getting at.
You're trying to understand her much-touted strengths within the context of analyzing the results wrought by those supposed strengths. And you're not finding much evidence to support the effectiveness or even the existence of those strengths.
I'm inclined to view her work the same way. Sure, she's resilient, which is often viewed as toughness, but is that enough by itself? What else is there? Well, she is a fighter. But to what extent is this helpful? It certainly didn't help her during the earliest years of her time as First Lady. She was resistant and secretive on everything from the travel office records, Rose Law Firm billing records, Whitewater information, the healthcare reform task force, etc.--even when it was not necessary or beneficial for her to do so. And now I'm starting to worry about the reluctance to release tax returns--I really hope they do that soon.
As for wonkiness...well, I don't know. She certainly seems well-versed on policy details, but again I ask: is that enough by itself? She will not be in charge of crafting policy, though I'm sure she will want to have heavy influence there. As President, she would have to be prepared to draw together coalitions to craft and compromise and push legislation through. In the absence of evidence of her ability to do this (i.e., a strong legislative record), I'm having to predict how I think she'll perform. Granted, I'm having to do the same thing with Sen. Obama. In lieu of substantial U. S. Senate legislative accomplishments, I'm basing judgment on each candidate's temperament, personality, and leadership style to predict how they will perform.
So if I base my analysis on those criteria, I have more confidence in Sen. Obama's ability to be an effective President.
March 28, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eureka!
What does it mean to be a "fighter" though? I mean, a schoolyard bully is technically a fighter of sorts. Is this a good thing? What has she successfully fought for that is of consequence?
You say that she seems well-versed in policy details, but what details? Which policy? What fruit has this expertise yielded? I mean, Charles Ponzi seemed to many to be an expert in finance.
You also raise an interest aside as to whether this would even make her a qualified President were this claim substantiated (wonkiness). Now, in contrast I can name several pieces of legislation that Obama has to his name: Coburn-Obama and Lugar-Obama. Both of those passed, both in his first term and both by cooperating with Republicans and both, and this is the kicker, accomplish left-wing objectives. I wasn't even going to bring this particular point up, but the fact that a first term Senator's record outshines her two-term record doesn't really help her case. So, I would argue that while some amount of speculation is present when considering what either candidate would actually do as President that there's less of that required when it comes to Obama as we have at least some idea of what he's actually done. I'll also say that these aren't the only two examples on his scorecard.
Of course, this is the power of memes which is kind of my point: Keep repeating it over and over and eventually people accept it as true without justification. How many spiders have you swallowed so far? ;)
March 28, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, you really should spend your time talking up your candidate instead of talking down the other candidate. Thats real negative politics.
But hey, if Hillary can make the Mens Journal magazine's 'The 25 Toughest Guys In America' list, she's gotta be pretty damn tough. Baby, this ain't no myth!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/tough.hillary.ap/index.html
As far as wonkiness, I dare you to go toe to toe with Hillary on policy. She will have you snoring and comfortably numb before you can say yes we...
March 28, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any good campaign is going to point out their advantages and the opponent's flaws. To do nothing less is really not good politics. You are arguing a point, it's going to take looking at both sides to really convince people.
That said I agree with the tenor of your comment though, I have to say Hillary sucks on policy. Certainly she understands populist policy but she understands very little, or demonstrates very little in terms of policies outside what the polls dictate. She fundamentally represents policies that have the support of the group she is courting. This isn't a bad thing but it isn't what you really want in a leader.
March 28, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll go ahead and decide how I spend my time if that's okay with you. If you want to call asking for justification for her campaign narrative "negative politics" then I guess you're welcome to that opinion.
You'll forgive me if I'm not impressed at a check-stand magazine's "Top 25" list. By this measure, there are any number of secret sexual acts that, according to Cosmo, I am simply dying to perform. Sometimes I'm almost tempting to pick one up just so I can find out what in the hell I'm so hot and bothered about.
I get that "tough" is the meme. I'm asking: What's the justification?
Dare me all you want. Where's the proof? Hell, I'll do it just to see if I'm wrong. You go ahead and set it up. I can be pretty damned "wonky" myself.
Maybe instead of worrying about what I'm doing you should take your own advice and do a better job of talking up your candidate. I'd recommend evidence, facts, anything of substance.
March 28, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF
I'm not worried about what you are doing. And I don't feel the need to talk up my candidate to you. Nor to talk down your candidate to me. I don't think we will do much convincing no matter what we say.
If you find the time give this article by Matt Bai a read. The article will not answer the questions of authenticity that you have about Hillary's narrative. But it attempts to place Hillary in the grand narrative of the Democratic party. Its a small step in understanding Hillary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/02hillary.html?pagewanted=1
March 29, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say what I said just to be quippy. If you're not worried about it then why bother giving me instructions?
I'll definitely read the article. Thanks for the link.
March 29, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this article from 10/05 was quite revealing:
And these are the forces she is currently being stalled by: Internet donors raising inordinate amounts of cash for Obama and YouTube freaks who can watch and check videos.
Going for the middle was good, but in the process the only thing we know she stands for at this point besides Universal Health Care is getting elected.
As far as "soothing"... Uh, huh. Right. Let's move on.
Dead on. And she didn't do it.
Almost sounds like GWB, doesn't it? Okay, 2 years ago I would wonder about this, but today it seems trivially obvious. So, nice call, Matt.
Hell, with these attitudes (preference for abstinence? is she kidding??) what exactly does distinguish her from the GOP?
Hmmm... again, for those making a SCOTUS argument, you may want to not assume you know HRC in a lefty sense just yet.
Wow: talk about prescient!
So, endorsing McCain over Obama may have been a deep seated feeling, after all.
In fact, those "kids"... and latte drinkers... are grinding her to a halt!
No wonder she is so angry... over 2 years ago, all the signs were there for trouble in the campaign and WERE IGNORED!
WOW! Is this someone who is ready to lead on day one? I'm not convinced this is someone who will acknowledge the true reality in the world on day one!
Thanks for the article tip-off, airwon. I'm not sure I got what you wanted out of it, but it was a revelation on just how *bad* HRC is prepared to lead!
March 29, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like clearthinker, I'm a bit puzzled as to exactly what you thought I would get out of reading this. In fact, it's quite illuminating in that it provides detail on her particular brand of triangulation and adherence to outmoded ideas. It also makes pretty clear that Mark Penn is an idiot and does a lot to explain why she's losing the election. I'm also just as sure as I ever was that she doesn't represent me or my views whatsoever.
And you're right that it didn't do anything to address her authenticity or lack thereof, but rather reinforces the idea that she is intentionally inauthentic. Apparently she should have taken Podesta a little more seriously.
March 29, 2008 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF and Clearthinker,
There is a difference between advocacy and analysis. The article is an analysis. For me it is a refreshing read that is counter to all the partisan crap you get in the blogs.
Like I said, there is nothing I could say to make you support Hillary. And I didn't intend for the Bai piece to change your minds. You will take away from it what you wish.
I think the article does foreshadow the current dynamic in the Democratic party. What is hurting camp Hillary isn't so much that they were behind the times, I think camp Hillary understood the establishment/activist divide. They are being hurt because a formidable candidate emerged, who understood and is exploiting the divide. Obama has packaged himself perfectly to fill the void that Dean left behind.
I think Hillary's ideology or there lack of, is the most interesting. She "wants nothing to do with ideological crusades". For me this is a good thing. But if we are to believe Bai, the fissures in the Democratic party is no longer about ideologies. Instead it is about insider/outsider status. In steps Obama. I think it remains to be seen if this is mere opportunism on the part of Obama or if the "conviction" that he represents, translates into real political change. I'm not even sure what that political change would look like. Do outsiders switch places with the insiders? Or does everybody play inside?
If Obama becomes the nominee, it will be interesting to see how Obama walks the intra and the inter party divides. Hillary has been walking the inter party divide at the cost of loosing ground in the intra party divide.
Lets just see how everything turns out.
March 29, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Airwon,
The article does more than foreshadow, it really makes some accurate predictions. There were two things that made HRC "inevitable" in 2005: name recognition and money.
Name recognition can't be gotten rid of. So that leaves only money.
To say that "in steps Obama" misses the point. No one would have predicted that a candidate could have neutralized HRC's advantage of money. After all, until this election, HRC had the money making machine. While Bradley and Dean showed it was possible to use the Internet in various ways, it took Obama to couple charisma with shrewdness and show that you could turn the Internet into your very own ATM.
As much as I like Obama's qualities, without his cash to wage the campaign, he would have been toast along with the rest of the flotsam and jetsam of this campaign.
But thank you again for pointing out this article. I've forwarded it to many people to reveal the stubborn arrogance of Team Hillary. To bring this back to DF's point, they seemed to believe their own wonkiness: they knew how the world worked, they knew how things would run, despite all kinds of warnings.
Again, they know political games but have no sweep of history to understand sociological trends.
You talked of the inner vs. out party (quite Orwellian of you ;-)). I believe it is something quite different: it's the old vs. the new.
It would be very refreshing if after the Clinton/Bush baby boomer presidencies, we are faced with an election where neither candidate is part of that vast demographic.
March 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You welcome Clearthinker,
Glad you enjoyed the article. You seem to think that I don't give Obama enough credit for filling the void. To the contrary, I give Obama's message lots of credit. Obama conflates the outsider/insider divide with the old/new divide. These are not always the same things. But it works.
Most impressive to me is how Obama has successfully capitalized on the demonization of Hillary. The broad brush stroke characterization of Hillary as being arrogant and as being part of the old regime that has lost touch with reality does no justice. She is a far more complicated person with a complicated public image.
Anyway enjoy your apparent victory while you can.
March 29, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Airwon:
Hillary has been "demonized" since 1992 -- she was not a figure for the media age and came across as not particularly pleasant (hence the need to "soften" her image). Her arrogance is legendary and dates back to at least the 1st Clinton administration, especially during the Health Care fiasco. Your NYT article even discusses her arrogance.
If Obama had run the campaign you implied above, he probably wouldn't be in the race right now. Moreover, these aspects of Hillary were well known before 2005 and if it were possible to topple HRC on the basis of them, any of the other Dems could have done so.
Therefore, you probably have to go back and rethink why Obama is beating Hillary in the primary race currently.
March 29, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have to rethink it because I think he is winning on personality. I think most people vote with their emotions. Simply put, he seems to be the nice guy fighting the good fight against the establishment. Oh yeah, and he was the guy who was against the war. Gee, this war really sucks, I'm voting for him. Thats why I think he is doing well.
What do you think the reason is?
March 29, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that this is the way that most people vote, but I think there are couple of tacit assumptions here when this criticism is brought against Obama. The first and most important assumption seems to be that because he has a personality that he has no substance, as if it must be one or the other. In general, this is a conclusion that cannot be accepted ipso facto. It may be true that some people only have one or the other, but it simply doesn't follow that these two qualities are at all exclusive. The second assumption, which follows directly from the first and goes right into what I'm attempting to discuss, is that while Clinton's personality may be uneven, that she does have substance and that it is, therefore, somehow unfair that she is not winning. Again, just as we cannot conclude that a person has no substance simply because they have personality neither can we conclude that someone who doesn't have much personality automatically has substance. As is probably evident, I'm unsure of what substance she genuinely possesses.
March 29, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think both are smart people.
March 29, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So do I. I didn't say either of them weren't smart. I know a lot of smart people. That doesn't mean that they would be substantial as politicians or, more importantly, the POTUS.
March 29, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, also.. if we accept that most people vote based on emotion then I have to wonder why so many Clinton supporters seem so averse to having a leader with a magnetic personality. Unless you haven't been paying attention, this is something that Dubya, Bubba and the Gipper all have in common. You can complain if you like that people are perhaps too simple-minded in this respect, but that won't change reality. Why, then, is there such an insistence from Clinton's supporters to try and shoehorn someone without these qualities into the Presidency? Who really cares, in that sense, if she's the best policy expert that ever lived? That simply isn't relevant to the office of the Presidency. The POTUS is probably the highest level executive position in history of the world and being a policy nerd is really immaterial to the real requirements of the job. In fact, it would be a detriment to have someone serving in this capacity who is too detail-oriented because the vision required is so top-level that there would be a serious danger of losing sight of the forest for studying one or two specific trees.
Look at all of the most successful, high-impact Presidents of the 20th century. Is Calvin Coolidge on your list? Probably not. But I'll be those who are on your list have two very important qualities: charisma and a big-picture approach.
March 29, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need CHANGE!
Speaking for myself, I am not averse to having a POTUS who is also great with people. They are good qualities to have. I would probably be supporting Obama if Hillary was not a candidate. But she is a candidate and I think she can be a better POTUS. What she lacks in personality she more than makes up for in experience, policy brand and stature. I know that you disagree but that is just the way I feel.
Again, its not that I'm against Obama, its just that I'm for Hillary.
March 29, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we need change. As Karl Rove noted in a link below in this thread, all elections are about change and the future. What puzzles me is why anyone would come to the conclusion that either Hillary Clinton or John McCain represent going forward rather than going backward.
March 29, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good observation and it betrays the kind of thinking on the part of Clinton that is portrayed in the article. By treating all of these people, these American Democrats, as "outsiders", they have effectively been excluding from the party.. left with nothing better to do but radicalize their activities! Big mistake I'd say.
March 29, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a bit much. HRC may have not targeted the netroots crowd well but I don't think she entirely turned her back on them.
I wouldn't call going online and hitting a few keys to contribute a few bucks as being radical.
March 29, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of radical: of or going to the root or origin; fundamental
If you think that all of this is just people donating a little money through a website, then it would seem that you understand what is happening no better than Clinton appears to. Are you aware of the very real, as in real world, as in IRL, as in outside of your house, organizing that surrounds these mere websites?
March 29, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do understand and HRC understands. But said that for effect!
BTW, I apologize for the comment later down in the thread. I felt a little bad after I hit the send key. But only a little!
March 29, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got no problem with disagreeing, but if you truly think I'm being illogical then I'd honestly like to know why. Despite how it may appear, I'm not >trying to be illogical and I'm more than willing to hear out an opposing point of view. :)
March 29, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that was in reference to a post which mentioned the Socratic method. If I have it right the method is to ask a series of questions that inevitably lead the answerer to a logical conclusion foreseen by the questioner.
What makes Hillary tough?
What political battles has she won? Answer: Non
What did she do to help unions while at Wal Mart? Answer: Non
Therefore not tough.
Problem I see is that you have made up your own metric to measure toughness.
She was silent about unions but she successfully pushed to have more environmentally friendly practices. How do we measure toughness form those facts. I don't think you can, without making assumptions. As you have said toughness is hard to quantify. But you conclude that it is not tough to not fight for unions. Anyway, my head is spinning.
I'll end it as toughness and wonkiness are qualities given to Hillary thru a plethora of testimonial and anecdotal evidence from friends, family, colleagues, rivals, and the press. That seems acceptable enough for me. It is subjective but there is consensus.
March 29, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Socratic method is a form of dialectic examination. Famously, Socrates (from the works of Plato) would engage in a dialogue where he would ask questions that would eventually lead his partner to a conclusion which contradicting their original premise or premises. However, I never claimed to be engaging in dialectic here.
"Hillary is tough" is a positive assertion that I did not make. It has been made by others. I have questioned why this is so. I have also acknowledged that this may end being a case where people simply judge this subjectively.
I have not made the converse assertion "Hillary is not tough." What I am saying is that I require evidence to believe in the positive assertion "Hillary is tough."
Why did I mention unions? Again, I didn't invent this criteria. Clinton herself has for as long as I'm aware and still to this day asserted that she is a friend of the worker. One would then assume that if she is politically tough that she has gone to the mat at some point in her career for the causes of the worker. When it comes to the WalMart example, this is not something that I simply invented:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509
Anecdotal evidence may be good enough for you, but it is not good enough for me. Neither is consensus. There was plenty of anecdotal evidence that George W. Bush was going to be a great leader, too. Neither will I simply accept consensus. Consensus used to tell us that the solar system was not heliocentric. Obviously, neither anecdote nor consensus necessarily tell us the truth about anything. It's no accident that anecdote isn't allowed in science and that consensus is very soberly acknowledged only through the very painstaking process of peer review. Consensus is never considered to be a starting point, but rather an indicator that we may in fact be moving in the right direction. But this is only because everyone involved is transparently working very hard to vet information through the scientific method. If this weren't the case, consensus would mean nothing at all.
March 29, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm well aware of the difference between advocacy and analysis. If you go back and read my response, not to mention clearthinker's, it should be obvious that both of us thought the analysis was quite good. Let's not forget, my post, too, is analysis, but you started this comment out by admonishing me for "talking down" the candidate. I'm not. I'm asking questions that I think ought to be asked. And I don't mention Obama once, so perhaps it is you who is confused about advocacy versus analysis.
To say that they "understood the divide" seems a bit odd to me. They obviously didn't understand it well enough to think it was relevant. What kind of understanding is it if they, as you have said, decided to put their work into building a bridge to the other party instead of trying to seal the breech in their own? It's really no wonder when you look at the campaign. Everything they've done has been with eyes toward the general election. Not surprising that they likely won't make it to the primary, something that they evidently didn't plan on having to actually win in the conventional sense.
I'm surprised that you buy the "lack of ideology" bit when Bai is so explicit about Clinton's ideology:
Sure smells like ideology to me, but, as FlyOnTheWall recently reminded us, it's always the other guy's dogma, right?
As for insiders/versus outsiders, I think this is pretty obvious. If Obama wins, the outsiders will, to some extent, become insiders. Think about it: What do the "netroots" really seek? It's not like this is some mystery. They want down-ticket influence for more control of their local governments as well as better representation at the federal level. At the federal level, they want a government that is more responsive to these local issues as well as respectful of the middle, and oft unmentioned, lower-class alongside restoration of Constitutional principles. Why this strikes some as radical or mysterious is beyond me, it's not like Kos or anyone else hasn't been banging on this stuff for years. It makes me think that people just have their ears plugged.
I think that in Obama's legislative record is a good indicator of how he'll walk the inter-party divide as well: By finding common ground across the aisle on an issue basis. Clinton, like her husband, seems to think that you actually have to move the whole party across the aisle, not simply reach across it. This has basically destroyed the whole notion of an opposition party. If this isn't obvious to you by now, I really don't have a good way of convincing you that this is the case. It's almost like they decided that it really doesn't matter that a vast group of people in this country actually care about those issues. Compromise is a tool, not a way of life.
Again, I thank you for the link as it was both illuminating and fascinating.
March 29, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice quote!
March 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually prefer to frame that in terms of pragmatism and principle as I think it's a little more descriptive of what I mean. Pragmatism is a tool that allows you pursue your principles, but when pragmatism becomes your principle, then I say that you are truly lost.
March 29, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admit that in terms of strategy there was hubris in the Clinton camp. They clearly under estimated Obama's appeal with the general public, netroots included.
Hillary's "prudish" and socially conservative ideology is personal. She draws a clear line when it comes to policy. She is not one to go on ideological crusades. That is trait that Bill, Bush, seem to share. I wonder about Obama.
Your comment about compromise is a tool and not a way of life, what does that actually mean? Sounds like a euphemism for partisan politics.
March 29, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's evident and I think I've explained it pretty well above. You seem to be implying that partisan politics are bad or that somehow politics ought not be partisan. What exactly do you mean by this?
March 29, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me partisan politics is just the way it is. It would be nicer if we can get more legislation done every now and then. I think the level of animosity just comes and goes. Bush has been particularly extreme. So he must go. But usually it seems to function well enough.
"Pragmatism is a tool that allows you to pursue your principles." I find this comment to be cynical. It is closer to the Hillary approach. Therefore your I see your comment as a euphemism for partisan politics.
"Pragmatism becomes your principle". This is more purist. I see that as more Obama. His principles will have to follow him over to the other side.
March 29, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's the way it is! Any time you take a stand there will be those who agree and those who disagree!
Cynicism is not the same thing as realism. You start with a principle. Something you believe in, something you are pursuing. But then you must ask yourself how you will achieve this end.
You have it exactly backwards. Hillary Clinton and the DLC philosophy represent the cynical view. The see that there is no way to truly pursue liberal principles and that you must sacrifice them in favor of pragmatism at all times. Remember, cynicism is a jaded, negative view that resigns itself to accepting that things can be no better than this.
You say that you want to see more legislation accomplished without as much partisanship, but then you say that Hillary Clinton will do this? I'm sorry, but the facts don't support this conclusion. Coburn-Obama, Lugar-Obama, Obama-Hagel. All passed. All with the cooperation of long-standing, major Republican leaders in the Senate. Where is Clinton's work in this respect? Also, unlike Clinton's deplorable compromise on, say, flag-burning, all three pieces of legislation I've mentioned here accomplish liberal objectives: Government transparency and limiting dangerous aspects of nuclear proliferation. Can we say the same for Clinton or are we expected to excuse her because she was planning on running for President?
I'm left to wonder how well you really read the article that you linked. I'm not sure how you can recommend it as a legitimate analysis of Hillary Clinton and then come to the conclusions that you've reached. Exactly what principles do you think Hillary Clinton intends to pursue?
With respect, you seem to have reached your conclusions without much regard for the facts. Though you were quick to dismiss me as illogical, this entire exchange has come across as a series of misconceptions on your part. You also don't seem to understand what cynicism or pragmatism really mean.
March 29, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi DF and All,
An interesting topic. I'll play Devil's Advocate for a while. :-)
What has she done? Well, I think she is credited with getting more money to NYC after 9/11 than Bush originally wanted to spend. And some of her proposals were approved in committee (I don't know if they became law). I think many people (at least those who don't live in NY ;-) think she was an important person in those battle.
I also think that it's not unusual for members in the party out of power to have few legislative accomplishments to point to - the majority has ways to foil such things. So I don't know that not having major legislative accomplishments is a strike against her.
As others have mentioned, she was very good in the early debates and she is able to convince people that she knows what's going on in the government. I think that supports some of the apparent wonkyosity.
I also agree with the implication that she has run a very poor campaign by accusing her opponent of not having qualities that she herself has not demonstrated. In fact, her campaign seems to be imploding as a result of people (finally) looking behind the curtain.
With all of that out of the way, while I agree with your general impression that there's little objective substance behind many of these qualities that her campaign has pushed (like her supposed inevitability), I think your post would have been stronger with some links to specific statements from her campaign or surrogates. If I were unkind, I could accuse you of building a strawman. :-)
Cheers,
grunculus.
March 28, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. And this is unfortunately why it has been difficult for me to be satisfied with a comparison of what the two candidates have accomplished. It's difficult to quantify and analyze Hillary Clinton's (or Obama's)relevant strengths.
Instead, I've focused on trying to predict how each will perform in a completely new role--as the person who will set and direct the legislative agenda, use the bully pulpit to rally political will in the public, direct foreign policy, administer the executive branch (an area where Hillary may truly have the advantage of more familiarity--but still hard to prove and quantify), and make wise appoiontments to cabinet posts and judicial benches.
The truth is, choosing either one is a gamble--and each one seems to have very different things to offer.
March 28, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Laura,
Picking a presidential candidate is always a gamble. Few would have predicted that Bush would have turned out to be the monster (can I say that without being denounced and rejected?) that he's become if they based their opinion on how he behaved as governor.
In my case, I think that votes on bills are important, and policy statements are important, but it's also important that I have a gut feeling that the candidate respects the people and has the capacity to think. Obama gives me that feeling. He doesn't talk down to me in his speeches that I've heard. He is willing to listen to both sides of arguments and has demonstrated that he has the intellect to consider policy options that don't fit into the "Taxes == Bad, Government == Bad" mindset. He also doesn't believe in the 50% + 1 theory of politics that has ruled Washington for the last 7+ years. And he has legislative experience to back up my feelings - he's not an unknown quality in government.
Hillary also has the capacity to be a very good president, but I believe that she has character flaws that will prevent her from having that opportunity. I would have thought that her being crushed by the health care debacle in the 1990s would have been a great advantage in the campaign because, AFAIK (other than losing to Bobby Rush in 2000), Obama hasn't suffered a major political defeat. All politicians do, eventually. Hillary could have learned from her defeat about the importance of transparency, of building broad support, of being persuasive without being doctrinaire and without being strident. She hasn't learned those lessons, IMO, and instead continues to reinforce the stereotypes that she only cares about herself and political power. Her overstatements of her experiences is another illustration of her flaws.
Is Obama flawless? Of course not. But he's the best of the lot and has the capacity to make good things happen for a change.
It goes without saying that McCain would be an unmitigated disaster for the US and the world. :-(
So, for me, the choice is an easy one. :-)
Cheers,
grunculus.
March 28, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to be perfectly honest, I have that "gut feeling" thing going too. But I avoid saying it when having these intellectual discussions because, frankly, sometimes I think my gut has sh*t for brains! :-D
As for your comments about how Obama doesn't "talk down" to his audience--I agree wholeheartely. It's refreshing to feel as though a politician respects my intelligence. He doesn't over-simplify and dumb-down his explanations; and yet, he's not talking in a way that's overly-complex or inaccessible. It's just...well, respectful.
March 29, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! That reminds of Colbert on his pilot episode where he coined the term truthiness:
I think that this may touch on my general feeling about the narrative here: it's struck me as being a truthy. Colbert gave a really great out-of-character interview at the Onion AV Club where they asked him about what truthiness really meant to him. Now, sometimes comedians are just goofy, but sometimes they can be pretty profound social critics. This was his answer:
This is exactly what bothers me about the seemingly insubstantial Clinton narrative. It's simply not okay with me to just assert that she's absolutely adept in all dimensions and never to explain why this is so.
So, I'd say you're quite correct to be a bit skeptical with respect for your gut! :)
March 29, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comment, grunculus. I appreciate that you've brought some substance to the table.
While it's great that she would fight for relief funding for NYC, I would say this is precisely her job. Does this demonstrate either of the qualities in question?
It's certainly the case that the minority party will always have more difficulties in this regard. However, I'd like to raise a couple of points here. First of all, the Congressional record would still show anything that she put forward even if it was tabled. Second, even if this is the case the question remains: Can these claims be substantiated? I mean, maybe it is true that she is a policy expert that was stifled by a Republican majority, but this still means that the public has to rely on mere say-so when evaluating this claim. Third, we can still look at what she's done in her second term. Now, you could say that the Senate still does not have a filibuster-proof majority, but this didn't stop Obama (or other Senators for that matter). So, I don't find this excuse very convincing.
I'm quite certain that she's able to convince people of this, but by what objective measure can it be said to be true? The fact that many people used to believe that the Earth was flat had absolutely no bearing on its topology.
Making accusations against her opponent that she can't weather herself isn't the only way that her campaign has been lackluster. I'll offer you two more: Dismal financial management and "apparent" ignorance of the primary process. These are both bad for two reasons. Hillary Clinton's husband was elected President twice and she was there the whole time. In theory, one or both of them should know how this is done. Failures on both of the fronts don't speak highly of her more general claim of "experience".
I took it as a given that, especially here at TPM, people are aware that her campaign and its surrogates have been mouthing these claims for months now. I don't expect to have to inform people that Clinton and Obama are the only ones left in the race for the same reason. If you like, I'd be happy to find examples of these claims as there's absolutely no shortage of them. Turn on CNN any evening and you can see her people constantly parroting both of these memes. I would say that if there is indeed a straw man here that perhaps it is the candidate herself.
March 28, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You keep using the word "experience", I don't think you understand what Clinton means when she uses the word. What she really means when she says "experience" is 'old'. She didn't really mean to imply that McCain had more experience, just that both she and McCain are old. Most of her arguments actually make some convoluted sense if you take the word experience and inject "old". She is appealing to here +35 base when she uses this argument, it has nothing to do with experience and everything to do with age but it's very impolite to campaign on those terms. This is why arguments to her experience are fruitless because that's not really her point.
March 28, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm.. Occam's razor may like your argument...
March 29, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is my age and that is NOT OLD!!!!!!!
McCain is Methusala's age, and that IS OLD!!!!!!
Phew! I feel better now. See? Am I not a spry old bat?
March 29, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that John McCain, age 847, is as old as dirt. We'll carve out an exception for you. You can be an honorary youngster!
March 29, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh...geeky movie flashback. Remember the movie The Princess Bride? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Indigo Montoya.
March 29, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is he using the same wind we're using?
March 29, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's still in the race? After so many people told us to stick a fork in her, she's done?
"Incon-theev-able"
March 29, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thoughtful and well-put, DF. I just finished exploring a few similar themes in my own (albeit first) blog post on the meme that Obama is "arrogant" -- due either to his perceived inexperience, lack of fightin' spirit, or whatever. I think this analysis is spot-on, especially with regard to the now-questioned assumption that Hillary Clinton is somehow more experienced (in any relevant sense) than Obama. Bravo.
March 28, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton: The white bryony & potassium dichromate placebo ingredient mixed in the wax of the Clinton brand name.
Great post DF!
March 28, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
ClintOn: Apply directly to the Presidency!
ClintOn: Apply directly to the Presidency!
ClintOn: Apply directly to the Presidency!
March 29, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite phrase - the test of the pudding is in the tasting - is perhaps in order for judgment.
She pushes the Forrest Gump-like myth of her own involvement in every historic process during her husband's Presidency when in fact she's simply a bit-part player. With the exception of the failed healthcare initiative, there isn't much else besides her own embellishment.
Throughout Bush's 2 terms, she could have fought, with her formidable support base, tooth and nail against many of his policies, including authorization for war, FISA, etc., and she didn't.
March 29, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
IAWTP, as far as I know.
March 29, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may be helpful to start from some example for comparison.
Who currently exhibits this?
What specifics are they demonstrably knowledgeable in?
And then what are the merits of their policy knowledge?
March 29, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are all good questions that would lead us to establishing some sort of baseline or metric with which to evaluate such claims. Unfortunately, I have no idea at this point how these things are meant with respect for Senator Clinton.
March 29, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
She admittedly has expertise in legal aspect of children's issues, and has made large contributions in this area. However that doesn't answer your question of Clinton and public policy.
The above questions I posed where to help establish a framework to view and compare policy expertise claims. However I don't think anything is forthcoming.
I we are to judge the candidates by academics publishing (in lack of policy information) of which we have the information to compare, I think I'll stick with pick of Obama.
But then again this still doesn't answer your question.
March 29, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just reread my comment (I really should do that before posting), it wasn't too clear, I sound like I am being snide with you DF, not the intention.
Too lazy to clarify the original comments hopefully it can be parsed.
March 29, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. No worries, it really doesn't read that way. :)
March 29, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What concrete examples exist to explain this expertise in Children's issues. See, this is more or less what I'm getting at: There's seems to be a lot of "conventional wisdom" floating around her. What is it that gives you this impression of her? What are her accomplishments in this respect.
I hope you're not asking me to invent a framework in which to justify things about Clinton that I clearly am not all that inclined to believe at this point. ;)
No argument in my mind. I have no doubts that Obama is a fine legal scholar.
March 29, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'll take me a while to dig up some links for you. So if random links turn up replying to you on another post (if this thread gets buried) you'll know why.
Kinda hoping one of her supporters would be able to cite this though.
March 29, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you link 'em, I'll read 'em.
March 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn still can't find links to the articles themselves, until I do, there is this
One is : (June 1977). "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect". Yale Law Journal 68 (7): 1522–1531.
another : (1979). "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective", in Patricia A. Vardin, Ilene N. Brody (eds.): Children's Rights: Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Teacher's College Press, 21–36.
I originally found this a while back on Wiki and then a whole lot of googling to find the articles.
This coupled with her quite long history working these issues (and I might add almost exclusively only this issue) and her lobbying efforts in my mind demonstrates a pretty clear understanding on her part of this aspect of public policy.
I am aware this still doesn't answer your larger question though.
March 29, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said links! :)
I'm kidding, of course. I'll see if I can look these references up.
March 29, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a great article in the WSJ today from Peggy Noonan addressing some of these same issues:
"I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will."
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
I would sum it up as "blistering" and well worth a read.
Thanks for the great post DF. Your comments are always well-reasoned and spot-on.
"DF...apply it to your trolls"
March 29, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed in your article that you were a little iffy on Hillary's proposed "wonkishness" on Healthcare back in the 1990's. Here is an article from the NYT. Ethic's groups sued the administration since they were conducting their meetings in private.
Excerpts:
"The case has a tangled history. Mr. Clinton created the Task Force on National Health Care Reform on Jan. 25, 1993, five days after he took office. The panel conducted its work in secret. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the American Council for Health Care Reform, a consumer group, and the National Legal and Policy Center, a foundation that promotes ethics in government, filed suit in February 1993 to gain access to meetings and records of the task force.
Mr. Magaziner told the court in March 1993 that all members of the task force and its staff working groups were Federal employees, so they did not have to hold open meetings or divulge their working papers.
In fact, Judge Lamberth said, the working groups included scores of people from private industry, including managed care executives with potential conflicts of interest.
The Administration offered to open the records of Mrs. Clinton's task force in September 1994, but ''the White House did not fulfill its promises'' until it was forced to do so, after several months of prodding by the plaintiffs, Judge Lamberth said.
The judge said Mr. Magaziner and the Clinton Administration had been ''dishonest'' in describing the secret procedures used to develop the President's health care proposals in 1993. Mr. Magaziner said at the time that the proposals were devised entirely by a group of Federal employees, who were not subject to laws requiring open meetings or public disclosure of their working papers."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E5DA1E3FF93AA25751C1A961958260
It is really an interesting read. From what I hear she was more bully (like GWB) than wonkish, and had no clue how to win legislative support. Her bull in a china shop mentality doomed it.
March 29, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure in what way this means that I was "iffy". Is this somehow not in agreement with what I've said? Even so, thanks for the link. I'd not read this particular article before, but I've read similar accounts elsewhere.
March 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, iffy was poor choice.
I was only refering to this part in your post:
"As the First Lady, we know that she did not win the healthcare battle. Of course, we can't really know how or why because she will not release the documentation."
And I thought I'd offer up a little more info from that time. :)
March 29, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary of course is "smart". She may understand the policies she proposes. What she doesn't get is how to connect any dots about larger problems or how to get policies enacted in a way that satisfies a good number of citizens. She doesn't get that at all; and after being in politics her entire adult life, that proves to me that her experience claim is at best shallow. She has not done that as a Senatory, has not stood up to Bush in any meaningful way, until she ran for President and looked at Democratic polling.
Perfect example: she will whine that Levin's Amendment demanding that Bush come back for authorization before going to war, gave too much power to the UN (that, in itself is debatable). So, Senator Clinton, could you not have written your own amendment holding Bush accountable for invading another country? You did not. You in essence supported Bush's march to war. At least 30% of Americans and damn near the entire world knew Bush was going to war as soon as that authorization was passed. You didn't? And had no interest in protecting the Constitution by demanding that he come back to Congress? THAT is a poor legislator.
The analogy of Hillary fighting people as opposed to fight FOR policy, is spot on. I've said it repeatedly in a more convoluted way. I like it.
Hillary is great at offering gift baskets to micro targeted constituents. The Clintons have a poor record of following through on the promises in those gift baskets; so working class voters, beware.
This was an excellent post. I wish the Print button at TPM worked so I could make an easy copy for my computer-challenged husband to read.
I hate to argue with lalo because it's useless; but Obama's state Senate record has a history of substantive legislation, where he was amazingly effective at getting progressive policies through a republican congress, and convincing the "other side" that they would benefit from these policies. THAT's the kind of president we need. The Lugar-Obama non-proliferation bill was a stunning example of that sort of effective in the U.S. Senate.
Hillary loves fighting with people, but has no effective record at fighting FOR people, no matter what her mythic narrative says.
March 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Perfect example: she will whine that Levin's Amendment demanding that Bush come back for authorization before going to war, gave too much power to the UN (that, in itself is debatable)"
Nothing emphasizes this point better than video. See Hillary's meeting 2 weeks before the invasion with the anti-war women's group. Listen closely to the questions the women ask her. Obama was not the only one who raised almost Nostradamus like concerns.
She defended her choice stating the decision to go into Kosovo without UN backing was similar. It is also interesting to note that she bashes GWB's economic policies but does not ackknowledge the concerns of the economic impact of war.
Check it out - it is disturbing. Showing the "toughness" without any type of reasoned thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZcY6TGfAxE
March 29, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nostradamus has nothing to do with it. The men in the Bush administration, the neocons as they are now known, had been adamant and vocal supporters of invading Iraq for years. People keep talking about how Obama gave "just a speech". Nonsense! He called them out by name:
These guys has been in Washington since at least the Reagan administration and they had been calling to go back into Iraq all through the Clinton administration. They sent this letter to her husband in January of 1998:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Now, you can believe one of two things here: Either Hillary Clinton honestly had no idea, despite their long-standing and public record of advocacy, that these guys had the full intention of invading Iraq or that she absolutely knew. If she honestly didn't know, then she's a fool with no business being back in the White House. If she did know (and I honestly don't see how it could be said that she didn't) then I don't see any reason not to believe that she supported the war from the outset.
March 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Hillary knew. Obama was not an insider, but followed foreign policy, so he knew. But it is interesting that the ladies asking the questions of Hillary, did not know the inside scoop, yet they still had a view into the future that came to pass. Their concerns were more based in reality than Clinton.
March 29, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude,
Thats way too long. Can you break it down to like a sentence or two for me? Think Homer Simpson
March 29, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I'll put into your vocabulary so that it's easy for you to comprehend: Hillary Clinton is an empty suit and you, my friend, are drinking the Kool-Aid.
March 29, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF -
All of your blogs, comments and replies are master classes in the Socratic method.
I enjoy and learn from you always.
Thanks again!
March 29, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Except he is talking to himself and answering the question illogically.
March 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't answer the question at all, but, for that matter, neither did you. Doesn't say much for your advocacy, does it?
March 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what.. Furthermore, I was just thinking as I was replying to you above, "You know, airwon really isn't so bad. He's actually capable of having a thoughtful exchange, even if he disagrees. He's really a cut above Lalo or Louisville." And then you say this. Real nice. I'm sure you've impressed everyone with your cheap shot and I doubt you'll justify it.
March 29, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about that one, couldn't help it.
But I have to give props to the HRC people. We are vastly out numbered in here.
March 29, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no doubt about the Clinton supporters being outnumbered here (and elsewhere) at this time, but I assure you that if you make a good point I'll do my best to give it to you every time. At the end of the day we may still disagree, but I'd like to think that we can do that on the merits of our arguments rather than simply on the basis of which "team" we're on.
March 29, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF Your case is basically I don't believe she's a wonk or a fighter so she can't be.
Never mind what people who know, like Ambassador Joe Wilson (valarie Plame's wife and Hero of the truth telling on Bush's lies on iraq) say.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-shallow-credentia_b_92586.html
You are not a Democrat, You 'came to Obama' via space boy Kusinnich and Ron Paul. (I admit to agreeing with some truth coming out of these two guys mouths (Paul ONLY on the war) but these are the outcasts, the never have been and never will bes. this is who you prefer. I bet you voted for Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Look where your thinking leads us.
As for the ease with which you, and others accuse fellow posters, who happen to present logical rebuttals to your rants and raves, of being a troll on this site: It doesn't sell. It is the dictates of independents and Republicans about a Democratic primary that are useless drivel.
March 29, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your case is: I know of one person who we all like and admire, who says Hillary is great. Ergo we should all think Hillary is great.
I still like and admire Joe Wilson. I respectfully disagree with his choice for President of the US>
March 29, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can count me too....and I disagree with your choice as President
March 29, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't decided whether I agree with DF's post, but he's not the one raving here. I particularly like how you represent your view that he's not a "true" Democrat (which I'm sure that he would agree to, despite the fact that Kucinich is and has always been a Democrat) as a flaw in his intellectual capacity.
But on to your primary challenge: "DF Your case is basically I don't believe she's a wonk or a fighter so she can't be." That's a misrepresentation. His case is rather "No one has offered a good reason to believe that that she's a wonk and a fighter, so I don't believe that she is". The obvious and appropriate response to that would have been to provide a good reason to believe that she is a wonk and a fighter, as grunculus attempted above. You did not take that route. Instead, you attacked DF's credibility and Barack Obama's credentials, neither of which have anything to do with Clinton's wonkishness or fighting ability.
Thus, you are the one guilty of ranting and raving.
PS I'm always happy to acknowledge intelligent responses from Clinton supporters, but I've yet to see a "logical rebuttal" from Lalo, and this thread offers no exception.
March 29, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, my case is that I don't believe it because I see no evidence of it. Instead of providing such evidence, which I would be very pleased to entertain, you give an article by Joe Wilson telling me that Obama is not qualified (an article that I've already read, btw).
But this is not evidence or argument, it is appeal to authority. Call Kucinich a "space boy" all you want. Every other genius in Washington has an imaginary friend in the sky and I happen to think that's pretty damned weird myself. I don't really care about that. I care about his issues platform and policy proposal. I'd advise you to go read it, but you obviously haven't so you probably never will.
Do you have any idea how small minded it is to dismiss the substance of someone's argument because they are considered marginal? Have you any knowledge of history? "Marginal" ideas shape the world. America is a country built on "marginal" ideas. Democracy itself is a "marginal" idea.
For the record, I'm not a Democrat and I've admitted this continuously. But, honestly, look where my got us? And you support Hillary "the most difficult decision of my life" Clinton? Yeah, you're right.. it's the way that people like Kucinich and I think that's got everything screwed up. How much power do you honestly perceive Kucinich or Paul or Nader to actually have?
Kindly point out, if you can, what logical rebuttal Lalo provided above. Go ahead. I'll wait.
I'd say "useless drivel" is a pretty accurate description of everything you just typed.
March 29, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd just for the Head On reference.
March 29, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Besides a lot of meaningless "sense of the senate"
resolutions Hillary's proposed legislation prior to 2007 has usually been along the lines of the election reform bill she sponsored in the senate in conjunction with Stephanie Tubbs Jones in the house. It was a kitchen sink bill full of provisions that'd they knew would never get past Delay/Hastert and Frist. There was a better bill,
Rush Holt's house bill didn't try to be a cure all for every election ill or poke a finger in the eye
of Karl Rove that could have passed. While not perfect it would have at least given voters in states like FL a voter verified paper ballot in time for the 2006 election. But for the likes of Clinton posturing was more important than passing legislation that might actually help.
March 29, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the substance of this post. I have a slightly different take on HRC. She is first, last and foremost a lawyer--a tough litigator. Every good lawyer puts his/her client first and will stop at nothing to pursue the client's interests. Hillary's client is herself. Seen this way, yes, she is tough (relentless, reactive and combative). She also believes in burying the opposition with data and research (e.g. case law). She's plenty smart. It's easy to see that being combative and smart does not equal success in elective politics. Having done her homework and "worked hard" she is simply baffled that she is not winning. Must feel bad. Peggy Noonan's current analysis in the WSJ is must reading re: HRC.
March 29, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quoting Peggy Noonan on any Progressive or Democratic site should be grounds for expulsion
March 29, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing wrong with reading what other people say, even if you usually disagree with them. You then evaluate it, and decide that it was truthful or not; useful or not; and file it away. Why NOT read what Peggy Noonan had to say? She's not like Ann Coulter, whom we all know only writes to inflame and insult. Peggy is a thoughtful writer; I usually disagree with 90% of what she writes, but I give her credit for believing it herself.
March 29, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok your right CVille, Do what I do with the likes of peggy or krauthammer, will, safire, read it and then quickly put in the composter. But please.....save me from hearing a quote of theirs...
March 29, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, You had to do some fairly athletic finger-clicking to get this far on this blog. I don't think her article had to be read before your password was accepted.
March 29, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being named 'Louisville1975' should also be such grounds.
March 29, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
blu,
Think you have more than just a few former Nader children in this space....
March 29, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many spiders did the sleep deprived Senator Hillary Rambo Clinton swallow before she vanquished A Sniper Squad at Tuzla Airport?. She confronted them HEAD ON!
March 29, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think analysis needed here is much more simple:
She voted for the war. Hence, not all that wonky.
I would give her points for toughness -- she certainly is a political survivor. She's been dealt a lot of shit, with the 1990s accusations of her and her husband responsible for people's deaths, etc, etc.
I don't think toughness has to be measured on things like legislation she "won"; it's something more vague than that.
In any case, I'm just glad to see we have accusations of TROLLS!!! again here in the Cafe. Since they took away the ratings from us, there's been a whole lot less troll-calling.
I, for one, miss it a bit.
March 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a troll. DF is a troll. And Laura Jordan is the biggest troll of all. If I could give you all 1's like in the old days, I would do it. Repeatedly.
Feel better?
March 29, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis... don't you have a bridge toll to collect?
March 29, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical troll "wit"
March 29, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw... c'mon, Genghis. Do I have to put in the explicit ;-) for you?
Okay: here it is:
;-)
Now shake my hand and let me buy you a beer, okay?
March 29, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS The point of my remark was while you were (humourously) calling everyone else a troll, I figured I would (humorously) mention your "trolliness" as well...
Ah, well, being misunderstood is such a bi--
Sorry.
March 29, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, I'm the one who should have used the smiley. I didn't think it necessary for you, clearthinker. But I'll take that beer in any case.
PS You're a troll too.
March 29, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just to make sure that you know that I know that you think that I didn't get your bridge humor but I know that I did but that you didn't know that...
:)
March 29, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh! Swat me on the behind with a riding crop!
Nah... that would be too GOP-ish.
Point taken!
March 29, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone wishing they could give you a 1 just isn't the same...
:-)
March 29, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, and I acknowledge that "toughness" is far more subjective and difficult to nail down that the assertion that she is a master of policy. I suppose that's why I'd like to see it measured in some sort of tangible way, but that simply may not be very realistic.
March 29, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I'm not sure I buy into that.
Let's look at the evidence:
1992: She is tough enough to sit next to Bill during 60 Minutes, but it was really *his* political career on the chopping block. Yes, she probably had an advisor role, but I'm not sure that gives her the "toughness" you associate with a politician. It was *Bill* who was tough then.
1994: Health Care Debacle. Toughness? Hardly. She never again had a lead role in the administration. Was she "tough" to survive it? I'm not sure what that would mean in this case.
2000: NY Senate Primary. Toughness? People essentially demurred to her and her political ambitions. The Dems literally let her become the candidate.
2000: NY Senate Race: Toughness? She had a celebrity factor and, to some extent, the Dem Party already committed to a carpetbagger, so they had a good inkling that she would win. She was able to raise oodles of cash. That Rudy -- who wasn't all that popular at that point -- dropped out of the race, made her the clear winner.
2006: NY Senate Race. It's pretty hard to defeat an incumbent, this race was a cakewalk.
As to her Senate record: has she ever shown leadership in the Senate? No. She has been shrewdly maneuvering for this presidential run and everyone inside and outside the Senate knew it.
Could she play nice enough to be taken seriously? Yes, she did. No one ever accused her of being a moron and when you are dealing with a small, tight group of 100 people, you'd have to be a moron not to know to play nice.
So, without standing up for important, but not necessarily popular, ideas, can we really say she showed "toughness" in the Senate?
The one time that she has had to show toughness is this campaign. And only within the last 3 months -- she was "inevitable" before then.
What have we seen from her? Kitchen sink strategies. Shame on you, Barack Obama. Dismissing voters in "not important" states. Mocking candidates. Lying. Not admitting her war vote a mistake (like her segregationalist friend, Fulbright, did on Vietnam). "As far as I know."
This is not the path of a tough person. A tough person does what's right, because it is right. A tough person picks a direction and a method and sticks to it with some degree of consistency. A tough person can fend off attacks and then go back on message. A tough person can press forward without losing their soul.
In fact, Hillary Clinton has not shown one iota of toughness in this campaign (she has shown her ability to be a scrappy fighter -- but this is not what we are talking about). However, now that I wrote the above list, it's clear to me that there is one person who has shown toughness: Obama. Ironically, he has not chosen this moniker as a rallying cry.
March 29, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this take, it seems to me, is to rob Ms. Clinton of any actual humanity. I think you need to remember that she is human, and "standing by Bill" in the face of relentless public headlines wouldn't be easy for anyone.
The reason she never had another "lead role" was because it would have been pointless. No matter WHAT she did the Republicans stood ready to question, obstruct, and lie about any effort she'd likely lead on. You appear to be too ready to rewrite recent history. That is always suspicious.
Whereas it is true that those Senate races weren't tough, what you overlook is how remarkable that is, given her high "negatives."
As to her Senate record: has she ever shown leadership in the Senate? No. She has been shrewdly maneuvering for this presidential run and everyone inside and outside the Senate knew it.What have we seen from her? Kitchen sink strategies. Shame on you, Barack Obama. Dismissing voters in "not important" states. Mocking candidates. Lying. Not admitting her war vote a mistake (like her segregationalist friend, Fulbright, did on Vietnam). "As far as I know."This is not the path of a tough person. A tough person does what's right, because it is right. A tough person picks a direction and a method and sticks to it with some degree of consistency. A tough person can fend off attacks and then go back on message. A tough person can press forward without losing their soul.
"Losing her soul?!" Good grief! Her attacks on Obama haver been relatively sweetness and light in comparison to the right wing sleaze she's endured.
Talk about hyperbole. One wonders why you'd need to resort to absurdity to make your point.
Well, I suppose I'd come to the same conclusion if I rewrote historyu, saw Hillary as less than human, and believed hysterical statements like "lost her soul," ahead of actual reasoned logic, but then, I've always been somewhat of a clear thinker.
March 29, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the bad formatting..
*Andrewwww, edit function. Yesterday. Thankyou*
March 29, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument. But being resilient as a human doesn't make you tough as a politician. (See necessary, but insufficient.) Just as being able to stand on stage is required for a band member, but it doesn't make you a front man which requires all sets of other qualifications.
Let's go back to history: it wasn't just the GOP she upset. She managed to upset the Dems and many traditional left-leaning, educated people in the electorate (private physicians, etc.) It seems to me that Hillary Clinton, in using the 1994 fiasco as an example of "toughness" is akin to confusing "toughness" to "foolhardiness". It's like showing you are "tough" by going into a bar and picking a fight with the largest patron...and not being knocked out at that point somehow is a virtue.
Her "negatives" weren't that big in NY, especially for the Dems there. If they were, the Dem State Party wouldn't have cleared a path for her passed a normal primary process (which was gearing up before she entered the race).
I'm not faulting her for "playing nice"... I'm merely pointing out that she took no hard choices to stand on principal. She merely let the big kids decide on the direction and she followed it. A primary example of this is her vote on the Iraq War. Another one is her vote on flag burning, a traditional GOP red-herring.
My point is that nothing in her Senate record indicates a dedication to principal or vision. That would require political toughness, to say unpopular, but correct things.
As in being a leader.
Yes, losing one's soul. I have literally met dozens of people who have told me that they were "sorry to have voted for Hillary in the primary because they are now embarrassed to admit it as a result of her campaign in the past few weeks."
That's pretty impressive. Usually it takes many months to get disheartened by your candidate, not weeks.
Glad to hear it, worker bee!
March 29, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that being personally tough isn't the same thing as being politically tough, but I'd argue the two aren't mutually exclusive, and personal toughness--the evidence of which is ample-- is one reason she is perceived as "tough."
You can separate the two, but in context of DF's question, I don't think you can exclude the personal from the political unless you framed it that way. Most people when talking about Hillary's "toughness" are describing the personal, I'd think, as it's a known quantity.
I also take issue with your discription Doctors and their lobby efforts as "left-leaning."
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000068
They don't look "left-leaning" to me. I understand they try to come off that way, but the evidence is sorely lacking.
I was referring to her high negatives among Dems. Surely there's plenty of evidence right here on just how successful the Republican campaign against the Clintons has been. I was one of the first few thousand people to join MoveOn. I think people tend to forget just how poisonous the political environment was back then.
I do tend to agree with you with Hillary following the Dem lead. A glance at her voting record confirms it, but why is that a negative thing? I do recall she spoke out against Joe Lieberman running as an Independent before he lost to Lamont, and she most certainly bucked the Dem feeling (weaselly) at that time.
I still say "losing your soul" is nothing but hyperbole, and although I found much to agree with in your response, I find your reasoning to require some pretty strange assumptions. That may be why that your anecdotal evidence of "several" friends doesn't much impress me. I think the polls being roughly split show that Americans don't see Clinton as less than human, or that they'd risk their "souls" by voting for her. Hopefully we'll start hearing more about the BIG flaws in the GOP candidate.
March 29, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said any such thing.
In fact, she has followed the Majority Party... which for most of her tenure in the Senate was the GOP.
In fact, my specific examples were the Iraq war and flag burning votes, the latter I specifically pointed out were the traditional GOP red-herring.
So much for your clear thinking, worker bee!
March 29, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said the Dems had cleared the way for her then said she went with the big boys. Was you being purposely misleading to trip me up?
The fact that the Iraq vote went through is evidence that she went along with Dem thought as well at that time. As for the flag-burning claptrap goes, it was defeated by 4 votes in the Senate. The House passed it.
Not exactly just GOP red herrings, I'm sorry to say.
Forgive me for forgetting that your brand of clarity involves some pretty murky assumptions. I'll try not to do again, rather, I'll merely point out when I think you're being unnecessarily opaque in your statements, or needlessly hyperbolic.
At any rate, I'm clear headed enough to know that allowing McCain to become President would be not only a tacit approval of War with Iran, but an irresponsible move for anyone that claims to be a progressive, civically-minded adult.
March 29, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said the *state* Dems cleared a path for her run in NY. I wasn't 100% clear with the "big boys" comment, but in context it was the GOP big boys -- as she voted for Iraq and flag burning.
I wasn't trying to mislead. Ever see me do that before?
Exactly my point. She has shown no backbone to take a principled stand against stupid votes. It shows no toughness exactly when you need it.
She is rather selfish -- her "toughness" is to ensure things for herself, not for the broader principles, even if they are unpopular.
And she still hasn't apologized for her Iraq vote. This indicates to me, she still will try to slice words in just such a way as to try to get elected without having a point a view.
More proof she has no toughness.
As for your emotional uptightness, workerbee, you may recall that a bee can sting, but only once... and then it dies.
March 30, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm still here.
Try vinegar.
:)
Sorry, but yes, I frequently find your posts misleading and/or unclear. To reach the conclusions you have done you need to ignore quite a bit of data, like that Hillary Clinton has voted nearly 98% of the time with the Dems. That doesn't exactly make her "following the GOP" by any reasonable measure, in fact, her votes and Obama's are near identical.
If you are going to bash Clinton for this, it's frankly disingenuous, at the very least, not to hold it against both candidates. The fact that you don't shows an obvious and illogical bias which is pretty far from "clear."
I understand you're used to quite a bit of fawning over your rather long and wordy posts, but I'm afraid that I lack appreciation for long winded gluts of nonsensical verbiage.
Oh, well...
March 30, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see it pretty much as you lay it out. I look at her political career, and I see no toughness, no fight (though I will, unlike DF, give her points for wonkiness, or at the very least knowing the details of policy). Yesterday I saw a clip of her at a rally, and she made some reference to her having been counted out before, with a knowing and self-congratulatory smile, and of course the crowd of the already-converted applauded wildly.
All these references to her "toughness" and "resilience" refer to to the harassment and persecutions at the hands of her and her husband's political enemies, from Al D'Amato/Whitewater to Ken Starr to Dickie Scaife and Remmett Tyrell and Dick Morris and the nutcase rantings about Vince Foster and her sex-life and having Kathleen Willey's cat killed. Okay, there was nothing to Whitewater and everybody with a brain knew that in 1992, and a lot of whackadoos made up a lot of laughable shit that nobody with an IQ above World News Weekly level ever believed. Without even getting into the ever-present oblique allusion to her public humiliations at the hands of her husband (sorry if that offends anyone, it's always there).
But as a politician, as a Senator, what has she done? The only solid achievement I've ever seen her defenders mention--here and elsewhere-- is getting Bush to (sort of) honor his promise to NYC after 9/11. Seriously? Embarrassing Bush by using 9/11 is a great political victory? I'm willing to bet even people like Orrin Hatch and Kay Bailey Hutchison were rolling their eyes when Bush (Cheney and Rove) tried to renege on that. The story isn't that she (and others) were able to push back on that, it's that even this crew was stupid and arrogant enough to attempt it. And a lot of 9/11 rescuers are still having problems getting healthcare coverage, and there are questions about the EPA and air quality, etc. That was, at best, a partial victory.
March 29, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you've given her points, I have to ask: What details? Which policy?
March 29, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding "fighting" - look at the campaigns that are being waged: a chess fight (well-planned and exectuted, ready for the long run, within budget, bottom-up) versus waving boxing gloves and making loud noises about the opponent (mis-managed financially, candidate shielded from reality in a cocoon of trusted advisors, failed to foresee that small states and small donors can add up, things like not knowing just how the delegates were allocated in TX). Fighting, to me, is positioning yourself to WIN! And now Sen. Clinton wants to do to the country what she did to her campaign (largely inherited staff and name recognition, establishent support)?!
March 29, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, I've been mulling this over, and I think that this is a semantic issue, not a question of facts. Let's start with wonk. Wonkishness is something of a backhanded compliment, if it can even be said to be a compliment. It suggests a fixation with details that is first and foremost, boring. Hillary's speeches have often been criticized for the their focus on boring details. Hillary, following Bill before, has tried to turn a perceived weakness into a strength by arguing that wonkishness entails a command of details, which is important.
I don't think that there's a question of whether Hillary focuses on details. True, she hasn't released the details of her plans, but in her debates, in her speeches, she talks about policy details. Here's a an example of a typical criticsm of her wonkiness: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/clinton-clings-to-wonky-self/. Furthemore, everything that I've heard about Hillary's original healthcare plan has also indicated that she had a heavy, perhaps too heavy, focus on policy details. So in this regard, I think it's pretty obvious that she's wonkish.
Now a focus on details and a command of details aren't necessarily the same, but I think that they often go hand in hand. Some people talk endlessly about details, but it's obvious that they don't know what they're talking about. I've never had that impression from Clinton, so I think that it's reasonable to assume that she does have a solid command of the details. And I suggest that if you accept that Clinton focuses on policy details, the burden should be on you to demonstrate that she doesn't understand them.
On to being a fighter. As other commenters have noted, toughness, survival, and fighting are often conflated. I think it's unquestionable that Hillary has taken a heck of a beating over the course of her career, yet she remains a very capable politician, so I think it's pretty clear that she's a survivor. I think that her continued resilience in this primary also speaks to this.
But being a fighter suggests that you not only survive the beating, you then proceed to kick the asses of your opponents. This, she has not demonstrated. She has won two elections. Her first opponent was weak; her second was pathetic. (And before any Obama critics jump on this, I'm not suggesting that Obama has a stronger record in this regard, but he hasn't run on his record as a "fighter".) She obviously has not kicked Obama's ass either. In this case, the burden of proof is on those who claim that she is an ass-kicker.
So, in both cases it's a semantic quibble:
wonkishness = 1) focus on details vs 2) command of details. She has 1), but 1) implies 2), so burden of proof on you.
figher = 1) survivor vs 2) ass-kicker. She has 1), but 1) does not imply 2), so burden of proof on Clinton supporters.
March 29, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Command of what details, Genghis? I've argued above that local political savvy doesn't imply a knowledge of history. I believe that neither Bill Clinton nor GWB nor Hillary Clinton have a fascination with history. (Unlike, say, Kennedy and Nixon, who were often reading histories and historical biographies.)
It is this lack of understanding of history, I think, that allowed her the MLK/LBJ gaffe. She was trying to make a point with only a half-baked set of ideas. For from the gaffe being from a political miscalculation, I think it was one that exposed her ignorance.
In terms of rattling off facts for policy, I'm leery of that showing a command of anything. Just because you can recite Tom Lehrer's THE ELEMENTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNfx0FO4hzs
doesn't make you a chemist.
March 29, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, the chemist stuff is a bit facile. Command of policy detail is both difficult and important. G.W.'s lack of it is one reason why the government has gone fubar under his watch.
But I acknowledge your point on history, and absorb it into my point on semantic distinctions (so there!). There is more than one way to be wonky. You can be a policy wonk, a history wonk, a military wonk, etc. Hillary is a policy wonk in the "focus" sense and, I believe, in the "command" sense. But I agree that there is little to suggest that she's a history wonk in either sense, which I imagine to be as important, if not more important, than being a policy wonk. My sense is that Obama is more of history wonk and less of a policy wonk, (but I don't plan to defend that claim).
So you're right. Hillary's command of policy does not mean that she knows everything, or even the most important things, that a President needs to know, any more than being a survivor means that you can kick ass.
She nonetheless makes G.W. look like a moron. (Of course, a moron makes G.W. look like a moron.)
March 29, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad you weren't on her advisory staff in 2004. She probably would have achieved her 2008 goal in that year, right?
PS: I'm assuming GW is GWB and not George Washington.
PPS: Oh, okay: ;-)
PPPS: the PPS was for the PS, not for the main point.
March 29, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You point is well taken about the meaning of "wonk". I was trying to view it as a positive for her, especially since many have presented it that way, and as such I was thinking more in terms of policy mastery. The article you link certainly seems to address the use of the word wonk as being synonymous with being boring as you say.
While I agree with your distinction between a focus on and a command of details, I don't have a similar impression that she truly understands them. You're right in that I cannot prove this. I certainly can't peek inside her head and she whether this is truly the case. However, I can ask in what ways has this true understanding of the details manifested itself? If we're left merely to work with the impression that one gets from listening to her then it seems perfectly reasonable that two different people could come to contrary conclusions on this point, as seems to be the case with you and I. So, while I may not be able to prove to you or anyone else that she doesn't truly understand these things, I can certainly doubt that she has proved that she does. Given where we find ourselves, this would seem to be a much bigger problem for her than it is for me.
March 29, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, in looking over this article again, I'm left to wonder what's really different about her in this respect other than that she doesn't really seem to know how to address her audience. I mean, every politician has policy proposals and, with rare exception, those proposals have details. I'm seems likely that many of them probably could stand up in front of a room full of people and deliver bullet points of those details, but this really seems like a good way to put people to sleep. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not that the details aren't important, but neither is it that other politicians don't know any of said details. It's just that they know that you can't really win people over by, say, getting down into the weeds on monetary policy, for example. It reminds me of people talking about MEGO ("My Eyes Glazed Over") during the Watergate hearings.
So, perhaps what's going on is that she just doesn't really know how to address an audience and sticks to her notecard (mental or otherwise) full of policy details because that's what she's comfortable with. Then, this gets spun by her handlers into evidence that she's some kind of policy whiz. If so, I'm not sure that's a leap that I'm willing to make.
March 29, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure If i get where your going Carthage. She ran a campaign that won NY,NJ,MA,Ohio, MI, FL,CA,Pa?,TX and thats not setting yourself up to win but winning Ms,ala,ga,idaho,wyoming,south dakota,ak,south caroina, Nc...is? I've landed on an alternative Democratic universe......Or are you a McLiberman supporter?
March 29, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's run through this list:
MI/FL: She won nothing. There was no DNC-sanctioned primary. Endlessly repeating claims to the contrary will not change that fact. More practically, there was no campaigning in these states, and only Hillary's name was on the MI ballot. This doesn't even represent a "win" in any sense.
TX: She lost TX in terms of delegates. She won the primary portion of the election but didn't retain lead in the caucuses. I can be charitable here: I won't call TX a loss for her, but it's not a win either.
PA? [sic]: I won't deal with future speculation in this discussion, there is no need to do so. We can come back to this in a few weeks.
NY: Decisive win. I certainly hope she can take her own state!
This leaves:
NJ,MA,Ohio,CA
Here is the pattern: she won elections in states with large, well-established, well-oiled political machines. As an example: she was tight with the Boston Mayor. Look at the counties she won in MA, all on the east side. As an example: she is tight with the Los Angeles Mayor. Look at the controversy with the balloting process of independents and cross-overs in LA County.
See the pattern? Where there was a machine already in place, she did just fine. Where she had to build an organization for herself, she had serious difficulties.
Saying she "won" these states may be somewhat akin to saying the Paris Hilton has "earned" her millions. Did Paris Hilton go out and appear in TV shows, etc. and earned money from these promotions? Yes. Would she have had these opportunities if not for leveraging an already healthy advantage by coming from money? Hardly.
Given the high-platform on which Hillary was able to stand, she has shown a decided lack of imagination about how to build it further.
March 29, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was your point muddythinker. I can say the same for Obama. In states with a Caucus he can mobilize his minions of latte drinkers to show up and be there for him. Other than that.....I guess winning his own state of Illinois and connecting one of Wisconsin count for something. Not sure what....You've got only a few states in play for a democrat to win. Take a look here and it pretty much shows what has to be done if you look at 2004/2000 and on back you will see the issue.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
To use your words you will need to use an organization to get the job done. I don't see it as a negative...thoughts?
March 29, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems to assume that Obama won't enjoy the same advantages of the party machinery once he is the nominee in November, which patently ridiculous unless you actually think that the Party will pull the rug out of from under him just because he isn't Hillary.
March 29, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to lay off of the sour mash, Kentucky. Maybe you're only thinking as well as you're typing.
March 29, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is a McLieberman supporter. She has endorsed War Monger McCain for Commander in Chief. Pay attention to what your candidate has said, before you attack others.
March 30, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Blu's comment about his suspicions that Nader/Kucinich/Paul supporters are behind much of the anti-Hillary sentiment being expressed in this thread, I think are letting his preferences rule his perceptions. I've been registered and voted Democratic in every available election and primary since 1964. I have worked on campaigns and I've contributed my hard earned dollars. Sometimes it was a matter of having to choose the lesser of two evils, as it will be for me if Hillary gets the nomination.
DF's post was well done and certainly on point, as were many written in support. I am not the type of Leftist who believes that "political purity" in one's politics ala Nader groupies and the holier than thou types of leftists)trumps ensuring that The Corporatocracy is fought against on all fronts with the object being obtaining political power. Therefore I vote Democratic until a viable alternative, with a decent chance of succeeding arises.
That said, I have deep misgivings about the Clinton's based on Bill's Presidency, which is after all the basis of Hillary's claims to experience and toughness. The first intimation to me that The Clinton's were problematic came with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" formulation. Although I'm not gay, sexual freedom is I believe a basic right and homophobia is based in fear and stupidity. More importantly though, Clinton's caving in on this sent the message that "the bully pulpit" could be bullied. This was followed by the health care debacle and the refusal of the Clinton's to give battle after initial setbacks. Add to that renominating Alan Greenspan for the Fed, Bob Rubin as Treasury Secretary, "welfare reform," NAFTA, etc. and you have the picture of a Presidency unable and unwilling to use the power of the office. Bill Clinton was probably the sixth most effective Democratic president of the twentieth century, he shines only when compared with Republican mendacity and mediocrity.
I supported John Edward's and voted for him in the Florida "primary." I have warmed to Obama, however, because of the intelligence of his campaign; his willingness to look beyond mainstream foreign policy mythology; his life experience; and his delivery of the best speech on race since the days of MLK, Malcom X and Bobby Kennedy. I hope he will deliver the promise I feel his candidacy supplies. However, if Hillary is the nominee I will vote for her with no qualms, because the alternative is destructive and truly frightening. If Hillary is inaugurated, however, it will be time to keep fighting to ensure that our aims are not sacrificed on the altar of her ego.
March 29, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me it was the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
The fact that some moronic ad for a product called "HeadOn" exists is largely due to that.
I'd argue that that one act alone is responsible for quite a bit of our decline these last dozen years. It's one good argument for Obama, I think he'd be more likely to appoint people more committed to the public good rather than the industry fat cats we've seen doing their utmost to make the FCC become a facilitator of the relentless march to monopoly of the public airwaves.
Nice post.
March 29, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, these are the same brilliant folks who brought us the worst POTUS in history. let's all agree with them.
March 29, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
blusage, you're digging yourself a deeper hole. I never voted for Nader or Kucinich or Paul, and I never would. I've debated DF on the folly of voting for third-party candidates and I was so appalled by the Nader support on this site that I posted a blog about it:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/4-nader-myths.php
But to say that you don't agree with someone because they're an idiot who voted for Nader only makes you look like an idiot. You need to address people's arguments, not attack their intelligence. (At least if they have arguments. People without arguments or who engage in insults and character attacks are fair game.)
March 29, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of what has been said on this thread was summed up in this Republican perspective from November, 2007. This represents why the GOP lusts for the opportunity to run against her. My apologies and may the gods have mercy on my soul for posting this:
"The conventional wisdom now is that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. In reality, she's eminently beatable. Her contentious history evokes unpleasant memories. She lacks her husband's political gifts and rejects much of the centrism he championed. The health-care fiasco showed her style and ideology. All of which helps explain why, for a front runner in an open race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/71000/output/print
March 29, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove said it, it's gospel. Case closed!
March 29, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I've gotta say that, like many, I regard Karl Rove to be something of a minion of Satan. However, you'd be a fool not to recognize that the guy is just about as smart as it gets when it comes to winning elections. This isn't to condone his tactics, it's to say that he knows how to get the job done. A few of his observations in this piece are almost chilling:
I'd be curious to know how he knew she would lose Iowa. In hindsight, we can see that this was a huge loss for her in that it launched Obama into contention.
I don't think it needs to be explained how important this observation is and to Rove it is apparently axiomatic.
He goes on to write:
I simply can't read that last sentence without thinking of what we've seen in terms of contract between Clinton and Obama. This is merely a personal, gut level, kind of observation, but Clinton has always struck me in this way. She has one of the most phony, rehearsed laughs I've ever heard. It makes me uncomfortable to hear it at times.
Then again, Rove isn't always correct in his observations:
I don't think any reasonable person would still say this is the case right now and it certainly doesn't look like it will likely be the case in November.
This is, of course, the same who guy who said he had "the math" in 2006.
March 29, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben and DF: Are you Professors, Adjunct Professors, professors, or lowly senior lecturers?
March 29, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As tempted as I am to puff up my resume, I must confess that I am none of the above.
March 29, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before this thing slips off of the charts, so to speak, I just wanted to thank everyone for stopping by, recommending and discussing in what seems to have been a very thoughtful and civil thread overall.
March 29, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker, I couldn't agree with you more. Toughness is the image she believes she needs because she's a woman. However, she manifests toughness by trying to make others look weak, which is a symptom of a poor self image, of a bully some might say.
As for her wonkishness, I tend to believe people who have dealt with her and know her. I see no reason why they would fabricate it out of whole cloth. However, I see her wonkishness as an attempt to be tough in that it is a way of trying to maintain control in her life, a shield against a crisis or unforeseen event. She doesn't want any surprises.
And for the record I am a woman and I am an Obama supporter.
March 29, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker, I couldn't agree with you more. Toughness is the image she believes she needs because she's a woman. However, she manifests toughness by trying to make others look weak, which is a symptom of a poor self image, of a bully some might say.
Nice insight.
March 29, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also take issue with your discription Doctors and their lobby efforts as "left-leaning
Doctors left leaning? O my god - not even close.
They are some of the worst -
March 29, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, some of these comments just go by, with nary a question. It amazes me. When I see obvious misstatements I tend to sit up and pay attention. Sometimes what I uncover is someone that is the opposite of what they claim to be.
Beware the subtle troll. They are the most insidious and the most dangerous of that type.
:)
March 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding astral66's praise of the Peggy Noonan op-ed in the WSJ, I must say once again:
Peggy Noonan is a Republican.
In 2000 she wrote an entire book called The Case Against Hillary Clinton, and she is still presenting the case in 2008. How many years does it take to convince people? Despite her sustained efforts, she apparently hasn't convinced 12 million+ voters, not a number to be sneezed at. Of course she blames them for not "getting it," instead of blaming her own paltry powers of persuasion.
She may write lovely sentences, but that doesn't mean she's honest, unbiased, or even trustworthy herself. She is certainly not an objective source. Plus, she's sexist. Here are 3 examples of her sexism from the op-ed astral66 cited:
These are not arguments, these are simple smears.
Why must we backslide to a more elegant-sounding Phyllis Schlafly in order to criticize Hillary Clinton? Why can't anyone successfully critique her without such an emotional involvement?
I would argue that therein lies the proof of Hillary Clinton's power.
March 29, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Noonan's remark "She has always struck me as rather grittier than her chic suits..." referred to Nancy Pelosi rather than to Clinton.
The key comments about Clinton in this post have not been emotional, but have identified an ever-more-apparent lack of empirical support for both the Clinton resume and the Clinton myth.
When Clinton first began touting her experience, she usually closed the discussion with some variant of 'and I think I've demonstrated that' or 'I've clearly demonstrated that, or Sen. McCain and I have clearly passed that test' followed by 'now consider the comparative lack of experience of my opponent for the nomination,' thereby directing scrutiny away from her and toward Obama.
This glossing-over of her own qualifications continued for a long time before anyone started asking for specifics, in part because folks were dutifully preoccupied looking at Obama's qualifications and responses; in part because of all the startled attention given to Clinton's unfavorable comparison of Obama to McCain; and in part because the main item on her resume was considered to be her proximity to Bill Clinton, then and now.
When the scrutiny did come, it's my impression that it originated largely from bloggers, including some of the excellent TPM posters. Then came the embellishments and inventions, covered by bigger embellishments and inventions.
In all the scrambling about and diversions, I'm not aware that the Clinton campaign has come up with a vetted list of qualifications that they're prepared to substantiate.
March 29, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This goes precisely to my point. Though I apparently have several detractors in this thread for saying so, you'll notice that none of them have offered up such a list. Even though airwon has dutifully argued his point of view, to which he is entitled, it does not seem to me to be much more than simply a perception. And according to people like Lalo, I'm apparently betraying intellectual honesty for even asking the question. To me, someone taking umbrage at the fact that I have asked a question is usually an indicator that I am onto something.
March 29, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right. That the Clinton Campaign has no ready answer to such a basic question - one that would be asked insistently by Republicans if she were nominated - is telling. It's as if, after the Feb 2 primaries, they've been campaigning one day at a time, hoping to come up with something tomorrow to cover today's missteps.
March 29, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
ergoquid said:
It is sexist to identify women by their clothing, whether Noonan is referring to Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton.
And besides, Noonan is making a repugnant class distinction here: "grittier" vs. "chic suits." Noonan's unacknowledged gripe appears to be that Hillary has trespassed into Noonan's social echelon. It's personal for poor Peggy. Aww.
You completely misread me. Go back and read more carefully and see if you can figure it out. I can already tell you won't be able to.
As for the original post, I'd say DF is being disingenuous here. He allots 2 paragraphs to introductory comments, 1 paragraph to spiders, a closing sentence, and 4 paragraphs to HeadOn. That's 4 whole paragraphs to a commercial. Contrast that with 6 paragraphs to ask and answer his own complex question about Hillary Clinton. And what do we get? An essay primarily about a commercial for head wax.
Okay, fine. But you can—and should—do better, DF. I'm disappointed. I'm serious. Believe it or not, I've come to like and respect you through many of your comments.
Advice, therefore, if you want it: You took on too much for one post. I'm sure you must have realized that on some level before you posted. But you wrapped it up anyway, and it's too unwieldy as a result.
I think you should explore the idea of "toughness," which you started to explore but abandoned because it doesn't lend itself to an empirical answer. And that's what makes it interesting: "Toughness" is tough for you to define or address (or something). Why? The answer doesn't need to be strictly limited to Clinton. Maybe she's a springboard, but maybe it's really about you.
I mean these comments as tough but constructive. I'd like to see what you come up with. :-)
March 30, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no intention of defending Noonan, mostly because any time someone mentions her here people seem to flare up, but it's sexist just to mention someone's attire? If I comment on a man's suit is that being sexist? What if the attire is unisex, like a sweater? Recently NPR did a piece on the typically dapper Willie Brown. Was observing his mode of dress sexist? It seems like you might be going a bit reactionary here.
Disingenuous? Sorry, but no. I can tell you that I'm being completely sincere. These are my honest impressions. You don't have to like what I wrote or the comparisons that I made, but calling me dishonest because you don't agree? I won't accept that and it's not just because I know better. I'm making no empirical claims that she isn't these things, I'm expressing my opinion and soliciting the opinions of others. That's kind of what we do here.
As for "taking too much on" I'm really not sure what this means. Once again, I've explained things the way that I see them.
It may surprise to know that I have a very good idea of what toughness means to me. It probably will not surprise you to know that I don't think Hillary Clinton has it. See, that's kind of the whole point of my post. I don't understand why so many other people seem to think that she's tough. I acknowledged early on that this may simply be subjective. If it is, so be it. You can have your opinion and I can have mine.
Again, you don't have to agree with me or even like that I wrote. I'm sorry that you didn't like this one, especially in light of your kind words about my other comments. However, I also know that you can't please everybody. Over 60 recommendations and nearly 200 comments later, I must have done something right.
March 30, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF,
First: My comment about Peggy Noonan's sexism doesn't apply to you. It only applied to ergoquid's comment.
Second: My comments about your post have nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with any particular points you make. I noticed, however, that you answered your own argument in the original post, which doesn't leave much room for Clinton supporters to debate you in the comment thread. That's all I meant by "disingenuous": It's a false invitation for debate, not a false exploration of the topic. Hope this makes more sense?
My comments about your post were mainly about how you can make your own writing better if you are interested in doing that. Not that it matters, but I have some experience in this area. So if nothing else, please believe me when I say that I wouldn't take the time to comment about your writing if I thought you had no talent. But I think you do have talent.
I understand it's not easy to hear criticism. I'm sorry if I offended you. I may have been too abrupt. I often am. It wasn't my intention to offend, but it's tricky to critique in a public blog format. That's why I waited until the post fell off the Recommended List.
Anyway, it's sometimes worth listening to the people who don't suck up to you. Isn't that what Obama says he wants in his staff, btw? Isn't Clinton's alleged inability to hear criticism what many criticize her for?
Of course you don't have to pay attention to anything I say. I enjoy reading your comments, I like your sense of humor, and I understand a little more about where you're coming from in your thinking.
In any case, I submit this video addressing Clinton's wonkiness, fwiw. If you can stand watching it to the end, I think it's a valid defense of the wonkiness "myth." Certainly it demonstrates Clinton has some legitimate hands-on experience.
Hope you're still reading this thread! Let me know; I'll check back.
March 30, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree. It seems that you're granting me, first of all, with a power that I simply don't have here: Closing the door on debate. My invitation was not false and I think there's plenty of evidence in this thread that many felt invited and debate thusly ensued. I also don't agree that I've answered my own argument. I'm not making an argument so much as raising a question in that I do not see the substance that others seem to be claiming. I'm uncertain as to how you would suggest I could otherwise go about doing it.
I'm not the slightest bit offended at your criticism. It is both respectful and constructive and I sincerely appreciate it as well as the very kind compliments that you've paid me. I don't feel in any way slighted or disrespected by the comments that you've offered here. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I would also say that yours is a name that I always stop at as I'm scrolling down the page.
I've watched the video that you linked to. Perhaps I can use this as a reference point to clarify what I mean. I have no doubts that Senator Clinton is intelligent. What I'm addressing is the meme that she is a wonk. Clearly, if we mean that she is capable of managing details then we can say that this is a quality that she has. However, it's not that I've never seen her perform in such a capacity before. I've watched plenty of C-SPAN. In my opinion, what she exhibits here is not uncommon among Senators. It's not that her skills are unimpressive, it's just that they don't appear to be exceptional. She is well prepared, but she should well be. This is her job. Not only is this not unique to her among Senators, she would be a poor Senator if she did not perform in this capacity.
More to the point, what I am really addressing is that it seems to me that this attention to detail gets played up into the perception that she is, as a result, a master of policy making. This is where the problem really exists for me. As Genghis has noted above, the label of wonk was a stigma that Bill Clinton tried to turn into a positive by asserting that this indicated a deftness in crafting and executing policy. This is where the apparent conventional wisdom about Senator Clinton and I part ways.
Logically, there's really nothing else I can do but raise the question. I cannot prove what is not. This is also why I don't agree that I closed the door on any debate, aside from the obvious fact that this really didn't turn out to be the case. This is a clear and sincere invitation for anyone to offer their own perception, whether contrary to mine or not.
Again, I sincerely appreciate your comments and compliments and I leave the door open for your future criticism. I'll check back just in case you respond.
March 30, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll respond tonight. Other obligations call.
cheers!
March 31, 2008 4:23 PM |