« Risk Acceptance, or Projecting Billy Glad | Desidero's Blog | Vanity Unfair, or Internalizing Rove »
What Digby says?
I'd gotten used to assuming, like Atrios, that almost every other day was a "What Digby Says" day, just because she's so consistent with the right touch on matters. And today was another. On reconciliation, the photo finish, and the nature of compaigns and campaigners.
But now I'm wondering whether I'm off the rails - whether Digby is actually a force here anymore, or if she's just seen as a Hillary shillary. Perhaps we've reached a bifurcation in our blogging as well - MyDD goes one way, DailyKos another, never again to meet. For most of them I wouldn't care. But for Digby, it seems a shame - from the years when she wasn't outed as a woman to the years since, she's always had a top-notch style. But maybe she's too old, maybe she's a white 2nd wave feminist, maybe she's too focused on Washington, maybe too divisive and not progressive enough. We'll see where things turn as the dust settles. But she'll always be on my blogroll.
PS - day-old bread sale, and still a few cookies left over at Risk Acceptance, half price, free cup of joe. Didn't sell as well as I thought it would, probably that Sunday buffet and now everone's trying to lose weight. These fat free diets are killing my business.
But now I'm wondering whether I'm off the rails - whether Digby is actually a force here anymore, or if she's just seen as a Hillary shillary. Perhaps we've reached a bifurcation in our blogging as well - MyDD goes one way, DailyKos another, never again to meet. For most of them I wouldn't care. But for Digby, it seems a shame - from the years when she wasn't outed as a woman to the years since, she's always had a top-notch style. But maybe she's too old, maybe she's a white 2nd wave feminist, maybe she's too focused on Washington, maybe too divisive and not progressive enough. We'll see where things turn as the dust settles. But she'll always be on my blogroll.
PS - day-old bread sale, and still a few cookies left over at Risk Acceptance, half price, free cup of joe. Didn't sell as well as I thought it would, probably that Sunday buffet and now everone's trying to lose weight. These fat free diets are killing my business.
Advertisement
Photo finish? That would imply a race so close that it's difficult to tell who won.
Digby writes: Nobody should expect a politician who is still winning to quit.
But there's a difference between "winning primaries" and "winning the race for the nomination." Yes, they're closely matched. But not so closely that the race for the nomination is in doubt.
Digby again: Certainly, in a race this close it made no sense whatsoever.
But "this close" here means "close, but not so close that Hillary has a realistic chance, short of a mega-scandal for Obama or that RFK scenario that Hillary alluded to without intending it that way (as far as I know, and I take her at her word)."
Digby again: Obama supporters should acknowledge the fact that Clinton got an enormous number of votes and represents a vital constituency in the Democratic party that must be respected if we are going to win.
Respected? They should vote for McCain if they like McCain better. Write in Hillary if that floats their boat. Vote for Obama if they'd like to see him as president. Anything but the endless whining about needing "respect." Anyone who needs or cares about "respect" from anonymous comments on the intertubes is stupid with a capital S.
And if Hillary had run a semi-competent campaign and were the presumptive nominee, I wouldn't be whining over at hillaryis44 or taylormarsh or whatever it is about needing their "respect".
Digby: This is a Democratic year and I believe we will win this thing.
What DIgby said.
June 2, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd never heard of Digby before (yes, I've been living under a rock -- or should I say, Shrub, ha ha ha). Thanks, Des, for the link.
June 2, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should add that your Project Management post went over my head, and I was part of a Six Sigma explosion at a big Japanese company I once worked for -- then again, I didn't like Six Sigma one iota.
June 2, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who knew?
June 2, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then it was a complete success.
June 3, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
went way over my head too.
But I will continue to read Digby, time permitting.
June 3, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually thought it was one of the finest examples of sesquipedalian tergiversation I have ever read.
June 3, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for making me pull out a dictionary. Doesn't happen too often.
June 3, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Digby, as always, is a voice of reason.
And she fairly notes, as many Clinton supporters fail to do, that Obama and his campaign have never called for Hillary to quit the race early.
But the primaries end tomorrow.
Obama will be the candidate.
What Hillary chooses to do now will profoundly affect what happens in November.
Let's hope she sees her duty, and does it.
June 2, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like LisB, I'd never read Digby before, either. And, like acanuck, I think what she wrote is very reasonable. I'd only say she's missing one piece of the puzzle: the very reason so many Obama supporters were calling for her to drop out is exactly because she was so close—and because of the resulting divisiveness that came with that (there's a feedback loop involved there). With Jackson, it was easy to be magnanimous—no one was actually worried about him somehow winning the thing.
June 2, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Exactly. A perfect storm + a feedback loop = a perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect, etc. storm.
June 3, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you implying that there was fear that because it was so close, that she had a realistic chance of winning? And wanting our guy to win made that too threatening?
No that was not it. The proportional system of allocating delegates made it clear long ago that she could continue to win and still not be able to make up the difference. She could only win if there was an overturning of the elected delegates, by the unelected delegates. As unprecedented as the closeness of this campaign was the notion, that after decades of opening up the nominating process that it could, and should be decided by the insiders who supposedly know better.
That is, the prospect for Clinton winning since Texas, I guess, was a nullification of the nomination by electorate idea.
Anyway for the record the margin of victory in delegate terms will be about 5% if anyone cares (52%-48% after rounding in pledged and perhaps 10% in supers).
June 3, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone should bookmark Hullabaloo. Digby and her guest posters offer the finest, well reasoned analysis of todays issues. In depth, alot like NPR!
Even her guest posters are great. It is my 3rd stop every day after TPM and Eschaton.
By the way, she is far from a "Hillary shillary", as someone said.
June 2, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Hullabaloo is the first site I check everyday. Digby has take in great pains to be objective and non partisan during this primary. Its the take no prisoners you're either with me or against me nature of so many Obama supporters on the web that labeled the only non partisan blogger I know of a Hillary shillary.
June 2, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Digby is a great writer and thinker. In a better world she like Josh would be on the op-ed page of the NYT, WaPo or at least the LAT while the likes of Tom Friedman would be relegated to asking readers to send him $10 every six months on his blog.
But having said that she did some publicity for that snaky voter registration outfit (last fall) that was misinforming voters in primary states about their registration seemingly in an effort to help Hillary by suppressing the vote. When their efforts were exposed Digby accepted at face value the mea culpa posted by their spokesperson at HuffPo. If somebody conned me into promoting them and they turned out to be a Rove style political operation at worst or at best an incredibly incompetent outfit that appeared to be a cash cow for the principles I'd be more than a little pissed. I was very disappointed she went into a shell.
I'd like to see a follow up. Are they still registering Dems? Are they as fully funded as they were when Hillary had a chance? Are they registering hardcore Repubs?
June 2, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the interesting post, Des. Desidero + digby.
Is digby a force here anymore? You're the only person who mentions her at TPM.
To the question of is digby irrelevant (like Hillary is)? Someone like clearthinker might think so. So.
Are women irrelevant? It feels very same-as-always. But I think something must have shifted, which will be more noticeable once the dust settles, as you say. There's lots and lots of dust right now.
I expect that Hillary's success will eventually outshine her husband's.
June 3, 2008 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
whether Digby is . . . just seen as a Hillary shillary.
Not by sane people, no. And while we're discussing what the inestimable Digby said, can we strike the phrase "Hillary shillary" from the lexicon? Thanks.
June 3, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never read Digby, but this was a great blog and captures the essence of the division we are all seeing on-line.
Not sure there is any way to acknowledge the reality that Hillary got lots of votes and won lots of states. Reality is fairly obvious and not something I see Obama supporters disputing. I don't think Hillary's campaign has been irrelevant at all.
She has shattered all previous accomplishments by a democratic nominee for president, with the exception of Barack, who was just a tad better. Hillary represented a democratic party that was a part of the existing DLC establishment to many of us. Many democrats, at least as can be determined by the primaries so far, seem to have a problem with that.
She had the misfortune of being the experience candidate during a change year.
I don't think "Hillary" represents a huge constituency in the democratic party as much as she represents a constituency that places higher value on traditional political experience than they do on grass roots type experience. There is a real divide among what democrats consider leadership qualities and relevant experience. We like a talker. They like a fighter. I don't doubt her many qualities. Never have. However, Hillary's main argument against Barack is the very thing we like the most.
At the end of the day, I suspect that most Obama supporters would have voted for Hillary had she won. It's why most of us don't understand why the narrative is that most Hillary supporters won't back Barack's candidacy. As far as I can see from the polls, it is only a small amount of either side who say they won't vote for the nominee. I suspect that number to get even smaller by November.
At any rate, Digby made some good points. I'll be checking back in to see what the Hullabaloo is all about in the future.
June 3, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy, during the course of a heated political campaign, to lose sight of the goal. But the goal as far as I'm concerned is always party unity. You fight your fights and you battle it out as if to the death, but in the back of your mind, you remember that it's a family affair and when it's all over, the family comes first. I'm a big auto racing fan, and I think about it in those terms sometimes. A racing team can have several drivers. The drivers on those teams all try to beat each other on the track, but at the end of the day, they're all on the same team, and they all stick together.
If I had been a Clinton supporter, I would be disappointed and probably pissed off right now. I'd likely disappear for a few days, nurse my wounds, and damn the luck. As an Obama supporter, I'm happy my chosen candidate won. But make no mistake: starting from the point when Obama officially gets the nomination, nobody had better fuck with Hillary while I'm around. Because I was a Democrat long before I was an Obama supporter, and I'll be a Democrat long after he's out of office. Hillary and I are on the same team and the other team sucks, and that's a fact.
I've already written Hillary a nice letter, congratulating her on running an amazing race. The stamp's on the envelope. I'm just waiting for her to tell me that it's safe to send it.
June 3, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez--he's 12 delegates away from the nomination. I'll be there at the rally tonight. This is going to be amazing.
June 3, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoy the rally. That will be something to tell grandkids about.
June 3, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you taking the kitty with the bunny ears with you? He looks pissed. ;)
June 3, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'll be even more pissed when he finds out he has to stay at home.
I actually didn't know cats could look pissed... until I saw hrebendorf's avatar.
BTW I'm already wondering what your next animal is going to be after the Unity Zebra.
June 3, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unity Zebra for a few days.
Might bring back my cat again after that. Although, hrebendorf's kitty needs rescuing. Maybe, I'll hijack his kitty. I'm sure hreb won't mind, will you, hreb?
The tattoos will appear one day, soon.
Now excuse me, while I go kick that phony, puny unity pony's rear end.
;)
June 3, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
These stripes give me hope that the tattoos are coming back.
June 3, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, josephcast and I were discussing going as our avatars this evening. I'll be looking for a cigar-chomping guy with an eye patch.
June 3, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If things go as planned there won't be any grandkids, but I'll tell the neighbor kids about it.
June 3, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's the appearance of a fair and balanced quality in Digby's piece. I can't tell if she's a Shillary. She may be at one with standard journalistic interest in trumping up controversy by making two sides of every conflict seem balanced. One of the best examples of this tendency is that, whenever there's a high-profile murder, journalists interview a representative of the conservative and the progressive view of criminology. Never mind that 95 percent of academic criminologists don't believe in punishment; the public gets the impression that academic/professional opinion is evenly divided.
Digby's egregious balancing act toppled for me, because she didn't include Hillary's trashy comments and lies about Obama, most notably her repeated assertion that she would have left Wright's church--this may be difficult to accept without more explanation than I'm willing to lay out at this moment. Suffice to say, perhaps, that she had no sensitivity to Obama's relationship with Wright; she's known for dumping people regardless of the longevity and viability of her relationship with them. Equally notable is her continued assertion that the Canadian mole who indicted Obama for being duplicitous on NAFTA despite learning that the mole was in fact a mole. Moreover, her commander-in-chief comparisons, the Republicans are today asserting, is primary fodder for their salvos at Obama. McCain couldn't have wished for better ammunitiion.
If Digby had included these facts and many others like them, it would have been difficult for her to make her main point, the point that it has been ridiculous for Obama supporters to ask her to drop out. At least for me, it had less to do with her standing in the delegate count, the pop. vote, and the immaginations of left handed Carmalite nuns than with her party wrecking balls--this is the second major attempt. After she refused to compromise on health care in 1993, despite her own husband's insistence, the Republicans were able to successfully portray the Administration as, well, unwilling to compromise, to far outside the mainstream. At least that's the opinion of many progressive leaders, including Bill Bradley, Ted Kennedy, and Chris Dodd.
June 3, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason some people wanted her to drop out was because she was actively campaigning in a way that required her to hurt Obama's chances in the general election. Debates over health care, the gas tax, and energy policy would never have ripped the party apart. Even experience versus judgment was a perfectly legitimate theme to run on.
Instead, she took as many pages out of the Republican's oppo research book on Obama that she could and ran with that. Her argument, after the elected delegate math became clear was that she had to convince the unelected delegates (not the electorate in the coming states) to overturn his inevitable majority.
So she argued he was not even qualified to be president-- (he did not have the national security credentials but McCain did). She argued that he had ties to a corrupt fundraiser who he was in on a shady real estate transaction (where did we hear that one before?). That he hung around with terrorists and secretly endorsed Farrakhan. She was happy to let him twist in the wind during the Wright imbroglio, instead of having the decency to say what McCain did: that he knew personally that Obama did not share those beliefs. She could have made the point that the Republican style attacks were unacceptible, while still maintaining that she was the better candidate, had the better policies, was better prepared.
Instead, she went for it. full kitchen sink. The fun part. She, like the Republicans, tried to paint Obama as unacceptable to some part of the electorate. As other. The whole "hard-working white Americans" was just the most brazen caricature of what was inevitable once she took this tack. (that she was explicitly trying a divide and conquer strategy among voters based on class religion and race is undeniable).
That said, I understand very well the disillusionment, bitterness, and alienation of seeing someone you have invested in for months not win/get beat/lose. Anyone who supported Dean in 2004 knows it. And so there is plenty of room for empathy, and sympathy, admiration, respect, reconciliation and building of common purpose by November.We all know Democrats cannot win divided into two factions.
But let's also dispense with the idea that somehow those of us who were upset with Mrs. Clinton's campaign didn't have a very good reason to be upset.
June 3, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink