What Are They Smokin'?

And why aren't they sharin'?

HRC's VRC

You want to know why the Clintons think people are out to get them. Check out Maureen Dowd's column.

I found it via Balloon Juice and Lawyers Guns and Money.

LGM spends a lot of time skewering Dowd so read their take. The sexism / misogyny of this column is just dripping: "After 15 months of fighting her off, as she veered wildly from bully to victim, as she brandished any ice pick at hand" and "put her in her place."

Uncalled for but just standard operating procedure for Dowd.

Echoing A Reminder

SCOTUS Justice Stevens is old. Really, really old! Another gopper appointment to the court would be a really, really bad thing. I don't like Hillary as president for a lot of reasons but I would take her deciding the next SCOTUS justice over any gopper any day!

Hillary and Sexism

I was just listening to a couple of talking heads face off on Talk Of The Nation about the Democratic primary. I don't remember their names at the moment but the woman just had an Op-Ed published arguing that Hillary should stay in the race. The male talking head did not disagree. Where the big dispute came was over the misogyny being directed at Hillary. The woman made a big deal out of it essentially saying – although she said she didn’t – that Obama isn’t getting the same level of hate directed at him. The male talking head quickly, and rightly in my mind, pointed out that as a black candidate that Obama was surely having his own moments of dealing with hate.

They took three calls that I heard. Two of the callers were women and both cited the misogyny as well. A point was strongly made that older women had a vested interest in Hillary. The talking head and the two callers pointed out two incidents: protester at Hillary’s campaign events holding “Iron My Shirt” signs and Obama’s comment in the N.H. debate, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” I’ve always thought the “Iron My Shirt” people were asshole cretins. However, when I heard Obama’s jab in the debate was a great zinger. I didn’t view the comment as sexist.

Over the weekend Mom and I had a brief conversation about Obama and Jeremiah Wright. Mom thought the comments were wrong but made the point that people have to “look at the culture it comes from.” I quickly responded that people need to give the same criticisms to white preachers such as Robertson and the others. The conversation ended at that point.

Listening to the Talk Of The Nation show reminded me of some of the stories my mother has told me over time. Without going into detail she’s faced a lot of sexism and misogyny in her career. She’s had to fight for a lot of what she has earned. It never really dawned on me until this afternoon that she might be supporting Hillary – and I don’t know that she is – because of her life experiences. And obviously, not just her but others as well.

Through the stories she’s told me, the things she’s taught me I have always tried to stay aware of sexism in society. A girlfriend I had about 5 years ago (damn, has it been that long) was a drummer in a local rock band. She described her issues with trying to break into the rock-n-roll scene as a woman, and especially a woman drummer. It reinforced my understanding of the issues. Just this weakened, Mom and I were watching a show and one commercial that was played a couple of times was for some dietary or over the counter medical product. The ad featured a man identified as a “Dr. So-and-so” and pretty blond woman that gave her name but no professional affiliation. Dr. So-and-So described how the product worked and the pretty blond asked stupid, leading questions. The second time it aired I made the comment about the stereotypical dumb blond. Mom said, “I thought it was just me seeing that.”

The point is, I think, that as a white male, I’m fairly aware of the issue. I think at times people are too sensitive to perceived slights to their sub group (be that women, African-Americans, Catholics, or what have you). From that stand point I still don’t see Obama’s N.H. debate comment as sexist but in retrospect I can see that some might have. Just as white people don’t always recognize some of the subtler forms of racism, men aren’t going to recognize all the subtler forms of sexism.

I’m an avowed supporter of Obama. He and Hillary share many, many policies and I support most of agendas of both candidates. For me there are two big differences between the candidates that are the flip sides of the same coin.

First and foremost, Obama inspires me. He makes me believe that there is a better future to be had. And I see this inspiration played out in others. In friends that are cynics and are devout goppers feel it to varying degrees. Plus there is a plethora of evidence that his inspiration is contagious to multitudes of others. In every primary and caucus that he has competed in to date he has been able to close gap that Hillary started with and in a majority of the cases over come it and win.

Second, I believe Hillary is the ultimate poison pill. The country is fairly tired of the goppers so it may not be fatal but Hillary has a much larger hill to overcome than Obama will. In polling terms, the floor of her negatives is higher than Obama’s and the ceiling to his positives are higher than hers. Is this Hillary’s fault? Partially, yes. She has been grating at times. For a long time she projected an air that the nomination belonged to her, that it was hers by right. She has had a hard time with the truth (we landed under sniper fire) and she has attacked Obama in ways that would make Karl Rove proud (McCain and I are ready on day one, Obama will not be). But on top of all that there is a large amount of Clinton Derangement Syndrome left over from the 1990s. Many of the cynics and goppers I know that feel the Obama inspiration loath Hillary (or Billary as they say). This will not be over come. These people, for rational or irrational reasons, are going to hate her and either vote for McCain or not vote at all.

In the general election, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR Johnny McStraighTalk! I won’t do it! I will not vote for another gopper until they fully divest themselves of the religious right. Not when any gopper is likely to nominate another Alito-like member to the Supreme Court. If Hillary wins the nomination I will vote for her.

But I want Obama to win. I think he’s The Man!

Math Lessons From The Campaign Trail

$50,000,000 > $35,000,000

Cue maniacal, Vincent Price laugh.

People I'll Never Understand

This morning on NPR's Morning Edition there was an interview with young Christian evangelicals in Houston. (listen to the broadcast) They were asked their opinions of the three remaining major political candidates.

One woman (about 3:10 in) is voting for McCain because "Huckabee can't win." Another woman won't vote for Clinton because of "women's submission to men." The pastor for these thinks McCain is "a stud and war hero" and thinks a "a male should be leading our country."

Super-Duper Fat Tuesday

Next Tuesday, Feb. 5, is Fat Tuesday. A day where many young and young at heart people spend time drinking and eating and celebrating before Lent.

Next Tuesday, Feb. 5, is Super-Duper Tuessay. The day that 22 states are holding primaries and caucuses to choose the nominee for the presidential contest.

Baseless speculation... Barack Obama tends to draw lots of support from younger and well educated voters. Hillary Clinton tends to draw lots of support from older voters. Will there be a Fat Tueday defecit in Obama's numbers next week?

Again On Hillary

I've been mulling around a post in my brain about the effects of Hillary Clinton being the Democratic nominee. It involved the bitterness and dislike (hatred) she would bring out in the electorate. It involved the residual dislike (hatred) of voters. I know many, many people that just would not vote for her because they "remember" her and Bill Clinton as those slimy, corrupt people from the 1990s. I was attempting to form these ideas into a coherrent post. Then I found Hilzoy's post on Obsidian Wings. I will yield to someone who has expressed my thoughts much more articulately.

As I said, I think that many voters are disenchanted with the Republican Party. They are, I think, poised to see through it. One of the things that I, as a citizen, would be happiest to have them see through is the sheer level of maliciousness that Republicans normally deploy in campaigns like this. I suspect that a number of people who might have been prepared to explain all this away when they were convinced that the Republicans stood for morality, strong national security policy, fiscal discipline, and so forth might be a lot less willing to do so now.

...

If we nominate Hillary Clinton, then I assume that the Republicans will go after her, and that they will not restrict themselves to attacking her policies and her record. When they do, then all those people who are already inclined to think the worst of Hillary Clinton will, for that reason, be prepared to find those attacks believable. Stories about her sleaziness, her underhandedness, her cold and calculating nature, etc., will be a lot less likely to strike them as implausible, overreaching, mean-spirited, malicious, or vile. And that means that the chances that people will see standard Republican attacks for what they are are dramatically reduced.

By contrast, if we nominate someone whom people like that are not antecedently disposed to think the worst of, that will have two good effects. First, those attacks will be less likely to be believed, since the Republican establishment will not have spent the better part of two decades preparing the ground for them. Second, in order to get people to the same point of loathing, they will have to attack harder.

UPDATE: LGM talks about Hilzoy's post. I haven't taken time to confirm all of this from their comments or how Obama's record compares count by count but I know some of it is true.

Hillary did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft.
Hillary did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales.
Hillary did nothing regarding the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton.
Hillary voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hillary voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals.
Hillary voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hillary voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Hillary said little or nothing during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito.
Hillary did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of Michael Mukasey.
Hillary said nothing during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental.
Hillary said little or nothing during the vote to extend FISA.
Hillary said little or nothing on the Walter Reid scandal, even though she sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Hillary has said nothing during the current debate on Telecom Immunity.
Hillary has said nothing on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney.
Hillary has said nothing on the possible impeachment of George Bush.
Hillary has said nothing on the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration.
Hillary campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont
Hillary did nothing to stop Medicare Part D
Hillary did nothing to stop the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill
Hillary voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill
Hillary proposed legislation to ban flag burning.
Hillary voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act.
Hillary voted FOR the reauthorization of the USAPATRIOT act.
Hillary voted AGAINST an amendment that would prohibit the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets.
Hillary voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.

And Now We Know...

For months Andrew Sullivan has been over-the-top anti-Hillary. I share at least one of his concerns - that Hillary would run a very secretive White House when we need a more transparent government - but I don't think she's as bad as Sully does. Although not the best candidate (in my mind) I don't think she would be particularly bad. He has a post up today that may explain a lot. He feels betrayed. I think that is a valid concern for Sullivan but it clearly and dramatically clouds his point of view.

Last Night

Damn!

Naturally, I’m disappointed. It seems to me that McCain is Obama’s Achilles’ heel. One substantial portion of Obama’s appeal is to independent and cross over voters. People that are more conservative than Obama but are fed up with the bullshit of the current Goppers. McCain, although very, very conservative, has the rep of a reformer and a maverick Republican. Obama and McCain are fighting for the same independents. With NH allowing people to register at the polls and select a Gopper or Democratic ballot at the poll those independents could make their choice at the last minute. With polls showing Obama with a double digit lead and with reports of record levels of turn out its possible that a lot of people who might have been leaning towards Obama chose to vote for McCain.

The scarier explanation is the Bradley Effect This suggests that white people tell pollsters that they will vote for a non-white candidate but once behind the voting curtain they vote for the white candidate. The Bradley Effect, if in play, wouldn’t show up in Iowa where caucus goers have to vote in the open. Even if the outcome is an Obama loss let’s hope the Bradley Effect is not the cause.

All that said let me not take away anything from Hillary. She had a good debate Saturday night. She made her case to the voters of NH and they responded. I’ve said again and again she is not my first choice but I do believe she would make a good president.

It is important to note that Obama and Clinton are virtually tied in delegates for the convention. Obama is actually up by one. And I do agree with the talking heads that are saying that a contested primary season, as opposed to a coronation of any one candidate, is better for everyone.

"The Clinton Scream"?

It seems quite a few people are having coniptions over Clinton's defense of her record during the debate. Jonathon Cohn lays it out on The Plank here. The first reviews of the debate I read today were from Sullivan, a somewhat notorious anti-Clintonite, and he skewered the moment. Since one commenter (a new commenter!) asked me about my “hatred of Clinton” after the Iowa caucuses let me use this opportunity to respond.

I don’t particularly hate Hillary Clinton but I much prefer Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee. The giddiness of my post was a response to my guy winning more so than Hillary losing. In fact, I thought this so called “Clinton Scream” was one of her stronger moments in the debate. She outlined her accomplishments. It was a resume moment. And being in response to a double challenge from Edwards and Obama the forcefulness of her response, what others are calling shrill, was completely appropriate.

Cohn also mentions Obama’s comment when Hillary was responding to the question about voters liking Obama more than her. I nearly spit out my beer laughing when he said it. It was an incredible back-handed compliment and interrupted her moment to gain sympathy. Yeah, it was a little rude and I’m sure violated all kinds of Oxford debating rules but those weren’t in effect. In my mind it was also very effective jab used at the right time.

The Saturday Debate

I had forgotten it was on but I stumbled onto the beginning of the dual Gopper/Democratic debate on Saturday night. It is the first of the many (dozens?) of debates that I have seen.

First, I really liked the format and the duality of the debate. Having a Gopper debate and a Democratic debate, back-to-back, allowed viewers to see the difference between the two parties. The debate format, where the moderator raises a topic and then the candidates argue about it amongst themselves with little intervention allowed viewers to get a real feel for where the candidates stand. Yes, yes, each candidate was able to get in the core of their stump speeches, but when they actually had to engage each other and challenged each other on policies it was actually educational.

The one critcism I would have of the debates is that they were long. It took three hours to get in both debates. For a political junky like me it was manna. I suspect for most people it was just too much to take in at one time. And on a Saturday night??? Even Andrew Sullivan blogged that he was turning it off to do something else.

The debate didn’t change my perceptions of the various candidates or who I am supporting. I do have a couple of individual observations to point out.

McCain was having a generally good debate even if he was a little abrasive in attacking Romney on his flip flopping. But, we all know that McCain has a rep of not being a very nice guy to begin with. Where I thought McCain faltered was on immigration. Romney went on the attack and McCain just kept repeating himself and sounded as if he was sulking.

Romeny, he who is made of plastic, blew my mind with one statement. When discussing how to get health insurance for all citizens he said, in all seriousness, “Fourty-eight million Americans CHOOSE to not participate…” WHAT THE FUCK! I don’t know what bothers me more: that Mitt might actually believe it, that Goppers in general believe it, or that no body challenged Mitt. Sure, there are some people that choose not to have health insurance but most, and I believe that vast majority, of the 48m can not afford it.

I don’t know that I can be a good judge of the gopper debate since I support almost nothing they stand for.

On the Democratic side I think it was mostly a wash. No body got hurt too badly and no body really put themselves ahead. It was interesting watching Edwards join Obama in attacking Hilllary. (I’ve been told I can’t call it tag teaming Hillary any more and I agree).

The one statement that brought me up short was when Richardson effectively said that terrorist organizations have acquired nuclear weapons. And no one batted an eye. I’m pretty sure it was a slip of the tongue as Richardson was forming his thoughts as he was speaking so I really don’t hold that against him. (NOTE, it was clear to me that Romney meant what he said.)

One other note. Throughout the debate Hillary continued to use the phrase "make change." As in, "I've made change" and "I want to make change." It sounded very awkard.

This morning I see that Obama has a 10 point lead over Hillary. So maybe he did better in the debate than I’m giving him credit for. Or, conversely, Hillary did worse than I thought.

Iowa The Day After - Democrats

Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!


When I published my last minute predictions yesterday I wasn't confident at all. I thought the top three were all going to be bunched up together. Clinton had established, practiced, sure to go caucus goers. Edwards had all but lived in Iowa for the past 4 years. Obama had excitement on his side but was relying on first time caucus goers and young voters. Howard Dean did the same in 2004 and fared quite poorly.

Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!

When I got to the Iowa Caucus party last night (yes, I'm that much of a political geek), with 2% reporting, it was Clinton, Edwards, Obama. There was maybe a 3% or 4% difference in their vote totals. At about 15% reporting it was the same but I started to feel better. In every state, small rural precincts always report early. They just have fewer votes to report. But Obama was still close! I knew the bigger, more urban precincts where Obama would be strong would not be reporting yet. That included Des Moines, with a larger black population, and the college towns.

Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!

Ultimately, 239,000 people attended Democratic caucuses. Almost double the 124,000 total from 2004. In the end those 239,000 delivered the outcome I was hoping for but just couldn't bring myself to predict. Not only did Obama get a decisive win - 8 points - but Clinton fell to third!

Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! Joy!

I don't think you're happy enough! That's right! I'll teach you to be happy! I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs! Now, boys and girls, let's try it again!

Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy!

What?

Sully's post A Clinton Bimbo Eruption? hits a good point. Bullshit rumors are going to be rampant and South Carolina is infamous for it. But what does this mean, "If she wants to scotch the lesbian rumors, she really should tip better." I know about the Iowa story and from what I can tell it is a little murky but the Clinton campaign made good by going back and giving the waitress $20. Is there some stereotype of lesbians being cheap I'm not aware of?

HRC = Bush?

I don't know that I agree with every assertion Steve Chapman puts forward but I think his concluding paragraphs are very close to the mark.

When she [Hillary Clinton] ran for the Senate in 2000, she mocked Republicans (such as Caspar Weinberger and Colin Powell) who think "we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time." On the contrary, she said, we "should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."

As Michael Crowley of The New Republic noted, she had another reason for supporting Bush on Iraq: "I'm a strong believer in executive authority," she said in 2003. "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."

There you have it. A Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency promises to unite Madeleine Albright's zeal for using bombs in pursuit of liberal ideals with Dick Cheney's vision of the president as emperor. Won't that be fun?

Intellectual Theft

So NPR just reported that Hillary Clinton told a group of Detroit auto workers that the Big Three need to accept and build more fuel efficient cars in exchange for government assistance with retiree benefits. Nice. Obama suggested the same thing last year. Of course, he quite possibly stole it from someone else. Either way, it is a decent idea. The help they should give though is national health insurance for every single U.S. citizen. That will relieve the legacy costs of the automakers and benefit everyone else. The automakers need to make more fuel efficient cars as a matter of course because it is the right thing to do. And since they don't want to do it on their own, CAFE standards need to be raised.

End Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Hillary is on board joining Edwards. This ridiculous policy was created by her husband when he failed to eliminate the outright ban on gays honorably serving and protecting their country. Societal attitudes don't change over night and Bill Clinton's efforts were ahead of their time. Now that the debate is about gay marriage the concept of serving in the armed forces seems pretty moot.