Playing To Win, Take 2

by hilzoy

A few days ago I wrote a post in which I made the following argument:

(1) I believe that there is a real chance that significant numbers of people might see through Republican attack politics this year.
(2) If they do, that might help to bring about a real realignment in favor of the Democrats, which Democrats would presumably welcome.
(3) So one thing we should bear in mind, when deciding who to vote for, is: which candidate is most likely to help that process along?

So far, this seems to me to be completely unexceptional, so long as one accepts the first premiss. I then went on to say:

(4) People will be more likely to see through Republican attacks if they are not already predisposed to believe them.
(5) People are predisposed to believe them about Hillary Clinton, largely as a result of fifteen years of Republican attacks delivered when people were not ready to see through them.
(6) Therefore, other things equal, people will be more likely to see through Republican attacks if we nominate someone else.

Somehow, this fairly straightforward argument seems to have been misinterpreted. For instance, Avedon Carol writes: "I'm surprised that Hilzoy thinks that somehow a strategy of bland inoffensiveness will expose Republican nastiness." Similarly, BTD at TalkLeft writes:

"Hilzoy is proposing that Democrats run an inoffensive campaign with a politically bland candidate. This is just wrong. Democrats have to fight for Democratic values, stand up for their principles, and negatively brand the Republican Party."

I was not aware that I was recommending a strategy of bland inoffensiveness, and even on rereading my piece I'm not sure what gave rise to that interpretation. My main point turned not on the inoffensiveness of all candidates other than Hillary Clinton, but on the fact that they have not been demonized for the last fifteen years. I did go on to say that I thought that a further problem with nominating Hillary Clinton is that we tend to respond defensively and angrily to attacks on her. But I tried to make it clear that what bothered me was not that we might respond to attacks at all, but that we might let our anger get the better of our judgment.

I completely agree that Democrats ought to stick up for our principles, and present a clear alternative to Republicans. I can't imagine what, either in my earlier post or in my writing more generally, might make people think that I do not. But that's orthogonal to the point I was trying to make in my earlier post, which was simply that we place ourselves at an unnecessary disadvantage if we nominate someone about whom people are already inclined to believe the worst.

I think that it would be worth placing ourselves at this sort of disadvantage if we faced a choice between Hillary Clinton, forthright champion of Democratic values, and a bunch of other candidates who were timid and weaselly. But that is not the choice we face. As I noted in my earlier post, my main problem with Hillary Clinton is that on the most important issue she has yet had to face, her vote on the Iraq War Resolution, she did not champion Democratic values. She sided with the Republicans. She voted to give George W. Bush the power to go to war, with disastrous results.

Moreover, she has done the same thing on other issues, like the Defense of Marriage Act, and torture and extraordinary rendition: where other candidates have been clear, she has not. Who can forget this delightful statement from a few months ago?

"Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless elected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.

"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know."" (emphasis added)

We know about waterboarding. We know a lot of things. Apparently, policies condoning those things are OK with Clinton, since she says that whether or not she needs to change our policies depends on all those other, unknown interrogation techniques, not on the knowledge we already have.

If this is standing up forthrightly for Democratic values, then count me out.

By contrast, the main charges against Obama seem to me to consist of two things. First, there are various points -- notably, his remarks about Social Security -- where he has to conceded too much to Republican talking points. These are not my favorite Obama moments. But Obama's occasional lapses in rhetoric seem to me to pale into insignificance beside Clinton's actual votes, most notably her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Second, there is the fact that Obama talks about bipartisanship. Here I think the people who criticize him are thinking of what has passed for bipartisanship recently and simply assuming that that's what he's in favor of. But his record tells a different story. I wrote about Obama's bipartisanship a little over a year ago:

"His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)"

Thus, for instance, Obama worked with Richard Lugar to enact a series of bills on nonproliferation. Lugar was actually serious about nonproliferation, and the resulting bills were very good. They would probably not have been passed without Republican co-sponsorship. Likewise, he worked with Tom Coburn on ethics reform, and passed good bills on that issue as well. In neither case did he triangulate, or sacrifice Democratic principles, or go all wishy-washy. To this day, his record on both issues is much stronger than Clinton's, and if anyone can find evidence that his willingness to reach across the aisle when he finds someone he can really work with has made him weaker, less principled, or less forthright than Hillary Clinton, on either issue, I would love to see it.

I would have thought it obvious that, other things equal, it's better to work with people from the other party than not. Your bills are likely to attract broader support. You can build actual working relationships that might come in handy later. And so on, and so forth. The question always has to be: what price do you pay for this? Do you have to compromise your principles? If so, then the price is obviously too high. Do you have to be imaginative and open-minded enough to recognize in a Senator from the other party with whom you disagree about almost everything, someone who agrees with you on some particular issue, and with whom you can therefore work on that issue? That, I would have thought, is a price well worth paying.

If we didn't have Obama's record to look at, we might think: well, that all sounds very nice, but it won't actually work. Obama's supposed Republican interlocutors will end up demanding the sacrifice of his principles, or won't end up working with him at all, or something. He's naive to think that this sort of thing is so much as possible, at least with this crop of Republicans. But the thing is: he actually did it. He got good legislation passed. I'm sure he tried some other alliances that didn't work out as well, but he has a pretty good track record with it.

I'd certainly stack Obama's record of standing up for Democratic values when it counts against Clinton's. She's running in the Democratic primaries now, and can afford to be a full-bore Democrat. (Not that she takes full advantage of that, in my view: see above.) But back when it really counted -- when she had to decide whether or not to vote to authorize war, or for the original PATRIOT Act, for instance -- she was the one who buckled.

Comments

[Adam]

hilzoy, I think you're as on-target as always, but I think that perhaps we're all suffering from a bit of the circular-firing-squad syndrome right now.

I don't say that as a way of assigning blame or judging anybody's arguments -- just that I don't think it's the quality or content of your point that's at issue so much as the fact that everybody seems to be seeing red right now, for some reason that I don't think I fully understand. In normal circumstances, I can't imagine people fairly characterizing you as "advocating inoffensiveness" with a straight face. I wouldn't take it too personally.

[Xeynon]

I did go on to say that I thought that a further problem with nominating Hillary Clinton is that we tend to respond defensively and angrily to attacks on her.

This is the frequently unrecognized flipside of Republican Clinton hatred - that Democrats are often irrational in their attempts to defend the Clintons, even when they don't deserve to be defended.

Speaking as an independent, this is part of what makes Hillary so unappealing to me.

[hilzoy]

Adam: I know what it is with me -- something, who knows what?, has shifted my existing anger over the war, and votes in favor of authorizing it, into overdrive. I don't suppose that the particular concern that drives me affects the blogosphere as a whole, though. I don't know what it is. I do know that there are some people who seem to me to be acting atypically.

[Bruce Baugh]

Hilzoy, I think it's the immediacy of your own experience sharpening the distinction more. I also think there's a bunch of just plain bozo posting right at the moment. Obama is simply not the candidate I wish for, and I'm frustrated that I likely won't get a shot at a vote for one I'd favor more, and in the midst of that it's hard sometimes to properly weight his merits. I bet that's a common reaction, and some folks aren't being as self-skeptical about it.

[Bruce Baugh]

For myself, I've twice deleted at the last minute posts here which would assuredly have gotten me banned (and deservedly so), this last week, and trashed several more that would at the least have gotten me stern warnings. All of them were war-related, and on the general theme of "was this worth it" revisited. It's not just you, that is to say.

[Adam]

hilzoy: "I do know that there are some people who seem to me to be acting atypically."

Xeynon: "This is the frequently unrecognized flipside of Republican Clinton hatred - that Democrats are often irrational in their attempts to defend the Clintons, even when they don't deserve to be defended."

These two comments together do drive a few things home for me. Speaking as a Democrat -- and as an Obama supporter who's very, very unhappy with the conduct of the Clinton campaign -- I do have a lot of sympathy for those who are defensive about attacks on the Clintons. I don't know that it's "rational," but it's certainly understandable, I think -- the way that the media has treated the Clintons for the last 15 years has been disgraceful, and in addition to that, there's a very good argument to be made that our leadership has been abysmal at responding to attacks in kind.

I can understand how many Democrats have developed an almost instinctual aversion to anything that they perceive as appeasement, and why Obama might be unpalatable to them on those terms. Personally, I disagree -- and I think that the distinction between the way that Clinton 'appeased' Bush on Iraq and the way that Obama 'appeased' Lugar and Coburn is telling. That is, I buy hilzoy's distinction between the good kind of bipartisanship and the bad kind. Frankly, I'm baffled by the characterization of Obama as a Republican shill, but I realize that rational minds can differ on this point -- and what do I know? I supported Gore in 2000, and Dean and Edwards in 2004, and we all know how that turned out.

I could very well turn out to be wrong -- it might be that I'm misjudging Obama's political skill in responding to the Clinton attacks (e.g., I thought the way he threaded the needle on the race issue was deft, to say the least -- I was terrified that neither campaign was going to pull us out of that little death spiral). I see the mien of the Clinton campaign's approach as heavy-handed at best, but maybe that's a plus, as some people certainly do believe. And perhaps the "she's already been attacked as much as she can be" argument is true, though I'm reluctant to ever sell the GOP attack machine short.

At the moment, I'm thinking that a lot of the positions being taken on the Dem Primaries are very deeply personal -- for hilzoy, it's about the war, and I that appears to crystallize for her many of the other issues; it shows Obama exercising judgment when it counted, and Hillary rolling over as a matter of political expediency. For me, it was his interview with the Gazette that contained that wildly-misquoted Reagan blurb; in that format, he was just so in-his-element, so in-control -- I'm perfectly willing to posit Obama as a real CEO President.

I've been COO to a number of CEOs, and Obama has "it". GWB doesn't. Obama will be a buried-in-the-policy-analysis President, a Pragmatist, and Hell -- he's from Inner Chicago. If he can get bill requiring full taped confessions of all violent crimals passed unanumously over the strong objections of the police union, then he shows me he knows how to get results when it happens.

You don't get your on the ground political training on the precincts of Chicago -- them's the school of hard knocks.

The real travesty of having Clinton in this campaign is that it's being turned into a referendum on the the Clintons and his Presidency, to the point where we don't even get to talk about the horrors that continue to face us trying to repair the damage that's been wrought two Bush years.

[Ara]

Hilzoy, the only thing I can guess at is that people paid no attention to the actual argument and just kind of confused you for Pelosi/Reid and the Congressional tactics of being concessionary and even defeatist rather than being confrontational.

So for a moment there, you became the butt of these people's angry desire for more combativeness in Democratic politics. A lot of Democrats these days want to start fighting and start winning. They feel a little humiliated being in the party that happily hangs its head in loss, a party that let itself be swiftboated, a party that seemed to let Republican operatives disrupt a ballot count in Florida, a party that had the majority of votes but still would not force the opposition into a humiliating filibuster.

I think this is part of the psychological toll of so many years of perceiving that your side has lost without a fight (not to mention that Republicans call into question the courage and patriotism and loyalty of Democrats all the time and have stayed for themselves this role of being the macho party).

I think that some Democrats, may be even subconsciously want to stick it to the Republicans as much as they want actually get things done.

I really think some of this is behind Hillary's support. The Clintons are nothing if not confrontational. And they make Republicans pull their hair out and seethe anger and throw temper tantrums like small children for God-knows-what-reason.

[Ara]

Alright, let me make an argument about HRC. I've thought this for awhile, but I haven't really mentioned it anywhere. Here's what I think:

(1) When Americans withdraw from Iraq, whenever that is, there will not be an unambiguous and widely held sense of victory.

A Democrat who withdraws is simply going to be blamed for withdrawing prematurely, for not giving our troops a chance to win the war, and for all the usual smears people concoct. This blame will stick with that Democrat and with the party for a long time, and will be used time and time again as evidence that Democrats are bad on national security issues, on toughness, on combating enemies, etc. The Republicans will simply seek every opportunity to try to shift blame for the war on the Democrats.

Now, I think Hillary has internalized this. And I've always thought this about the Clintons' political style:

(2) They will do what is best for themselves politically, regardless of its toll on others.

For this reason, I sincerely believe that Hillary is the least likely among the major candidates to withdraw. I think there's a fair chance that the other Democratic candidates might take the hit and do it. But I am almost certain Hillary would not do it in her first term. I think it will likely take a Republican to have the political cover to withdraw without being pilloried for it.

[Xeynon]

the way that the media has treated the Clintons for the last 15 years has been disgraceful

The media is hard on all politicians. They were hard on Gore. They were hard on Kerry. They're hard on Obama (witness the mindless parroting of the "he has no substance" charge). They're hard on Republicans too. Romney has been hammered for his flip-flopping. Bush was/is hammered for his youthful drug use, National Guard service, etc. I agree that the conduct of the media is often disgraceful, but from the middle of the political spectrum it doesn't look to me like their conduct toward particular candidates is disproportionately disgraceful. I don't think Hillary makes things any easier for herself with her paranoia and press-baiting either.

I think that the distinction between the way that Clinton 'appeased' Bush on Iraq and the way that Obama 'appeased' Lugar and Coburn is telling.

Is it even fair to compare those two things? The Iraq War vote was opposed by a lot of progressives, and certainly contra the party's traditionally dovish and diplomacy-oriented approach to foreign policy. Obama got a couple of Republicans to co-sponsor legislation that accomplished progressive goals. The first is either a principled break or an act of cowardly political appeasement, depending on your position on the war - but the second is just creative, productive lawmaking (i.e. the way things get done in any democracy). The charge of caving in to Republican positions on the issues is a lot more true of Clinton than it is of Obama. Obama says nice things about Republicans, but I don't see any evidence whatsoever that he has ever or will ever sell out his principles to them. I can't help but find it ironic that so many in the lefty blogosphere like to trumpet how they're "reality based", more about substance than style, see through flimsy political rhetoric, etc. yet are incapable of seeing through either Obama's purely rhetorical bipartisan appeals or the Clinton campaigns' evidence-free charges that he's a crypto-conservative.

I think that some Democrats, may be even subconsciously want to stick it to the Republicans as much as they want actually get things done.

I can't tell you how depressing I find this. Outside the committed left, I don't think anybody really wants this - most people are just looking for good, pragmatic, competent government. For what it's worth, I also think it's counterproductive to achieving progressive goals, if that's what you care about.

For this reason, I sincerely believe that Hillary is the least likely among the major candidates to withdraw.

I also wonder whether the fact that she's a woman may make her even more worried about being perceived as in any way soft on our enemies. She obviously sees her candidacy in historic terms, and I suspect she'd be more inclined to hawkishness just to discredit sexism of the "women aren't tough enough to be President" variety.

[KathyF]

While I agree with this excellent analysis (and linked to your previous post) I have to say, I don't think that most Democratic voters are thinking nearly as long or as hard as those of us in the blogosphere are.

Democratic primary voters are a pretty traditional bunch, and they vote for the most traditional, establishment Dem on the ballot. They value experience, which they perceive Hillary to have, over anything else. There are always a few new primary voters, who come out in droves for a progressive candidate, but those droves just aren't big enough to win, usually. (The exceptions are when there are two establishment Dems in a race, and they beat each other up, as happened in Feingold's race in Wisconsin and in Obama's senate race.)

So while I love to read all this excellent analysis, the real way to convince anyone not to vote for Hillary is to knock her experience cred. The Obama campaign really needs to start looking at that, and ignore those on the "left" who think he's trying to emulate Reagan. Or else all those things you predict with a Hillary presidency will come true.

[Phil]

They're hard on Republicans too. Romney has been hammered for his flip-flopping. Bush was/is hammered for his youthful drug use, National Guard service, etc.

If I were to take a poll of, say, 100,000 people, how many do you think, based on how the media has treated these people, would believe each of the following statements?

1.) Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.
1-A.) Al Gore made some statements about his role in advancing the development of the Internet in the US that were spun as a claim that he "invented" it.

2.) George W. Bush uncontroversially completed his National Guard service and was the victim of a scurrilous attack by Dan Rather, who was fired for his action.
2-A.) There are some major gaps in George W. Bush's record of NG service which are unexplained and which he appears to have publicly lied about.

3.) John Kerry faked some injuries to get a Purple Heart or three, and may have self-inflicted some of his wounds.
3-A.) John Kerry served in combat with distinction in Vietnam and was decorated several times, including with the Purple Heart.

[dutchmarbel]

So while I love to read all this excellent analysis, the real way to convince anyone not to vote for Hillary is to knock her experience cred.

Of course *if* she wins the primaries it will be very hard to convince people that they have to vote for her as president. Which is why 'she is good but he is better' is a better approach imho.

[Platosearwax]

Nice one Phil. I was going to mention Bush's drug use when he was younger. I don't recall hearing nearly as much about Bush's probable cocaine use than I did about Clinton and his "didn't inhale" business.

Personally, I could care less about either case, but I was amazed that the Bush thing just went away quietly. Maybe I shouldn't have.

[OCSteve]

Republican attack politics

No doubt they are to come, but so far most of the nastiness I’ve seen has been blue on blue. So have all the claims of voting irregularities. I do admit to enjoying a bit of schadefreunde hearing Bill whine about unions pushing workers to vote for Obama.

I do however agree with your analysis here and in the previous post. And those who believe that HRC is the stronger candidate because Republicans have been demonizing her for years and there is nothing new are wrong IMO. For instance, some interesting things concerning her health plan are starting to trickle out via FIA requests.

What a lot of folks are not recognizing is that many Republicans really want HRC to be the Democratic candidate. You want a Republican in the WH for four more years? Go ahead and make HRC the Democratic candidate…

[Sarah J]

Once again, what I wanted to say, but better.

Thanks.

Now can we print this out and hand it out outside of the polling places?

[KCinDC]

I think that Bush's drug use was an issue, in that I wanted someone from our "liberal" media to ask him, "Governor Bush, you used illegal drugs when you were younger, and you came through that and got your life back on track. Do you think you would be better off today if you had spent some time in prison, which is the 'solution' you support for other drug users?"

[wonkie]

The only explanation I can think of for the "reasoning" of the virulent anti-Obamas is that they are actually Republicans. I mean, what the heck do they think is going to be the logical outcome of their carping? Edwards isn't going to get the nomination. In part because they are joining forces with the HRC campaign and spreading HRC slams on Obama, the logical outcome of their Obama Derangement Syndrome is Hillary for our candidate.

And she is the one Democrat who stands a reasonable chance of losing.

They are helping to steer us toward the loser.

So Avedon Carol, some of the TalkLefties, taylor Marsh, etc, must secretly be Republicans.

[Slartibartfast]

I think Al probably would have gotten a great deal less flack if he'd said "I took the initiative in funding the development of the Internet", but the reality is the flack would have been delivered on other topics.

I actually watched that interview, and my first thought was "holy crap, Al just said he invented the Internet". Having been a frequent user since before Al became a senator (DARPANET days), it made me throw up in my mouth just a little. Not because he'd said that, but because it borrowed the halo from the people who actually made it work.

And, sure, you can argue that Al meant something different. The nice thing about non-political life is that you have plenty of time to go back and edit your resume, before sending it out.

[garyb50]

Slartibartfast, link me to that interview.

I believe you're making that one up.

[Slartibartfast]

Here ya go.

[rilkefan]

"Who can forget this delightful statement from a few months ago?"

Anyone who was actually paying attention, and read the full, widely-discussed quote in the liberal blogosphere? Or anyone who, coming upon the quote later, looks at the source and has the minimally sophisticated blogging skills to wonder whether the WaPo reporter might be a hack and check?

[ral]

More to the story.

Google is a wonderful thing. This is the first hit for "gore internet interview". The second hit is the CNN transcript.

[Adam]

That interview seems pretty vague to me. I did like this bit from the second page, though:

"Let me tell you where I stand on Social Security, and maybe that will explain where I stand on all the particulars," she said. "First of all, I reject the conventional wisdom and the Republican talking points that Social Security is in a crisis. I do not agree with that."

She said she would follow President Ronald Reagan's example by appointing a bipartisan commission to study the issue and avoid making her own recommendations until it reports back.

"I'm not advocating any of it as a presidential candidate or as a president," she said. "But I am strongly advocating a bipartisan process, similar to what we had in '83, and when that gets set up, as I hope it will be when I'm president, then I'm going to see what the bipartisan members are going to come up with."

So -- Reagan bad; using a Reagan-based approach to Social Security good. Got it.

[garyb50]

Thank you, ral, that was a great article.

[Adam]

** That was in response to rilkefan's suggestion that the Clinton torture quote was out of context; I certainly don't see it, but I'd like to know more. I did think that part of the article was worth highlighting, though.

Also, I don't think that the point is really whether Al Gore did, in fact, invent the Internet -- I think that, for present purposes, it's that many Dems feel that it was unfair in the way it was presented and that they didn't hit back hard enough on it. At least, that's how I think it ties in to the current fracas.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, that is a cool article. I hadn't read it in several years.

[hilzoy]

Hmm: TypePad thinks I'm spam. (And: yes, Gary, I know.) So, splitting y comment into two:

rilkefan: I read the bits Greg Sargent posted, if that's what you are referring to, and share Mark Kleiman's reaction.

[hilzoy]

Of course, it might have affected that reaction that I knew that HRC had not taken an unequivocal stance against torture in the past, though there is some question about whether or not she changed her mind. See, e.g., here and text (with actual audio!)

Sorry about my blogging skills. I will try to do better.

[Justin]

My 2 cents. It's not you. You're on target. BTD & Talk Left in general seem irrationally devoted to the DLC/HRC Inc. campaign.

[ral]

garyb50, my pleasure.

[Jesurgislac]

OCSteve: What a lot of folks are not recognizing is that many Republicans really want HRC to be the Democratic candidate.

What a lot of Republicans are not recognising is that most people who never supported Bush don't care about what purports to be the electoral judgement of the folks who supported a loser in 2000 and 2004.

Any of the three frontrunners would make a good President. And, given a fair and free election, one of them will be. It's pointless trying to discuss which one would please Republicans: Republicans have demonstrated that they'll vote for a ham sandwich in a flight suit if it's marked (R) and comes with a big enough codpiece.

[Redstocking]

As a Hillary supporter, I am amazed how anti-Hillary left bloggers seem to be. Maybe you are convinced HIllary would lose because you tend to talk among yourselves and not to older people, women, Hispanics, poor people, union members, high school graduates. Bloggers come from the young, well-educated demographic group that Obama appeals to.

Given how pro-Obama OW seems to be, I hope you can reassure me about something. If HRC wins the nomination, will liberal bloggers be able to support the Democratic nominee sufficiently well to help her get elected?

I am disheartened by Obama's claims that he really won Nevada. After all his accusations of voting abuses, that seems disingenuous.

I am convinced that Obama might lose because he tends to shoot himself in the foot, e.g, Reagan, Repubicans, the party of ideas, etc. He doesn't yet get American presidential politics. Emphasis on his appeal to independents and Republicans clouds the fact that he isn't necessarily the Democratic favorite in the primaries.

[hilzoy]

Redstocking: of course. I supported John Kerry, of whom I thought a lot less. Likewise, Michael Dukakis. (*shudders*)

I mean, I used to work in the MA StateHouse when Dukakis was governor. I didn't know *him* -- I was a lowly intern, etc. -- but I saw him in action a lot. I thought he was smart, but had about as much political skills and vision and insight as my toaster. I had watched him shoot himself in the foot repeatedly, until he found John Sasso, who was his dark twin, doing the things Dukakis would never even think of doing himself; but Sasso had been forced out shortly before Dukakis won the nomination (it seems so quaint, in retrospect, that he was forced out b/c of the horrid scandal caused by the fact that he had passed out true info about another candidate to reporters.) So Dukakis was on his own. I had seen Dukakis in action in the pre-Sasso years. I was therefore wholly unsurprised by the various utterly ham-handed moments that followed.

Still, I supported him completely. The alternative (GHWB) was much worse, I thought.

[liberal japonicus]

Sure, Redstocking, but I think you are mistaking passion for X as animus against Y. And, when one runs on an inevitability platform, you are not going to fire up the people who are most hungry for change, which I think would define bloggers as a group.

[hilzoy]

Probably worth saying: right now, we are choosing a nominee. I believe -- and I know people here differ; I'm just reporting my own view -- that we are about to repeat the mistake we made when we nominated John Kerry. I very much want us not to.

If HRC is nominated, then I'll look at the GOP nominees, and -- well, there isn't a one of them who isn't, in my book, hugely worse than HRC. I mean, I think McCain is one of the better GOP candidates, but think about that quote about stimulus. Not to mention his "hundred year in Iraq" moments. How could I possibly not support Clinton, given that choice? And how could I possibly not just support her, but work hard to help her win?

I'm quite used to supporting candidates I think are non-optimal. I have been doing it my whole life. But that doesn't mean I won't also try to explain why I think we should choose a different nominee. Because I'd much rather support someone better.

[Shredder]

Late to the discussion, but I have to point out that Clinton is quite a bit more progressive than Obama, that the importance of her vote on Iraq (yes, a mistake) has been grossly exaggerated, and that IMO the RW noise machine will shred Obama into little pieces but will not be able to do much to Clinton.

But the main point is that Clinton is more progressive in her policies than Obama, whose tendency to regurgitate the GOP concern-troll "bipartisan" garbage demonstrates poor judgment and poor leadership skills. The last thing we need is more centrism and walking on RW eggshells. Obama has fallen into this trap that has been proven such a disaster for the current Dem leadership. What we need is principled leadership and Clinton has that decisively over Obama, and, most importantly, has the pedigree to prove it. Obama would make a great VP though - he just needs some more chops. If you were hiring a lawyer to sue your HMO, would you hire someone with a few years' experience of practice, or a senior partner who has had 15 or 20 years of litigation experience?

We need a fighter - with demonstrated success in going up against the worst of the worst. Obama is alot of great things, but not that.

For the record I am currently an Edwards supporter.

[Shredder]

Late to the discussion, but I have to point out that Clinton is quite a bit more progressive than Obama, that the importance of her vote on Iraq (yes, a mistake) has been grossly exaggerated, and that IMO the RW noise machine will shred Obama into little pieces but will not be able to do much to Clinton.

But the main point is that Clinton is more progressive in her policies than Obama, whose tendency to regurgitate the GOP concern-troll "bipartisan" garbage demonstrates poor judgment and poor leadership skills. The last thing we need is more centrism and walking on RW eggshells. Obama has fallen into this trap that has been proven such a disaster for the current Dem leadership. What we need is principled leadership and Clinton has that decisively over Obama, and, most importantly, has the pedigree to prove it. Obama would make a great VP though - he just needs some more chops. If you were hiring a lawyer to sue your HMO, would you hire someone with a few years' experience of practice, or a senior partner who has had 15 or 20 years of litigation experience?

We need a fighter - with demonstrated success in going up against the worst of the worst. Obama is alot of great things, but not that.

For the record I am currently an Edwards supporter.

[Redstocking]

I first voted in a presidential election in 1968, when I was 23. Remember I couldn't vote until I was 21. Of course I had hoped to vote for Bobby Kennedy. I believe I have been supporting nonoptimal candidates in the general election all my life. Actually, I would be more enthusiastic about either HRC or Obama than I usually am about the Democratic nominee and willing to work harder for either of them..

Liberal japonicus, I might very well be mistaking passion for Obama as animus against Hllary. I differ from many of you, not so much in your criticisms of Hillary, but in your enthusiam about Obama as the candidate of change. I would like them both on the ticket; their strengths complement each other. Whatever you think about Bill Clinton, he did utilize his vice president much more than presidents usually do.

[KCinDC]

Redstocking, I think you're following an inaccurate stereotype about the age of bloggers and the blogosphere. We're not generally a bunch of 20-somethings (and some of the most most anti-Obama folks in the blogosphere are the ones who are younger). A MyDD survey in 2006 showed a median age of 46 for Democratic blog activists.

Hilzoy may be younger than you are, but she's hardly a kid, and it would be a strange demographic analysis that would classify her (or me) as "young".

[rilkefan]

"As a Hillary supporter, I am amazed how anti-Hillary left bloggers seem to be."

hilzoy, didn't you once comment on this blog that you were pleased to see an anti-Clinton argument, because you were looking for reasons to vote against her? It's in that context that I wonder why you're knowingly quoting in emphasis the deceptive analysis of some hack reporter and not, "I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that." Which makes "delightful" seem pretty sad to me. As to Kleiman's "I get to read as uncharitably as I want when it concerns HRC" update, I have to assume he was busy that day and couldn't be bothered to read that article about the WWII interrogators HRC cites.

[JFTR I stopped reading Kleiman when he posted some private criticism I made of one of his posts (which on the basis of an anecdotal opinion made sweeping generalizations) without permission and without context.]

[KCinDC]

I think rather than age (since bloggers overall aren't young), the explanation for the lower level of support for Clinton is that the average Democratic blogger or commenter is more liberal than the average Democratic voter.

[Donna]

I think the Clinton supporters really are defensive of the Democratic brand after years of slime politics directed at the Clintons and the party that only Bill Clinton has represented in the Oval Office for the past 27 years. So they are angry, determined and eager to show how to beat the Republicans at their own game.

Trouble is, they are practicing that low sort of politics on another fine Democrat. That behavior is not exactly 'principled leadership' of the sort that attracts folks to the Democractic party.

[Gary Farber]

"What a lot of Republicans are not recognising...."

"It's pointless trying to discuss which one would please Republicans...."

The problem with this sort of analysis is that it -- again -- treats Republicans as if they were all homogenous clones, of identical mind, rather than individuals of different minds, on a spectrum.

It treats people like OCSteve, Ron Paul, John Boehner, and Lincoln Chafee, as if they all think identically, hold the same positions, and are equally reasonable to deal with on all subjects.

The problem with this analysis is that it has little to do with reality.

It therefore tends to lack usefulness in this reality.

"Republicans have demonstrated that they'll vote for a ham sandwich in a flight suit if it's marked (R) and comes with a big enough codpiece."

Some Republicans have demonstrated that.

The difference between "some" and "all" is large.

"Bloggers come from the young, well-educated demographic group that Obama appeals to."

I'm 49, and Hilzoy is around my age. Generalizations, especially inaccurate generalizations, aren't terribly useful unless they're applicable.

Similarly, a claim that "left bloggers" are "anti-Hillary"... well, cite, please, to your source to support that claim? What poll are you pointing to, to support such a claim of fact?

I assume you have a cite, because an unsupportable opinion about a question of fact isn't useful to productive discussion. If it's not supportable, it merely muddies the discussion with something that isn't demonstrable true. Facts are useful to discuss, and it's important to be able to distinguish them from feelings and impressions and opinions we pull from... places we can't cite.

"I am disheartened by Obama's claims that he really won Nevada."

"Won" is meaningless absent definition. Obama won the most delegates (at this round, apparently); Clinton had the largest number of overall voters at the end. These seem to be facts; "really" won is a meaningless term, undefined. Debating "what does 'really' mean?" doesn't strike me as a good use of time, but that's me.

"...clouds the fact that he isn't necessarily the Democratic favorite in the primaries."

I'm as interested in the caucuses. But who the favorite is is, last I looked, the point of the contest.

And Democrats don't exist as platonic ideals. Democrats are people who vote for a Democrat in an election. Whomever they vote for is the Democratic favorite.

Attempting to claim that some people aren't sufficiently Democratic or aren't "real" Democrats would require defining "real" Democrts, and establishing a test to distinguish them from non-"real" Democrats, non-platonic Democrats.

This is, I think, a highly destructive and insupportable view of American politics.

[Redstocking]

I stand corrected on the age of bloggers. Older women are almost certainly underrepresented. I have taught about the Internet and computers for the last 15 years as a librarian, and older women need the most coaxing to actually sit down at the computer. It always astonishes me how many people over 40 fear the library online catalog (not that most of them are sterling examples of user-friendly software).

KCinDC, you are probably right about the average Democratic voter. At the very least, they would be more likely to disown the liberal label.

[Katherine]

"the explanation for the lower level of support for Clinton is that the average Democratic blogger or commenter is more liberal than the average Democratic voter."

More liberal, more of a political junkie & thus are evaluating her entire Senate career instead of her talent for copying John Edwards' policy proposals when it's politically convenient to do so, & more bitter about Iraq.

[Katherine]

that said, while bloggers are not a bunch of 20somethings, they are younger on average than the Democratic primary electorate. Clinton's advantage with people over 65 is about as pronounced as Obama's advantage with people under 30, & over-65 is definitely underrepresented online.

[Jay Jerome]

KathyF: "the real way to convince anyone not to vote for Hillary is to knock her experience cred."

Yeah, right - knock Hillary's 'experience cred' - which means knocking the previous Clinton administration's accomplishments (one of the main selling points to reelect another Democratic administration) and thereby undermine Democratic chances in the upcoming presidential elections.

Or doesn't the term 'shooting yourself in the foot' ring a bell?

If O'Bama wants to do what's best for the country, he should remove his skinny little rump from the race, and wait his turn another eight years, during which time he can season his own meager record with some 'real voting cred' instead of undermining our chances to evict the Neo-Nitwit Republicans from the executive office for the next 16 years.

[Jay Jerome]

OCSteve: "You want a Republican in the WH for four more years? Go ahead and make HRC the Democratic candidate…"

You want a Republican in the WH for four more years? Go ahead and let Obama whittle away and antagonize the Black vote against the Clintons in the upcoming election.

And BTW- the Democratic candidate isn't HRC - it's HBC (Hill-Bill Clinton) - another reason to vote Democratic: because you get a two-fer-one presidency.

[Jason Williams]

Shredder, I think you're misunderstanding Obama's bi-partisanship. As Hilzoy said, he's bi-partisan in a good way. That is, without compromising on his ideas and policies, but working successfully across the board on a particular issue to get things done. Heck, just read the link to another of her posts half way down this post

And Hillary doesn't have the huge amount of experience she always prides herself on. Can someone tell me where that is coming from?

[novakant]

There is no "bright line", Clinton is deliberately vague on torture:

Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless selected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.

Compare and contrast with Obama:

White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday condemned the CIA’s use of brutal interrogation techniques and said the Bush administration’s reported authorization of such methods “is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security.” (...) "torture is not a part of the answer — it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach" (...) [it is] "time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows."

If you're against torture, you're backing the wrong candidate.