Playing To Win

by hilzoy

As many of you know, I haven't been following political coverage for the past week or so. While this presents some problems for me as a blogger, it does have a few advantages, and one of them is: having missed all the coverage of Hillary's Tears, I do not need to wonder whether I am being unduly affected by it. (I did see the video of The Tears themselves, and failed to see what all the fuss was about.)

My main concern about Hillary Clinton has always concerned foreign policy. On the domestic side, I think that the proposals of the three main Democratic candidates are pretty close to one another, close enough that their differences will be swamped by whatever changes have to be made to them in order to get them adopted. On foreign policy, however, I think that she and Obama are quite different, for reasons I hope to explain later. Moreover, as Matt Yglesias and Tom Schaller (see also Ari Berman) have pointed out, her advisors tended to support the war in Iraq, while Obama's tended to oppose it, and this worries me a great deal.

Most of all, though, there is her vote on the Iraq war. Whether she voted as she did because she thought it was right or because she thought that George W. Bush was trustworthy enough that Congress could authorize him to go to war confident in the knowledge that he would not abuse that power, that vote, the most important she cast as a Senator, was disastrously wrong. Moreover, she didn't just vote for the Iraq War Resolution; she voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have required Bush to go back to the UN for authorization to use military force. And she cast this vote without having bothered to read the relevant National Intelligence Estimate. Which is to say: she took the decision whether or not to go to war -- to invade another country, and to put both Iraqi citizens and members of our military in harm's way -- without bothering to do her homework first.

Given a choice between Clinton and any intelligent, well-informed, basically sane candidate who inhabits some recognizable corner of the reality-based community, and who did not support the decision to go to war, Clinton's vote for the Iraq War resolution, especially in light of her vote against the Levin Amendment and her failure to inform herself adequately, is a dealbreaker for me.

All this started out as a preface to my main point, which concerns the political effects that nominating Clinton would have. Briefly: while my main reasons for opposing Clinton involve policy (see above), I also think that to nominate her would be to throw away a political opportunity that comes along once in a generation. I'll put my arguments for that point below the fold.

I think, not particularly originally, that many voters have become disenchanted with the Republican Party. For this reason, if I had to bet now on the outcome of the election, I would bet on the Democrat. What I'm not at all clear on is how the Democrat will win. And how we win matters immensely. On the one hand, I think this election could genuinely change people's views about the two parties in ways that could reshape the political landscape. On the other, it could not. And a lot depends on how the Democrats play their hand.

When people talk about what would happen if Hillary Clinton were nominated, some of us, myself included, note that a sizable number of voters dislike Hillary Clinton, and will continue to dislike her whatever she does. We could argue about whether this is fair or unfair, but it seems to be a fact, and as such, it should be taken into account, at least if we're serious about winning.

The usual response to this line of argument is: well, the Republicans will demonize anyone the Democrats nominate, so even if more people dislike her now, those same people will end up disliking any Democratic nominee by the time the Republican Party gets through with him or her. To which my side normally responds: yes, but why make it easy for them? Why hand them a candidate who comes pre-demonized? Why not make them work for it?

I think this response is basically right. But it has a corollary that is, I think, more important. Namely:

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.

Perhaps I am wrong about the Republican Party. Perhaps the people who gave us the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the accusations that the Clintons had killed Vince Foster, the sneaky phone calls questioning John McCain's sanity and insinuating that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock, and so on and so forth, have had a complete change of heart, and will henceforth be models of decorum and propriety. As a citizen, I would be delighted if this were true. Personally, though, I'm not counting on it.

For that reason I think that Democrats should prepare a sort of Aikido strategy: turning our opponents' attacks against them. We should try to set things up in such a way that if the Republicans go after our candidate in an underhanded, dishonest, and despicable way, that fact will be as clear to ordinary voters as it could possibly be. (If they don't, no problem: Aikido strategies, unlike, say, preemptive violence, do not involve anticipating someone else's attack by launching an attack of one's own. This is one reason why I'm not attempting to defend my view of Republican tactics: I'm not proposing that we do anything morally problematic based on that view; just that we set things up so that if they launch some sort of despicable attack, we can turn it to our advantage. If they don't, as I said, I would be delighted.)

This would not have been so important in, say, 1996: in that year, people were not particularly ready to see Republican scorched-earth tactics for what they were. (Nor, in fairness, did Bob Dole use them.) This year, however, I think they are. If we capitalize on that fact, we have the chance to change people's perceptions of the two parties in a serious and lasting way. If we do not, then this will be one more election, which the Democrats will probably win, but it will not be a game-changer.

In this context, I think that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a disastrous mistake. Of all the people whom we are at all likely to nominate, she is the one whom people would be most inclined to believe the worst of. Some of those people -- the ones who thought the Clintons had Vince Foster killed and hung crack pipes on their Christmas trees -- are presumably unreachable by Democrats. But others -- the ones who don't pay close attention to these things, and came away from the 1990s with a vague sense that the Clintons were just plain sleazy -- are people we can reach.

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.

Both of these things -- the fact that any given attack will be less likely to be believed by ordinary, reachable people, and the fact that the Republicans will therefore have to attack harder to produce the same effects -- make it much, much more likely that people will see those attacks for what they are. They therefore make it much more likely that this election will genuinely change the political landscape.

This analysis turns on the idea that in this election, ordinary voters -- people who do not follow political campaigns in detail -- are more than usually open to seeing through Republican attacks. If you don't believe that this is true -- if you think, for instance, that those attacks will be effective not just on some people, but on the same numbers of people, regardless of who the Democrats nominate -- then you should reject it. But if you think this might be the moment when people actually see the Republicans' attacks for what they are, then I think it matters to set things up in such a way that this is as likely as possible. And that means not nominating Hillary Clinton.

This matters not just for Democrats, but for our country. When people can get away with sliming candidates, with making attacks that are not just false, but despicable, our democracy suffers. As citizens, we have, I think, an obligation to do our best to check out the factual basis of any attacks for ourselves, and not to reward those who make them. But we should also hope that our politics changes in such a way that attacks that are really beyond the pale just stop working: that they turn off more people than they convince.

***

There's another reason why I think that nominating Hillary Clinton would make this election less likely to transform the political landscape, namely: she provokes bad reactions not only in Republicans but in Democrats.

Many Democrats, myself included, believe that the Clintons were subjected to an unprecedented campaign of vilification during the 1990s. We are angry about this. Since I share this anger, it should go without saying that I find it completely comprehensible. But I don't think that it would be a good idea for us to nominate a candidate who brings it out in us, especially not in an election that truly has the potential to reshape the political landscape.

Most obviously, when Hillary Clinton is attacked, it makes a lot of us angry all over again. And it seems to me that a lot of Democrats don't just get angry in whatever way the current attack warrants. We have a lot of leftover anger from the 1990s, and it tends to spill out. I don't think this is particularly useful if we want to win.

Worse, I think that some Democrats are inclined to respond to attacks that remind them of the 1990s by reflexively assuming that those attacks are wrong, This risks blinding us to serious problems. Here's an example:

Back in the 1990s, I believed, as I said, that the Clintons were subjected to a campaign of vilification that made me very angry. However, I did not think it followed from this that not a single one of the various accusations made against them was true. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day, and I didn't see any particular reason why the utter odiousness of the people who went after the Clintons meant that they could not be right on rare occasions as well.

Leaving Monica Lewinsky to one side, the accusation from that period that seemed most troubling to me was the cattle futures controversy, in which Hillary Clinton started trading cattle futures, a type of investment with which she had no experience, and turned an initial $1,000 investment into nearly $100,000 within ten months. I fully expect that if Clinton is nominated, the Republicans will bring this and other accusations from the 1990s up again. Imagine, for the moment, that they do, and that there is some evidence -- suggestive, but not definite -- that a Democratic policy wonk I once spoke to about this was right to say: oh, well, that was obviously just a bribe. Maybe a legal bribe, but a bribe nonetheless*. (If you don't like this example, just imagine another one.)

How do you think Democrats would respond? I think that a number of us would be likely to narrow our eyes, dig in our heels, and assume that this was just one more false accusation, and prepare for battle. A significant number of us would be mad enough about the 1990s that we would not try to figure out whether this particular accusation had any truth to it, and if so, what we should do about it. I don't think this would be nearly as likely to happen if suggestive, but not definitive, evidence of wrongdoing by some other candidate came to light.

Or, more briefly: our anger would make us stupid. And stupid is not a good way to be if you want to win an election.

***

I take it it goes without saying that all of this is unfair. While I think that a number of criticisms of the Clintons, and perhaps a few attacks as well, might have been warranted, I don't think it was the least bit fair that they were subjected to either the amount or the kind of vilification that they received. And everything I've said above is true precisely because Hillary Clinton was vilified. It's because of that fact that many people are inclined to believe the worst of her reflexively. And it's also because of that fact that Democrats are inclined to react to attacks on her defensively and angrily.

But fairness isn't the point when it comes to nominating a candidate for the Presidency. No one is entitled to be the Democratic nominee, and all sorts of people have lost their chance to be nominated unfairly. It's unfair that Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson had to go up against one of the strongest Democratic fields in living memory. It's unfair that Paul Tsongas looked like a dweeb. It's unfair that Richard Nixon's five o'clock shadow played any role at all in the 1960 election, hard as I find it to regret its effects. I could go on and on, and that's without getting into all the people who didn't even bother to run, or for that matter to enter politics, for unfair reasons.

If we want to, we could take this opportunity to redress the injustices done to Hillary Clinton. Personally, I'd rather win, and win in a way that makes it harder for those kinds of injustices to be perpetrated on anyone in the future.

***

* Footnote: The policy wonk in question knows a lot about Washington, has worked there, and has followed politics quite closely for a long time. At the time we spoke, s/he had not made up his or her mind about whom to support; in particular, s/he had not decided against Clinton. I do not believe that s/he remembered the cattle futures scandal until I brought it up, so the fact that s/he was still undecided does not reflect a willingness to countenance what s/he took to be (possibly legal) bribery.

Comments

[OCSteve]

I think you are 100% correct. I can see myself voting for Obama. There’s almost no way I’d ever vote for HRC. Maybe if Bush was eligible for a third term, maybe if McCain is the R candidate I could do it, but unlikely.

You are correct that it’s mostly unfair – but it is what it is.

[Porcupine_Pal]

Reawakening the hostility surrounding the anti-Clinton attacks would be a sufficient reason to avoid a general election featuring the principal objects/participants of that episode.

My own preferences for Obama are related.

He is a more electable candidate, entering the general election without all of the Clinton associated antagonism (although the Clintons may themselves put him in such a spot by the time the general election arrives - ie, the 'fairy tale'; Martin Luther King vs. LBJ invitations to racial polarization)

More importantly, Obama offers the greatest liklihood of a return to the rule of law. The abnegation of treaties, the disregard of our own criminal law, the abandonment of habeas corpus, the invasions of personal privacy, rendition, torture, the wholesale conversion of American government as the rule of men rather than laws, represents a present fact of life.

We live in a nation that is ruled by fiat. There will be precious little motivation for whoever succeeds Bush/Cheney to cede that power.

Given that impeachment is not an apparently viable option, Obama seems to represent the indiviual least likely to hold onto the raw power that now resides within the Executive.

[Bruce Baugh]

Hilzoy, I have a data question. I know that Bill Clinton retained very high favorability ratings throughout the impeachment, left office well regarded in opinion polls, and (to the best of my knowledge) retains most of that today. I don't know of much actual polling about Hillary Clinton. Do we actually know what the public thinks of her? It seems to me quite possible that folks like OCSteve are, with all due respect to Steve's many cool qualities, much more outliers than the media-channeled discourse would suggest. But I don't really know, and it's not clear to me who does.

[cleek]

Sullivan has made a habit of posting emails from his readers that sound exactly like what OCSteve wrote: thoughtful conservative says he'd vote for Obama over most of the Republican field (though would have to wait and see if McCain is the R nominee), but would never vote for HRC.

but, it's looking like HRC is going to be one. so, i guess i have to hope she can find a way to diffuse some of that hatred, especially among members of the media, who utterly adore McCain. and i hope she finds it soon.

[Bruce Baugh]

(Not that Clinton is my preferred candidate. Of N available Democrats, she's Nth on my list. But I am skeptical of much of the criticism of her on grounds other than disastrous policy inclinations and evil advisors, too.)

[rilkefan]

"I think you are 100% correct. I can see myself voting for Obama. There’s almost no way I’d ever vote for HRC."

OCS, what Rs would you vote for over Clinton (or would you just not vote)? And based on what policy/politics/exposure to her message?

[North]

I think it's also worth remembering that Obama's base of support is much younger than Clinton's (in fact, 36% of Obama's support in Iowa was from people under 30). That has no real bearing on which of them would be a better president, but Obama will bring a lot of young people into the Democratic party. Since party identification is something that forms relatively young and remains pretty stable throughout life, the effect of an Obama nomination/presidency will be to dramatically strengthen the Democratic party in the long run. That would offer us a pretty good chance at having a solid long-term progressive movement in this country, and it's one of the major reasons I'm supporting Obama.

[Doctor Science]

OCSteve wrote:
I can see myself voting for Obama. There’s almost no way I’d ever vote for HRC.

Does that mean you'd vote for Huckabee instead of HRC? Presumably it *does* mean you'd vote for Romney or Giuliani.

I actually find statements like this slightly baffling, because of the 3 Dem front-runners HRC is the one who looks most like a Republican to me, especially on war & foreign policy issues -- as hilzoy said.

One reason for Republicans to reject HRC more than Obama or Edwards *does* spring to mind, of course -- and given the state of the national rhetoric in the past few weeks/months/years, it would be foolish for me to think otherwise. It would be nice of me to be nice, but it would be foolish.

[hilzoy]

Dr. S: offhand, I don't think it's sexism, at least not directly. To think that this was a reason to be more hostile to HRC than to Obama, I'd have to think that people likely to be motivated by (conscious or unconscious) sexism were not also likely to be motivated by (conscious or unconscious) racism.

Since I don't think that, I'm inclined to go with the hypothesis that fifteen years of vilification have had an effect.

(NB: "at least not directly" means: while I think that the Republicans would have attacked Bill Clinton by any means available, and did, some wives would have been less amenable to being used in those attacks than Hilary was. An extremely popular one, like Elizabeth Edwards, would have been less usable in that role, but so would someone along the lines of Mamie Eisenhower.)

[liberal japonicus]

I love the aikido reference, though, if viewed on a more local level, HRC, because she has the ability to force her opponents to overreach, provides more energy with which to work, and therefore allowing a much stronger reversal. Which is, in essence, the thought behind some of the argument for her, with the parallel thought that some things need to be more strongly refuted. The opponent has to give you the energy that you use and the question is whether this negative energy should be channeled so that the throw is more spectacular or dissipated. We see people wrestling with that when the suggestion is made that a vote for Obama represents the icing over of the rifts that have developed in our society and a vote for Obama is simply a vote for forgetfulness, most clearly seen in the discussions about feminism, that is summarized by Dr. Science's comment.

I don't want to suggest that is the basis of any one individual's thoughts, but I think in the aggregate, one can see that.

This strangely is opposed by a strand of anti HRC thought, which is that she doesn't really represent change whereas Obama does. When look at Josh Marshall's take on the Redstate endorsements of Obama, you see him thinking that this is because of the game changing nature of Obama. On the other hand, Publius takes them as simple calculation of electability, and that those people want to maintain their incumbency so much, they are willing to support Obama over HRC.

All of this stands orthogonal to what the truth, in a sort of Rashomon like way. I really don't think we will know what is inside either HRC's or Obama's heart, but we do want the one who is the most 'authentic', and so a lot of the media's awful coverage reflects desires that we have.

[Babies For Obama]

I thought that you would be interested in knowing that BabiesForObama.com has just announced that it will be donating a portion of its profits to the Obama for America Campaign:

http://www.BabiesForObama.com

Thanks!

- Babies for Obama

[Doctor Science]

I'd have to think that people likely to be motivated by (conscious or unconscious) sexism were not also likely to be motivated by (conscious or unconscious) racism.

I disagree. There's is plenty of evidence that quite blatant sexism is given a pass -- and even encouragement -- that racism no longer can rely upon.

Exhibit A: Chris Matthews. Media Matters has a good, if stomach-turning, summary. If he were making similar comments about someone's race, he'd have been off the air years ago. Although Left Blogistan is up in arms about him, I see no sign of a generalized uproar, so I am forced to conclude that most people don't think he's being out of line.

[OCSteve]

Latest CNN/USA Today/Gallop out yesterday. (PDF)

She’s within the margin of error for favorable compared to Obama and McCain. But her unfavorable is 39% compared to Obama’s 28%. Her current unfavorable puts her with Giuliani and Romney. If you look at her unfavorable rating back when she was first lady it’s comparable to now: 40-45% most of the time, peaking as high as 53%. She has the highest “definitely vote for” but also the highest “definitely not vote for” and the lowest “consider voting for”. You either love her or hate her. One thing for sure – she consistently gets the lowest “no opinion” rating. I take all that to mean that hilzoy is right on the money. There is no way to change the mind of those who dislike her.

rilkefan: what Rs would you vote for over Clinton (or would you just not vote)?

Doctor Science: Does that mean you'd vote for Huckabee instead of HRC?

There is no R I would vote for this time around. I think they need to lose and lose big. There’s a chance I’ll just sit it out. Although I may vote for Obama or against McCain.

[Gromit]

Is that like Toys for Tots? Just what is Obama expected to do with all these donated babies?

[Gromit]

Referring to the spam upthread, of course. That's what happens when I take a call in the middle of the captcha check.

[Doctor Science]

There is no R I would vote for this time around

Ah, OK. And I should have remembered that you'd said that before, but, well, my brain.

[Jason Williams]

Very good post. A slightly off topic question to anyone who knows: In HDC's meet the press, she said after Obama's 2002 anti Iraq war speech, in 2003 he took the transcript down off his website, and HDC gave the impression that Obama was trying to pretend he had never opposed the war. Is this true?

I do think it unfair of her to claim that this was the whole basis of his campaign, and that now it is "ruined". A "fairytale". Although one of the things I loved about Obama is that he would speak his mind when no one else would. So did he really try to rewind time? If so, why?

[hilzoy]

Jason: I don't know. One thing I'd like to find out, though, is: did he "take it down", or did he create a new website in order to run for the Senate, and not put it up?

I want to do some digging on this. However, I think that the idea that anyone would oppose the war in 2002 and change his mind in 2004, or that he would do so out of pure political calculation, in Illinois, strikes me as a lot less plausible than Obama's actual explanation: that he didn't want to spark a disagreement with Kerry during the 2004 campaign.

[Katherine]

Right: the idea is that Obama was afraid to admit his Iraq war opposition in Illinois because he was afraid of Alan Keyes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because it was the best hope of stopping the war.

[rilkefan]

OCS - thanks. I'm still not clear why you'd vote for Obama but not HRC - is it the issues he's to her right on, or a sense that she doesn't have presidential character, or not wanting Bill back in the WH?

Also note I think you greatly overestimate the informedness of people polled, esp. in relative comparisons of the leading candidates.

Re the war: here's the best fairy-tale argument I've seen. This claims his campaign took down the speech saying it was out of date. I've seen it argued by Obama supporters that he didn't want to embarrass Kerry, which is a quite reasonable explanation if true.

It seems clear to me that both Obama and HRC have always opposed the war, that the AUMF vote was orthogonal to the invasion, and the candidates' stances in office have been very similar, so I as a war opponent don't have much of a decision point here, though Obama certainly doesn't have the Levin problem. (That's the first question I would ask HRC if I could. IIRC Feingold voted against that amendment too, so maybe there was some politicking behind the scenes.)

[rilkefan]

"However, I think that the idea that anyone would oppose the war in 2002 and change his mind in 2004"

I think the argument is that he wasn't as opposed in 02 as claimed and not as publicly committed to that afterwards as claimed. Compare e.g. Feingold.

[Katherine]

Here's the rebuttal.

I'm not sure why they're bringing this up again, unless it's to make Obama & his supporters so angry they start making mistakes.

The AUMF vote wasn't REMOTELY orthagonal, Clinton voted against amendments to require Bush to go back to Congress & the UN, she never expressed opposition in 2003, she supported the war throughout 2003 & said she had no regrets about the vote, and did not say she wouldn't have invaded as president until....actually I don't know when. The first clear statement I remember seeing was maybe 2006? But I could have missed something. It would be interesting if they could find actual anti-Iraq war statements from her before instead of distorting Obama's record.

[Katherine]

Here's the link. This ought not to be "he said she said" stuff. Clinton's portrayal of both Obama's actions & her own is sheer revisionism.

[Jason Williams]

Katherine's right. It seems rather hypocritical of Clinton to bring it up. It could backfire if someone challenged her on your point.

Thanks hilzoy, I think the Kerry-explanation sounds plausible.

[Katherine]

Useful chronology on Clinton's Iraq war stance.

[hilzoy]

rilkefan: I see two options for Clinton. (1) She viewed the vote on the Iraq War Resolution as a vote for the war, and voted for it. I probably don't have to explain why I think that's bad. (2) She viewed it as a way of strengthening Bush's hand at the UN, etc. This requires some explanation of her vote on the Levin Amendment, but let's just stipulate that one exists. This still leaves her believing Bush's assurances about how he would use this authority -- which is, in fact, the line she seems to be taking now.

Why should I not regard her willingness to trust someone so manifestly untrustworthy, especially on this topic, as absolutely damning? Especially since it was a vote to give the President the authority to go to war, and I would have thought the burden of proof would be on those who supported giving him that authority.

Why, just to put this tendentiously, should I not regard this vote as the equivalent of handing someone with a known blood-borne contagious disease, a burning desire to donate blood, and a history of unreliability the keys to the Red Cross blood bank, and then saying, when people died as a result of their contaminated transfusions: oh, I believed him when he said he wouldn't actually use those keys?

And would it really make a difference if someone in my family had been traumatized by being denied those keys on some earlier occasion? Would that excuse a lapse of judgment that left hundreds of thousands of people dead?

[hilzoy]

And, preemptively: yes, I realize that Clinton didn't pass the AUMF all by herself (or, in my analogy: that the unreliable person with the blood-borne disease had to get a whole lot of keys in order to gain access to the blood bank, and only one was hers.)

But she didn't have to give hers. Moreover, she could have raised her voice against it. She did not. That should be to her lasting shame.

[Jason Williams]

One of the most bothering things about Clinton is her refusal to accept that she was wrong. Is it so hard to say
"I was wrong on X for the reasons....."
"Now I believe Y for the reasons...."
I suppose one would be accused of flopping on the issues, but if you clearly explain the rationale behind the change, it shouldn't be too damning.

Mistakes should be used as things to learn from, not to hide from.

[bob mcmanus]

Why should I not regard her willingness to trust someone so manifestly untrustworthy, especially on this topic, as absolutely damning?

Wait a minute, Bush was manifestly untrustworthy in the fall of 2002? Was this common knowledge, supported by polls, a constant refrain in the Media? Can I have some quotes to this effect, during the period, by public figures with mainstream credibility?

The "story" just keeps getting better & better as the years go by.

[hilzoy]

Bob M: on the question of being willing to use an authorization for the use of military force only to go to the UN, not for unilateral invasion? I think he was.

[Gromit]

What jumps out at me from reading the fuller Obama quotes is just how achingly stupid it was to field a candidate who voted to authorize this catastrophic war in the first place. It put the unequivocally anti-war wing of the party into the incredibly uncomfortable position of having to choose between feigning enthusiasm for a pair of war-enablers, or simply letting Bush/Cheney have four more years without a fight.

It is clear in those 2004 quotes that Obama found himself forced to temper his opposition to the war precisely because the Democratic party, in its infinite wisdom, decided to make the war an alabatross around its own neck. That Hillary Clinton and her surrogates would use this in a dishonest attempt to paint Obama as inconsistent is pretty reprehensible, especially considering that if she does ultimately win the nomination, he and other anti-war public figures will again be forced to downplay the foolishness of that vote in order to stave off McCain's 100 Years War.

[Ara]

Doctor Science: Thanks for that great Media Matters link. Wow, Matthews truly is repugnant.

I'm sick of people just saying bigoted things and covering it by claiming that they're just talking straight or saying what everybody already thinks anyway (let us call this the Eminem defense, for lack of a better exemplar). Really tired of people thinking they are doing something politically provocative or fresh or daring, by means of it, making some kind of bold statement. Really tired of people thinking that ancient prejudices somehow represent something new.

I always feel like saying: "No. Really. Some of us really never had that thought. Really. And we're not uptight. And we're not constrained by political correctness. And, no, it is not the case that we've had the thought and are in denial over having had that thought. And, no, don't start casting aspersions about whether we are real men or real women because of it. No, really. you'll just have to wrap your brain around this: it's just you. And probably the sleazy people you number among your intimate friends."

[john miller]

Bob, I second hilzoy on that one. Bush had already made it clear that he didn't even think he needed to go to Congress, much less the UN.

However, I don't hold the vote itself against Clinton. Several people who should have known better voted the same way. But, for example, Kerry made it very clear why he voted the way he did and what he expected form the President. And both Kerry and Edwards did acknowledge that the vote was a mistake.

Clinton has never done so.

[Margaret Swank]

Someone...anyone address Obama's lack of experience. Unless of course all you anti-republicans are skeered to actually asking the man how he plans to end this damnable war.
In that case lets just elect him because he is soooo charming, and the first black man to actually have a chance of winning the presidency.

[hilzoy]

Margaret Swank: start here. Then try here. I, for one, came to support him because I'm a policy wonk, and he kept turning up doing really good things. His charm, and the fact that it would be wonderful to elect an African-American president, are just the icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.

[cleek]

Wait a minute, Bush was manifestly untrustworthy in the fall of 2002?

well, yes. plenty of people were wondering, "Hey, wait. Where are these WMDs he keeps going on about? Looks to me like he's just making this sh!t up in order to get the war he wants.."

[rilkefan]

hilzoy: "rilkefan: I see two options for Clinton."

I think I've explained my view of the events in question about a dozen times here without it being even engaged afair - I can't see why another time would help.

[OCSteve]

rilkefan: is it the issues he's to her right on, or a sense that she doesn't have presidential character, or not wanting Bill back in the WH?

All of the above? It’s tough to explain because 80% of it is visceral. That is the part that is hard to explain. She wouldn’t get my vote for dog-catcher, because I like dogs…

Let’s see… She scares me. I think that “Cheney with hair” is a good description. Anyone who wants power that badly, who’s worked her whole life to get it - should never have it IMO. Then I’m tired of this dynasty thing – I want new blood in there.

Finally, it is just my impression. HRC makes me cringe when I listen to her. Obama actually gives me hope even though I disagree with 70% of his stated policy goals.

[Redstocking]

I am a glutton for punishment. I am very apprehensive about what I am about to say in this forum, but it does need to be addressed. I have seen little discussion of how Obama reacted to Jackson's attack on Clinton's so-called NH tears. Jackson claimed she was crying about her appearance but she never cried about Katrina victims, implying she is not truly concerned about African-Americans. Edwards lost some of his feminists supporters over a much less critical reaction to the "tears", eg. Kathe Pollitt. Is Obama given a free pass? Has he criticized Jackson?

I worry that Obama is more concerned about his election than about the Democratic Party. Why in the world would the apostle of unity and hope try to portray the Clintons, who have great support in the African-American community, as racists? This whole brouhaha about Hillary's remarks on King and Johnson makes no sense, and many people feel the Obama's people are behind it, but trying to conceal their support. Edwards jumped on the race card train as well, implying that Hillary had given credit to "some politician in Washington" instead of Dr. King. A strange way to characterize the president of the United State.

Here is an excerpt from today's Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: When we arrived in South Carolina yesterday this was The State newspaper, and the headlines agree to this. And let me share it with you and our viewers: "Clinton Camp Hits Obama, Attacks `painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama," and "remarks about" Martin Luther "King." Bob Herbert, in The New York Times, columnist, weighed in this way: "I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama's main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify rather than further polarize the country. ....

What is this all about?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, beats me, because there's not one shred of truth in what you've just read. And I regret that, because obviously a lot of people have been, you know, given information or an impression that is absolutely false.

First, with respect to Dr. King, you know, Tim, I was 14 years old when I heard Dr. King speak in person. He is one of the people that I admire most in the world, and the point that I was responding to from Senator Obama himself in a number of speeches he was making is his comparison of himself to President Kennedy and Dr. King. And there is no doubt that the inspiration offered by all three of them is essential. It is critical to who we are as a nation, what we believe in, the dreams and aspirations that we all have. But I also said that, you know, Dr. King didn't just give speeches. He marched, he organized, he protested, he was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed. He understood that he had to move the political process and bring in those who were in political power, and he campaigned for political leaders, including Lyndon Johnson, because he wanted somebody in the White House who would act on what he had devoted his life to achieving.

Please explain to me what is wrong with Hillary's response?

[Redstocking]

" It’s tough to explain because 80% of it is visceral. That is the part that is hard to explain. She wouldn’t get my vote for dog-catcher, because I like dogs…"

I suspect and question my visceral reactions. That is where racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, xenophobia, jingoism are likely to nest. Apparently, saying things like the above about Hillary is acceptable political discourse. I can't imagine what would the reaction to someone's trashing Obama along these lines.

[Redstocking]

Shirley Chisholm, first African American woman to sit in the House of Representatives, May 21, 1969:

"Mr.Speaker, when a young woman graduates from college and starts looking for a job, she is likely to have a frustrating and even demeaning experience ahead of her. If she walks into an office for an interview, the first question she will be asked is, "Do you type?''

There is a calculated system of prejudice that lies unspoken behind that question. Why is it acceptable for women to be secretaries, librarians, and teachers, but totally unacceptable for them to be managers, administrators, doctors, lawyers, and Members of Congress.

The unspoken assumption is that women are different. They do not have executive ability orderly minds, stability, leadership skills, and they are too emotional.

It has been observed before, that society for a long time, discriminated against another minority, the blacks, on the same basis - that they were different and inferior. The happy little homemaker and the contented "old darkey" on the plantation were both produced by prejudice.

As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black.

Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as "for men only."

More than half of the population of the United States is female. But women occupy only 2 percent of the managerial positions. They have not even reached the level of tokenism yet No women sit on the AFL-CIO council or Supreme Court There have been only two women who have held Cabinet rank, and at present there are none. Only two women now hold ambassadorial rank in the diplomatic corps. In Congress, we are down to one Senator and 10 Representatives.

Considering that there are about 3 1/2 million more women in the United States than men, this situation is outrageous.:

[OCSteve]

Red: Apparently, saying things like the above about Hillary is acceptable political discourse.

Again, it is what it is. Is it acceptable political discourse to say that I dislike someone at a gut level? I think so. I hate my mailman. He just rubs me the wrong way. Is that unacceptable? Do I have to like him as a civil servant? I don’t think so. And I don’t think anyone should infer from that that I discriminate against older white dudes who insist on wearing shorts long past the season even when they have gross legs.

[hilzoy]

Redstocking: I think that OCSteve's giving an honest answer to a question about his views of HRC is perfectly acceptable. He was asked about his feelings about her; he replied. And, as he says, there are reasons to dislike someone other than their gender, race, etc. Back in 1994, I was living in a part of NJ which got PA political ads, and so I got to see many, many, many ads for Rick Santorum. He just creeped me out. Now, years later, I think I was onto something. At the time, however, I'm not sure I could have said what.

(Had I been (a) able to vote in PA, and (b) remotely tempted to vote for Santorum, I would of course have tried to sort this out more, consider his views on the issues, etc.)

[wonkie]

Honestly all this controversy about wehter Obama is better on the issues than Clinton and or who said what about who is totally unproductive. It doesn't matter. They're both good enough. The only thing that matters is which one is most likely to get elected and which one will help get down ticket Democrats elected. This primary season has gone ontoolong already and everyone's losing perspective and porportion. The Clintom team is bgeing really nast y and unfair and Obama's team may well respond in kind. The end result will be a messy, angry convention and Democrats pissed at each other when the real race begins.

[Ara]

Redstocking, I can't figure out what is wrong with her comments either. Here is a fuller article on it.

As far as I can gather, it is not the Obama camp itself which is raising these objections, but rather people in the community. And that is the best thing I can say on behalf of the campaign itself.

I know many people are reading a racial undertone into Bill Clinton's quote about the Obama campaign being a fairy tale. I'm not sure I really understand where this is coming from.

[OCSteve]

Red: Also note the poll I cited above. I’m not alone. She consistently polls 40-45% unfavorable, and peaks at over 50%. There are plenty of Democrats in there, and feminists, and anti-war types. Sometimes you just dislike somebody and that is all the explanation there is to it.

And you know what? I’m hitting middle age here. I would really like to see a black person (notice I didn’t specify gender) as president before I die. This seems like the best chance ever.

I guess that introduces the argument that I prefer a minority over women – well – no. If there was a black, lesbian, woman, Wicca running I would probably vote for her. But there is not. HRC is not something different. She is the establishment…

[tomtom]

Hilzoy is making the Andrew Sullivan pro-Obama argument, except without Hillary hatred and fully admitting that voting against Hillary because of associations largely out of her control isn't fair.

Hilzoy's presentation is also more convincing than Andrew's.

All that said, Hilzoy doesn't give enough credit to the idea that the Republican's have already spent it all in terms of vilifying the Clintons. There is nothing new. Will the public or the press be interested in re-hashing stuff that has been out for years? On the other hand, the anti-Obama dirt will be fresh dirt.

How's this for a slogan?

Hillary: already fully hated.

[ken]

Hilzoy this is just so pathetic. Really.

Hillary Clinton did not read the NEI because she was being briefed by the people who wrote it and knew what was in it.

She did her homework. You haven't done yours.

You are a well respected blogger and I know there is no requirement that your research go any further than reading what other blogger speculate about what Hillary might or might not have done.

But we are in the middle of a nominating process and your misinformation might mislead someone into making a decisions they may later regret.

So I call bullshit on this smear.

[Redstocking]

Hilzoy, I was just speculating whether it would be acceptable if I gave a similarly honest answer about my current feelings about Obama? I do perceive him as being homophobic and sexist. I think it is arrogantly grandiose to compare himself to Dr. Martin Luther King, jr. Harvard Law School is not the equivalent of the Birmingham jail.

There are many reports that the Obama camp is raising these questions. Obama is very good at being nasty and blaming it on someone else.

Does anyone know if Obama has spoken about the Jackson/Hillary tears/Kathrina outrage? Is he preparing a new ad showing him crying about New Orleans?

[john miller]

1. I sdoubt there is any issue that Obama is to the right of Clinton on.
2. Obama has in no way, shape or form accused Clinton of racism, not, to my best knowledge (which is probably incomplete) have any of his staff.
3. Jackson owns his words, not Obama. Has Obama been asked about them?
4. One can have a visceral dislike of someone without being racist, sexist, or any other ist.
5. Clinton has, in effect, called Obama naive, a keeper of false hopes, misleading the voters, etc. I do not view her as racist for those comments.
6. The reality is that Clinton will have a much harder time not fighting the Republicans, but fighting the media portrayl of herself. Part of the problem is that many people already have a negative concept of her, unlike Gore or Kerry, and they weren't able to overcome a negative media. Can she? If nominated, I hope so.
7. I don't blame people for being for Clinton. She is an intelligent person, very capable, and would undoubtedly be a capable President. I prefer Obama based upon issues, policies, staff, advisors, etc.

[rilkefan]

ken, please chill a bit. Your point might have value but it's phrased too hotly for this environment.

Anybody interested in this topic should check out TalkLeft, where there are currently about six posts "that will make all candidates' supporters angry" or anyway think.

[OCSteve]

Me: If there was a black, lesbian, woman, Wicca running

I guess that the lesbian – woman thing is rather redundant. ;)

[rilkefan]

OCS: "All of the above? It’s tough to explain because 80% of it is visceral."

Thanks, I think that's an entirely understandable stance when voting for president (oww, the assonance). You want someone you're comfortable with.

OTOH when Bill did that cat-ate-the-canary thing (or the bite-the-lip thing or ...) I had to remind myself that at least a Democrat was in the WH, but I thought he was a good president.

[Frank]

I see you're point about not making things easy for the Republicans, but you dont seem to consider the possibility that most candidates can't handle being demonized and end up self destructing when the Republicans go after them. We know that Hillary won't but we don't know that about Obama.

This brought up something that I've been trying to figure out how to express for the past couple of days: the problem of Obama's niceness. It's a problem because the Republicans delight in doing low down dirty stuff in campaigns and often if you don't get mad in those situations you look worse than if you do.

Problem is if Obama gets mad he becomes the angry black man that most of the electorate won't vote for, and the people supporting him now abandon him.

[Curt Adams]

Redstocking, there's nothing wrong with that MLK comment by Clinton. The problem was this comment:

Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."

A lot of people saw that as belittling King's work, especially in the context of "speech vs. action" she was trying to set up.

Obviously (and unsurprisingly) she realized her misstep. But she did say it first.

[rilkefan]

"A lot of people saw that as belittling King's work"

Entirely nonsensically given the context.

I don't believe Obama is in the least homophobic or sexist. He's trying to win an election, and if he does it will be a great day for gays and women. I think Clinton is probably slightly better on that count, but either will be fine.

[Gary Farber]

"I think it is arrogantly grandiose to compare himself to Dr. Martin Luther King, jr."

Cite?

"I guess that the lesbian – woman thing is rather redundant. ;)"

No; just the woman part.

[crionna]

I can't imagine what would the reaction to someone's trashing Obama along these lines.

Let's find out. I don't like Senator Obama for visceral reasons. He comes off to me as someone who'd be in way over his head as President. I don't like Senator Clinton either, but in a decision over who I'd rather have facing Putin or The Iranians across a table (even a virtual one via TV or the web), she'd be my choice of the Ds; and that includes Mr. Edwards.

Considering that there are about 3 1/2 million more women in the United States than men, this situation is outrageous

I had a comment written and then thought better of it due to the following quote by Hilzoy at TiO

I think it's natural for men to think: hey, everything is pretty good (on the grounds that neither they nor anyone they know is in any way obviously sexist), while women think: the hell it is (on the grounds that things still suck for them.)

So, I'll keep my keyboard un-clickety-clacked

Anyone who wants power that badly, who’s worked her whole life to get it - should never have it IMO.

I feel the same way about Senator Clinton OC, but, OTOH, its just freaky what people have to go through to run, much less get elected. Perhaps we should be more appreciative of those that go through the hassle? Going back to RedStocking's point, given what a hassle it is to run, is it surprising that smarter/better people of any color/gender don't want to do it?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Redstocking, "I do perceive him as being homophobic and sexist."

Really? I haven't seen that all. Especially not homophobic. What have you seen that makes you think so?

"I guess that the lesbian – woman thing is rather redundant. ;)"

Not entirely. It depends on how you define it. I know two men who got a sex change to become lesbians...

[Gromit]

Curt, check this TPM piece on how the NYT truncated that quote. The full quote is:

"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

I'm not sure the core meaning changes much, but the NYT's version certainly sounds snippier, and I suspect that perceived snippiness contributes a lot to the negative reaction we are seeing.

[Gary Farber]

"I know two men who got a sex change to become lesbians..."

Well, sure, but now you're just argued that transexual women aren't women. Hello, kettle of worms I ever so carefully declined to spill (and wouldn't be inclined to, as it's not a position I hold).

[Gromit]

Redstocking: I do perceive him as being homophobic and sexist.

Sebastian Holsclaw: Really? I haven't seen that all. Especially not homophobic. What have you seen that makes you think so?

Not to mindread, but dollars to donuts Redstocking is referring to the Donnie McClurkin brouhaha.

[hilzoy]

I think that the "it took a President" quote was taken out of context, and should not be held against Clinton. Otoh, I also think that while Jesse Jackson Jr. should probably not have said what he did, there's nothing particularly wrong with wondering whether or not Clinton's tears were staged. I have done it myself.

I do think that there's a lot wrong with basing one's vote either on the tears or on the coverage of them. There are many more important things than The Tears, genuine or not; and the appropriate objects of wrath about the coverage are the people responsible for it. I'm not in a position to do much, having long since stopped watching anything but PBS and CSPAN for news (except when I'm specifically interested in how things are covered), but if for some unfathomable reason I were still watching Chris Matthews, this would have made me stop forever.

[OCSteve]

Sebastian: I know two men who got a sex change to become lesbians...

Once again – I realize I’ve lived a rather sheltered life. ;)

crionna : Perhaps we should be more appreciative of those that go through the hassle?

I think that’s a really good point. It seems insane to me that anyone would voluntarily subject themselves to this level of scrutiny. And it’s only gotten worse with the web. Everything you ever said is available via Google. So I do appreciate the big brass ones it takes just to do this at all.

[publius]

Just tuning in - but this seems to hit on what I think is the strongest pro-Obama argument. That is, the "higher ceiling" argument.

He alone has the potential to really do something historic. Sure, HRC is a known quantity, and there's some risk involved. But still, windows like this don't tend to last -- you either seize them, or lose them forever

[Gromit]

hilzoy: Otoh, I also think that while Jesse Jackson Jr. should probably not have said what he did, there's nothing particularly wrong with wondering whether or not Clinton's tears were staged. I have done it myself.

What bugged me about Jackson's comments was the way he tried to shoehorn Katrina into the story. This was pure exploitation, and beneath the Obama campaign.

[Gromit]

Well, I was also bugged by the fact that even if it was fair game, which I think is debatable, it was really stupid to even comment on the incident. Too many downsides, no real upsides.

[Gary Farber]

He alone has the potential to really do something historic.

[...]

But still, windows like this don't tend to last -- you either seize them, or lose them forever.

I'm guessing you didn't mean to say that the election of the first woman president wouldn't be historic, and that opportunities for this to happen are a dime a dozen, it happens every day, but perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "do something historic"? It's a tad vague.

"That is, the 'higher ceiling"' argument."

I'm doubtless being stupid, but what are you referring to? Is this going to be on the test? What "'higher ceiling' argument"?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Well, sure, but now you're just argued that transexual women aren't women. Hello, kettle of worms I ever so carefully declined to spill (and wouldn't be inclined to, as it's not a position I hold)."

Oh no! I merely said it would depend on your definitions. But I think that becoming a woman to become a lesbian is interesting because it shows how little the transgender thing has to do with the sexual attraction thing. (I normally would have said sexual orientation, but that would be confusing in this context).

[tomtom]

Obama has a higher ceiling, but a lower floor. So is the higher ceiling argument truly pro-Obama?

All the dirt is out on Hillary, and we know she can take abuse. After decades of smears she remains popular enough to be elected, and she is formidably smart.

Obama? Maybe, maybe not. Dukakis looked pretty good for a while and then he folded like a tent.

On the other hand, Obama could possibly change the game, as did FDR and (to a lesser degree) Reagan. That would be awesome. Hillary will never be more than modestly popular.

(Clint Eastwood's voice) "So I guess the question you gotta ask yourself is, do you feel lucky?"

The best argument for Obama is that he opposed the stupid war in Iraq. Don't listen to Bill Clinton on this - Obama opposed the war. During the 2004 campaign Obama refused to embarrass Kerry & Edwards and he softened the sharp edges of his dissent, that is all. Bill Clinton knows this and his latest line of attack is offensive.

The best argument for Hillary is that she is as hated as she is gonna get, and she has a proven ability to withstand blistering attacks. That is important.

For my money Obama deserves to win, because the Iraq War is a great evil, and Hillary still hasn't come clean on her complicity in that fiasco.

Obama - high risk, high gain

[yoyo]

WHat is this "she has a proven ability to withstand blistering attacks" argument. She's been attacked, and is quite unpopular now. You're conflating 'has taken attacks' with 'has taken attacks and figured out how to remain popular.' I see no evidence that she can take attacks and come out looking good, just that she takes attacks. What i remember from the 90s was that whenever she's been in the spotlight, her approval numbers go down pretty low; once she sits out for a while they go back up.

[hilzoy]

Out of curiosity, how do we know that all the dirt is out on the Clintons? Or, for that matter, on anyone else?

We can presumably assume that all the dirt that had accumulated before Bill Clinton left office is out. I see no reason at all to assume that none could possibly have accumulated since then.

[Doctor Science]

yoyo: HRC's "proven ability to withstand blistering attacks" is the documented fact that, unlike some, she will not lose her cool just because people say the most awful things about her.

Now look at the latest Oliphaunt cartoon, publius, and tell me HRC's presidency wouldn't be all that historic.

I'm not saying that I'll necessarily vote for HRC on Feb.5. But if you want to claim that sexism is anything other than defining for her chances, you're going to have to argue pretty hard.

[hilzoy]

Slightly OT: Bitch Ph.D.'s description of her husband making calls to Nevada for Obama is hysterical. Sample:

"He gets a woman on the phone who's a registered Republican (this must be a list of "undecideds") and who says good luck to him because she'd much rather see Obama than that awful woman Hillary in office. . . .

I see. Well, did you know that you can register as a Democrat for the caucus? Yes ma'am, you can. It's Nevada, home of the free.

(The woman apparently says, "I love this state!")

Heh heh heh. All you have to do is just show up at your local Democratic precinct--let me tell you where it is--register as a Democrat, and you can vote for Obama, who as you know has the best chance to take the democratic candidacy away from Hillary.

Yes, you can re-register as a Republican the next day. No, ma'am (chuckles), I'm sure that if you're registered as a Democrat for just one day, it won't show.
"

[KCinDC]

I don't agree that HRC has demonstrated that she'll be able to survive whatever the Republicans throw at her. Yes, she's been tested over the years, but it has damaged her. And I don't believe she's faced the level of smears she would as the Democratic presidential nominee. In earlier years she was only a secondary target. If she's the nominee, she'll be getting much more focus.

[rilkefan]

Sweet jeebus, that Oliphant cartoon is bad. Wingnutty bad. I've long admired his work but wow.

[KCinDC]

It seems like something from that parody right-wing cartoonist in the Onion.

[Gary Farber]

Must have had that conversation, from both directions, a zillion times in 1980, when lots of us did the same thing in reverse for John Anderson versus Reagan.

It wasn't all that funny, although as I mentioned before, my significant other and I did end up as Dave Horsey's editorial cartoon in the next day's Seattle Post-Intelligencer. But he had to really caricature us with a bunch of non-existent details to make his point.

That is, our precinct caucus of Republicans consisted of 8 stereotypical blue-haired Republican little old ladies, my SO, me, a couple of other usually-Democrats, and Dave Horsey; the cartoon consisted of a drawing of me and my SO addressing a prune-face woman with a clipboard, and us saying, "why yes, ma'am, we're lifelong Republicans!", with me wearing a leather jacket I've never own, an earring I've never worn, and a few more hippie-like accoutrements to make the point.

There's nothing whatever hehhehheh about it, though; it's just the way the system has worked longer than I've been alive.

Without wanting to argue the flaws of the system, I think the virtues of the caucus system are terribly underrated: if all you want to do is vote, you can do just that: show up, put your name on the list as voting for one candidate, and leave.

But the system allows for endlessly more involvement. First, you get to talk with your fellow citizens, and attempt to persuade them of your view.

Then delegates are elected to represent that precinct at the next highest level, and so forth and so on, up to the national convention.

It favors the articulate, to be sure, but so does democracy in general, so I don't see much wrong with that.

I found it to be such an open system that in 1984, when I caucused as a Democrat for the first time, with absolutely no contact whatever with any local activists, or the Democratic organization, I simply argued my position, and was elected delegate to the district convention.

At the district convention, they kept intoning every five minutes over the loudspeakers that anyone was free to sign up to ask for votes to the state convention, and make a three minute speech.

After hearing this forty dozen times, I was completely hypnotized. That, and it suddenly occurred to me that three minutes to tell everyone what I thought sounded pretty good, even though obviously I had no chance of being elected to the next level, since I had no supporters and no contact.

So I signed up, made my three minute speech, and came within something like four votes out of several hundred in being elected, which made it obvious that if I'd made the faintest actual effort -- all the folks ahead of me had been campaigning for months, and had literature and signs and supporters and the like -- I could have been elected.

That strikes me as a pretty open system. Naturally, because it rewarded me. So I'm hardly saying it will reward everyone equally. But it gives everyone an equal opportunity -- mostly, every system is flawed -- and aside from the scheduling issues, which could be cured by guaranteeing by law time off from work to attend a primary or election or caucus -- offers all the advantages of simply voting in a primary, with all the added value of citizen democracy (yes, up to a point; no, it's not perfect).

Anyway, as I said, despite this, I acknowledge problems in the system. But there are problems with primaries, and there are problems with bosses, and it's an imperfect world; I just like to speak up now and again in favor of caucuses, because hardly anyone does, and who ain't for the underdog?

[DaveC]

Oh forcriminently, HRC is tough. She knows that she is not going to be universally liked. I consider that a plus. Right now, she couldn't say that Obama is an enigma without being accused of racism. But that's the deal with popular opinion; it is always going to break bad at some point or the other. The ugliest personal smears I've seen in the political arena were by senators opposed to Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Every "liberal" insinuation in the book was tossed at them: supposed to be conservative, but actually a sex pervert, sexist and doesn't want women to attend college, racist and in some sort of exclusive white man's club, etc, etc, etc.

And of course, back a few years ago, HRC came right out and said that there was this vast right wing conspiracy. If Bush said anything about a vast left wing conspiracy (Exhibit A: Obsidian Wings:), he would be called a fascist or totalitarian - oh wait, he already is, never mind.

Yeah, hey, politics is ugly. If you don't like Obama you are racist. If you don't like Clinton you are sexist. If you don't like Edwards, you are homophobic or something. In one way it is entertaining to watch the Democrats squabble over this sort of thing. After all, Republicans are routinely accused of all three isms or phobias. But I do sort of Feel Your Pain.

[KCinDC]

Josh Marshall's take on the Redstate endorsements of Obama

Unless Bizarro World has taken a strange turn after Thomas's departure, that should be "red-state".

[rilkefan]

Interesting points re the caucus system, Gary - thanks.

[Slartibartfast]

Just to put in a terse 2 cents worth, given a choice between Obama and anyone on the Republican slate, I'd lean in the Obama direction, whereas given a choice between HRC and anyone but Ron Paul, I'd have to sit and think a while.

God help us if it comes down to HRC vs Ron Paul. I'd probably have to vote HRC and learn to live with hating myself.

I'm not sure which way I'm going to register before the primary; I've got to go one way or another because the primary is where our resident set of sneaky bastards (aka the school board) have somehow managed to put their one and only set of ballots. Possibly, given that this is Florida, after all, they've gotten away with it this long because there's so much other badness at the pollings.

[Gary Farber]

"God help us if it comes down to HRC vs Ron Paul."

Happy news: I will once again utilize my amazing seer-like powers, and suggest you shouldn't lose too much sleep, Slart.

(I know you know; I'm such a tease.)

Um, last I looked your primary Democratic presidential vote in Florida won't count, what with the 210 national convention delegates being stripped after the Florida party decided to secede from the rules, or some such impenetrable-from-the-outside decision (that is, what happened is clear; what the Florida Democratic leadership was thinking, I have no idea).

[crionna]

Sweet jeebus, that Oliphant cartoon is bad. Wingnutty bad.

You are way too nice to him rilk. That was just plain cheap.

[Katherine]

I will vote for Clinton in the general. Though this week I would have to mutter "judicial appointments. Judicial appointments. Judicial appointments. Judicial appointments." over & over & get really drunk afterwards.

Christ, this is like watching the 2000 & 2004 general elections: Karl Rove is running the other side's campaign & I have the sinking sensation everyone's falling for it. Primaries are never much fun when you care too much but criminy, this is worse than 2004. And I'd been on Dean's side since March of 2003, volunteered, donated, etc. etc.; I got off the fence & for Obama less than one month ago.

Oh well: if he gets the nomination it'll certainly be good practice for the general. If she does, it'll increase the pressure to pick him as VP. Of course they'll probably pick some schmoe like Evan Bayh instead....

judicial nominations. judicial nominations. judicial nominations. judicial nominations.

[crionna]

That was just plain cheap.

And having thought about it for another 10 minutes, I realize that "cheap" doesn't go anywhere near far enough. He should be fired and shunned. He didn't just blurt something out under questioning or in a stream of talk, he sat down, thought about this, drew it out, thought about it some more and then sent it in as his true opinion. How can there be any apologizing or claims of misunderstanding about his intent? AND, he thought it would be humorous.

Hilzoy's comment becomes even more the sterling truth. Jeez. Unbelievable.

[hilzoy]

"Hilzoy's comment becomes even more the sterling truth."

Becomes? Becomes??? Mwahahahaha!

That is truly a dreadful cartoon. And I usually like Oliphant. -- I mean, it's so bad that the fact that Kim Jong Il's little comment is actually funny doesn't even begin to help.

It would be different if anything at all in HRC's record or persona made that depiction of her appropriate. If, for instance, she had a habit of trying to get her way through tears. There is some possible human being, even some possible female human being, of whom that depiction would be funny.

With her, though, it's just a cheap shot. Sort of as though Mike Tyson had been spotted doing something utterly ordinary, like looking in the mirror while combing his hair, and Oliphant had drawn a cartoon of him as an effeminate wuss. Straightfaced. Without meaning to call forth any of the irony in the idea of Mike Tyson, wuss.

Only that would never happen. Which is sort of the point.

[yoyo]

I cannot imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket. Where can i go wager on this.

[Gary Farber]

"And having thought about it for another 10 minutes, I realize that 'cheap' doesn't go anywhere near far enough. He should be fired and shunned."

Do you really think advocating that an editorial cartoonist should be fired because a bunch of us strongly dislike a particular cartoon is a great idea, in principle?

I agree the cartoon was sexist and dopey, and I'm there with being offended by it.

But just about every single editorial cartoon upsets a bunch of people.

Mind, I repeat that I don't defend this cartoon in the slightest, nor Oliphant for drawing it. The only comment I'd remotely make of any sort of "defense" is in reply to the fact that it's mean, which is that most editorial cartoons are mean; that's the job, so that's not itself much of a criticism. That it's sexist and stupid is a valid criticism.

So protest it, sure.

But there are times, frankly, that I find the lynch mob aspects of the blogosphere fairly disturbing. It seems to me there's a general patter of some commentator or other saying or writing or drawing something deeply stupid, and immediately a whole lot of people are calling for firings, boycotts, and thereafter, in certain quarter, person X -- who typically was unknown or little known or previously not particularly offensive, to the head-caller-for, is A Famously Bad Person, known only for That Famous Offensive Thing, as if twenty or forty years of an amazing, or at least respectably impressive -- or at least ten good years out of thirty mediocre ones -- career never happened.

Pat Oliphant has had an incredibly distinguished career over fifty years. He undoubtedly was more responsible for helping people see Richard Nixon for who he was then any twenty columnists.

He did an offensive cartoon. It deserves protests and letters.

Firing? Well, the guy is 72, so I dunno how much longer he's planning on working, anyway, but I do suggesting being really really sure that we want to get into campaigning for the firing of editorial cartoonists whenever we feel offended.

I'm assuming "shunned" is hyperbole, but that "fired" isn't. I could be wrong on either or both.

[Gary Farber]

"I cannot imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket. Where can i go wager on this."

In Britain.

[yoyo]

if i remember right, that same dude says lots of vile stuff.

Farbs: baby i'm a(be)a rich man, kthx.

[Gary Farber]

"...but I do suggesting being really really sure that we want to get into campaigning for the firing of editorial cartoonists whenever we feel offended."

To be clear, one reason, more practical than idealistic, is that if you think it's a good idea for editorial cartoonists to be fired (and "shunned") whenever sufficient number of newspaper readers are offended, it isn't just your choices of who will be fired for what that are going to be followed.

If you think it's a good idea, you're not just saying that while you and folks who agree with you get a veto over the career of your local paper -- or maybe every paper in America! -- whenever enough of you are sufficiently offended, but that whenever, say, John Hagee and Pat Robertson's fans are sufficiently offended in the same or greater numbers, they get the same veto. And so does everyone else whose views you may abhor. Naturally, we can't have pro-choice editorial cartoons anymore: too many offended readers, after all.

In point of fact, I don't see how having editorial cartoons at all are compatible with the idea of popular reader veto of editorial cartoonists. But I may lack imagination in how to make that work, and still produce pungent and meaningful -- but absolutely offensive to none but a few -- editorial cartoons.

I'm just not wild about this idea. But I could be wrong, so feel free to defend and explain the principle and practices you are advocating, crionna.

[novakant]

Clinton's triangulations don't make any sense whatsoever, if one supposes she wanted to avoid war. The much more plausible explanation is that she did want war - or maybe she's just a not very bright opportunist.

[Xeynon]

I think the important thing the Democrats need to remember is that there are a lot of independents who don't like Hillary and won't vote for her, and that the rabid hatred for her on the right may motivate some people who would otherwise stay at home to hold their noses and vote for a Republican candidate instead. There are polls showing that nearly half the electorate says they'll never vote for her. Why is it not obvious that she's not a good pick? At best, she could grind out a close victory. If the Republicans convince even 20% of the remaining half of the electorate not to vote for her (which wouldn't be all that difficult), you're looking at a McGovern-like blowout loss.

As for attacks on Obama, yes, they'll happen. But I think they're highly unlikely to work, because, well, people like him, and cognitive dissonance dictates that people aren't inclined to believe negative things about people they like. Hardcore Democrats excepted, people don't like the Clintons. Remember that despite his much-heralded 65% approval rating during the Lewinsky scandal, more than half the country said they disliked Bill personally. And Hillary is no Bill when it comes to natural charisma.

[Amos Newcombe]

I don't know about that, Xeynon. The population of independents is not fixed, and she has brought in a lot of votes in upstate NY that used to go to Republicans not that long ago. And there's a lot of us who are really disappointed in Bill, but respect Hillary for her dignity throughout a difficult period.

Of those who are independent because they see themselves in the middle of the two parties -- some of them will notice that is exactly where she is too.

For my part, I don't like her or trust her, but if she gets the nomination she's got my vote, because (a) she's better than any of the Republicans, (b) the attacks on her are vicious and personal and deserve to be repudiated at the polls, and (c) how can I not be a part of electing the first woman President. I think some version of these arguments could bring in a number of independents, like those who keep electing her senator.

[redstocking]

My disgust with the cartoon was balanced by hilarity at the cartoonist's delusion that 60-year old-women suffers from PMS. One of the great things about turning 60 is that both PMS and menopause symptoms are a distant memory. Hillary is an excellent exemplar of the postmenopausal zest of older women that the anthropologist Margaet Mead spoke about.

[redstocking]

I absolutely agree that editorial cartoonists should not be fired. Their job is to be offensive to someone. Perhaps Oliphant secretly supports Hillary:) Perhaps he really knows about postmenopausal PMS and is drawing attention to the ludicrousness of the attacks on Hillary.

[OCSteve]

hilzoy: It would be different if anything at all in HRC's record or persona made that depiction of her appropriate.

Wasn’t it the Clinton campaign that responded to that first debate in November by denouncing the “politics of piling on”? Essentially all those men were mean to her? I think that the fact that they were first out the gate with that meme makes it somewhat appropriate. She can’t have it both ways…

[redstocking]

The more I read about Oliphant, the more I am taking a second look at the cartoon. He has frequently been criticized for being anti-Arab. Is he really attacking Hillary or comparing media attacks on her to the rapid misogyny in the Middle East? The PMS crack might have been an important clue; there is no chance on earth he doesn't know better.

Here are excerpts from his bio in Wikipedia.

Here are excerpts from his Wikipedia entry:a "Pat Oliphant (b. July 24, 1935 in Adelaide, Australia) is the most widely syndicated political cartoonist in the world, described by the New York Times as "the most influential cartoonist now working". His trademark is a small penguin character named Punk, who is often seen making a sarcastic comment about the subject of the panel.

Once in the US, he first worked at The Denver Post. His strip was nationally syndicated and internationally syndicated in 1965. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning in 1967 for his February 1, 1966 cartoon They Won't Get Us To The Conference Table . . . Will They?. Oliphant moved to the now defunct Washington Star for six years, until the paper folded in 1981.

Oliphant's work, which from time to time employs ethnic caricatures, has occasionally been criticized. In 2001, the Asian American Journalists Association accused Oliphant of "cross[ing] the line from acerbic depiction to racial caricature," In 2005, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee expressed concern that some of Oliphant's caricatures were racist and misleading.

Oliphant's work has appeared in several exhibitions, most notably at the National Portrait Gallery. In addition to winning the Pulitzer Prize, Oliphant won the National Cartoonist Society Editorial Cartoon Award seven times in 1971, 1973, 1974, 1984, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Reuben Award twice in 1968 and 1972 and the Thomas Nast Prize.

[OCSteve]

Here is an excellent post on HRC’s failure to live up to her campaign promises, especially for Upstate NY.