On the way home this evening, I heard Hugh Hewitt talking with National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. Ponnuru made an interesting point that I hadn't thought about, but which strikes me as quite valid: the opposition to the Obama administration is much more programmatic and policy-driven, and much less personal, than the opposition to the Clinton administration was.
Think back — the right's dislike of both Bill and Hillary was quite intense, personal, and visceral. Yes, there are a few whose reaction to Obama is similar — but they're mostly marginalized fringe people like the birthers. The Tea Party people, who are the opposition mainstream, are thoroughly focused on issues: out-of-control spending, out-of-control growth of government, out-of-control deficits, "stimulus" pork, cap-and-tax, health care takeover, etc.
When Clinton was called names, they tended to focus on his character and were quite personal. When Obama is called names, they tend to focus on his agenda — ends and means — and are quite ideological: socialist, radical, Alinskyite, etc.
To the extent that this comparison is valid, it seems to further discredit the spurious claim that opposition to Obama is racially motivated.
Although I'm sure someone will point out that Bill Clinton was proclaimed our nation's first black president, so the opposition to him must have been racist, too.
"There are many things my father taught me here in this room. He taught me: keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." — Michael Corleone in The Godfather: Part II
Today's big story/rumor/speculation — Barack Obama is considering offering the Secretary of State job to Hillary Clinton:
Two Democratic officials confirmed that Clinton – long rumored to be a contender for the job – is under serious consideration.
Adding to the intrigue, Obama and Clinton met yesterday in Chicago, according to a Democratic official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
I've heard several pundits say this would be a great pick because of her foreign policy credentials. Huh? Did I miss something? Or are they referring to tagging along with her hubby on various globetrotting trips as foreign policy experience?
And how would Obama reconcile such a choice with his sharp differences with Hillary on foreign policy in particular? Oh, I forgot. He won't have to because the media will give him a pass on that.
It could be a shrewd plan to make sure she's in no position to challenge Obama in 2012, if he drives disastrously leftward and recreates the Carter years in spades (pardon the expression).
It's unclear whether Clinton would even want the position. And some wondered if the Obama camp – which is very disciplined about unwanted leaks – is simply trying to compliment her by suggesting she's in the running.
If she wants to keep the options open for another run, she'll turn down the offer — if it comes.
Wow, what a great surprise! A blue-haired George Clinton, as freaky as ever, was the musical guest on the Tonight Show tonight. With a terrific band he's calling The Gangsters of Love All-Stars (I think it's most of the current P-Funk crew plus whoever was hanging around and looking sharp). Great guitar work by Blackbyrd.
Ain't That Peculiar!
If you missed it, maybe when they update the Tonight Show website, it'll be one of the featured videos. Or you can see the full show (when it becomes available) here. Clinton closed the show.
You youngsters who have no idea what I'm talking about don't know what you're missing. Check out some of the Clinton "diskography" here (Flash player required) or poke around at Amazon. (UPDATE: The new album was released just yesterday. Sounds great — check it out!)
The last time I saw George Clinton was also on the Tonight Show back in 2005. Go read my post about that for some history and background info. It's got some other links you might want to check out.
No, I didn't watch the speech. But I read Stephen Green's drunkblogging of it. I'm pretty certain that was the right decision. Especially after seeing a picture of her in that orange pants-suit. As Green put it, "With those hips and that suit, she looks like a highway cone."
According to Glenn Reynolds, "TV talking-heads seem to think her endorsement of Obama was minimal," which surprises me not at all.
Sacha Millstone of Boulder, a Clinton supporter and delegate to the Democratic National Convention, has learned just how free, open, and democratic today's Democratic Party is — not very.
In a private email to a fellow delegate, Millstone dared to complain about how the Obama campaign was treating Clinton supporters. The other delegate ratted her out to the party's thought police and suggested she be stripped of her delegate status:
Apparently the Political Director of Colorado's Democratic Party, William Compton, took the suggestion very seriously and told Millstone via e-mail, "You are directed to come in to the Party Headquarters and explain your comments and why you should remain a national delegate…"
Millstone, who worked on the campaign for Hillary Clinton, considered the e-mail a threat."I think that one of the reasons I got this letter was to intimidate me," said Millstone. "It sounded very totalitarian. I thought it sounded undemocratic and I was completely shocked." …
"I think that it was calculated to have an impact on other delegates and I think this kind of communication does have a very chilling impact on other delegates because people become afraid to speak up. They become afraid to say what they think."
Millstone added, "You can't get unity by telling people to shut up."
I suspect that the PUMAs aren't going to take kindly to this sort of heavy-handed behavior. Could this convention still get interesting, and be something more than a slick, boring infomercial? Dennis Keohane thinks so.
It's all over, according to AP, CNN, and CBS. And it's a familiar story for feminists. A highly educated, highly competent, incredibly bright woman (the smartest woman in the world, according to her supporters) spent years in the shadow of a less disciplined, less competent man. She supported him through thick and thin, sublimating her own ambition and career goals to support his.
Eventually, she stepped out of his shadow. She joined the world's most prestigious boys' club and proved she was as tough and competent as any of them. She decided the time was ripe for her to move up to the executive suite. She'd paid her dues — and then some. It was a promotion that she was clearly entitled to.
But then, as she was poised to assume the role for which she'd been working for decades, along came some wet-behind-the-ears, inexperienced male competitor. Compared to her, he was an intellectual lightweight with an incredibly thin resume. It should have been clear to all the decision-makers that she was the far superior candidate for the position. But he was young, handsome, charismatic — and male. He got the promotion, and she was passed over.
Another outrageous example of the gender bias that permeates our sexist society. I wonder how N.O.W. and other feminist organizations will react to this injustice.
Well, really, I don't. I'm sure their commitment to liberal/leftist ideology in general will trump any concern they have for women's rights and gender equality in particular. The "little ladies" will obediently climb aboard the Obama bandwagon. If they didn't, the men who run things would call them racists.
UPDATE: Instalanche! And not just a quick "Heh!" — Glenn posted a teaser quote. Thanks, Glenn! To those of you who aren't sure — yes, my tongue was firmly in my cheek while writing this. It's not easy satirizing the left these days, is it?
I heard an interesting Obama supporter on the radio this morning. He argued that he and millions like him are justifiably "disgusted" with America and feel like they're living in an "occupied" country. He said there's no freedom because corporate interests and the military-industrial complex control everyone and everything. And he said that Hillary Clinton and the Bushes are part of the same groups that are controlling everything. If Hillary got the nomination, he claimed, she'd "run to lose" in order to serve the interests of these groups that control everything.
Listening to his rant, two thoughts occurred to me. First, I was struck by how much his world-view resembled that of some of the more looney Ron Paul supporters I've listened to. There is a space where the "true believers"* in the messianic ultra-leftist Barack Obama are practically rubbing shoulders with the "true believers" in the libertarian Ron Paul. That space is the fever swamp of generalized disaffection, unfocused resentment, and bizarre conspiracy theories involving mysterious, powerful groups that control everything. I expected this Obama supporter to start ranting about the CFR and Bilderbergers, had he not been cut off.
The second thing that occurred to me is this: Just how divorced from reality do you have to be to believe that Hillary Clinton would take a dive?
* If the phrase "true believers" doesn't immediately ring a bell, I strongly recommend to you Eric Hoffer's essential book about how frustrated, alienated, and dissatisfied individuals are drawn to mass movements, The True Believer.
Oh, yeah — congrats, Sen. Clinton, on a great victory in Pennsylvania. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will be practically giddy tomorrow about how well Operation Chaos is working.
Yesterday, Jake Tapper of ABC News reported on his blog a conversation with an anonymous Democratic Party official in which said official used an interesting metaphor:
The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.
The question is — what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible – but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"
The Tonya Harding Option — the first time I've heard it put that way.
Since then, everyone from Doug Mataconis to Andrew Sullivan to ABC's Good Morning America has talked about Hillary's Tonya Harding Option. But if this was really the first time Jake Tapper "heard it put that way," he hasn't been reading the other ABC News blogs. Tom at Corrente pointed out that this metaphor didn't originate with an anonymous DNC official, but with Sen. Obama himself, and he linked to this December 28 post on the ABC News blog, Political Radar:
ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Vinton, Iowa Thursday that he's not going to pull a Tonya Harding on his rival candidates.
"Folks said there's no way Obama has a chance unless he goes and kneecaps the person ahead of us, does a Tonya Harding," Obama joked, referring to the female skating champion who conspired to harm a competitor during the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships.
"We decided that's not the kind of campaign we wanted to run," he said.
I suspect that Tom is correct, and Tapper's anonymous source is someone from the Obama campaign, not just a "Democratic Party official":
So, yes, this is the Obama people whining about the unfairness of it all. They really need to try a new frequency these days.
Be that as it may, would it surprise anyone if Clinton, Inc. really did kneecap Obama (either literally or figuratively)? If I were him, I sure wouldn't agree to meet someone in Fort Marcy Park.
Geraldine Ferraro, who's on Hillary Clinton's finance committee and works as hard as her health permits on the Clinton campaign, is the latest member of the Clinton machine to play the race card (emphasis added):
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign – to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. …"
In case you've forgotten or are too young, Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's vice presidential running mate in 1984, and if she wasn't a woman, she would not have been in that position.
OK, I couldn't resist that bit of snarkiness. But I suspect Ferraro is correct to this degree: I believe there are more Americans who might be inclined to use their vote to reject racism than to reject sexism.
I think she's wrong about a "woman (of any color)," though. I think far more Americans might be inclined to reject both racism and sexism than to embrace either.
Too bad for the Republicans that Condi Rice wasn't interested in higher office.
When Democrats crossed party lines in the early Republican primaries to vote for John McCain, members of the media thought it was interesting, exciting, and an expression of democracy in action.
When Republicans listened to Rush Limbaugh and crossed party lines to vote for Hillary Clinton, the same people described it as "causing mischief" and perverting the democratic process.
Personally, I think Hillary owes her resurgence more to Lorne Michaels than Rush Limbaugh. Two weeks in a row, Saturday Night Live opened with wickedly funny skits portraying the news media as "in the tank" for Obama. Not only did those skits influence voters, they apparently shamed members of the media into finally throwing Obama something other than softballs:
It took many months and the mockery of "Saturday Night Live" to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.
The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.
"NAFTA-gate," the story about the Obama campaign reassuring the Canadian government that his anti-NAFTA campaign talk was just to fool the rubes, is still resonating (and may have hurt him in Ohio). I missed it initially, but apparently there are allegations that the Clinton campaign also contacted the Canadian government about Obama's promise to "opt out" of NAFTA, and questions continue to be asked.
But here's a question I don't think has been asked of either campaign: Did you contact the Mexican government about this issue?
Clearly, threats by leading U.S. presidential candidates to scrap NAFTA have caused concern in both Ottawa and Mexico City. At least one and possibly both Democratic campaigns thought the Canadians deserved some explanations, reassurances, or at least respect. There's no indication that either campaign thought to extend the same courtesy to the Mexicans.
If you missed the Feb. 23 return of Saturday Night Live, you missed one of the best opening sketches they've had in years. It parodied the latest CNN debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In the SNL version, the CNN personnel made it abundantly clear that they're "totally in the tank" for Obama, and it was hilarious. The first question posed to Obama was, "Is there anything we can get you?" The follow-up question was, "Are you sure?"
NBC is stupidly forcing YouTube to pull all posts of the video as copyright violations. Have these people never heard of viral marketing?? The broad dissemination of this 9-minute sketch would do more to build SNL's audience than all their on-air promos. What morons.
Anyway, here's the last 2:51, courtesy of the NBC's SNL video page:
UPDATE: For some bizarre reason, audio seems to work only in Internet Explorer (at least for me) — sorry. Take it up with NBC.
If you know of a source for the whole thing or a transcript of it, please post it in the comments.
Last Friday, in the wake of the Iowa caucuses, I remarked that, "If I were a Republican muckety-muck, I'd hire Karl Rove to secretly help the Clinton campaign." You think maybe they did? Apparently, many of the nutroots think that's exactly what happened in New Hampshire. And that Diebold is now rigging its machines to help the Clintons.
Joe Tobacco bravely ventured into the Bedlam that is Democratic Underground and linked to thread after thread full of paranoid ravings. I just skimmed a few, and especially liked this comment:
What struck me is how they programmed Edwards to maintain 17% ALL NIGHT
That was some pretty transparent programming, if you ask me.
THIS is what a gerrymandered, computerized voting machine election looks like. From start to finish.
Made me sick.
Here are a couple that express a popular sentiment:
I wouldn't put it past the Neocons to be buggering the vote for Hillary
especially since neocons REALLY WANT HER as the Dem nominee…someone they can "work with" win or lose in the General.
is clinton a preffered oponent for the republicans?
hmmm. clinton was trailing, then she finished ahead. the exit polls predicted otherwise. the exit polls were never this far off before diebold became so heavily involved in the game. it is just like the elections of 2004. so what am i saying… i personally think hillary poses both, a candidate that is easier for the republicans to beat, and, if elected, a president who more entrenched in the traditional political system. so guess what, it doesn't surprise me that the diebold machines once again felt a candidate that aligned closer to their views pulled ahead. coincidence?
As in 2004, large numbers of the nutroots left remain utterly convinced that polls are infallibly accurate, while actual vote counts are unreliable and suspect.
They call themselves the "reality-based community."
UPDATE: Sen. John Effin' Kerry has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. Obama thanked him. I think Obama would have been wiser to follow the Scrappleface version:
(2008-01-10) — Sen. Barack Obama today declined the endorsement of Sen. John Kerry, saying his presidential campaign is about “hope and change”, and he doesn’t want to “send mixed messages.”
According to the exit polls, Hillary Clinton won in New Hampshire because women, and especially older women, voted for her by a big margin. So I guess identity politics worked quite well for her this time.
The trouble with identity politics, though, is that it can come back and bite you. It didn't seem to matter much in New Hampshire, but in South Carolina it could be significant that Sen. Clinton claimed Martin Luther King was just talk, and it was Lyndon Johnson who really made a difference regarding civil rights.
Well, OK, that's not literally what she said. But if I were working for the Obama campaign, that's how I'd characterize it.
