TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
24.08.2008
More on the Clinton Controversy (Sigh)

John McCain's new television ad suggests that Barack Obama didn't pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate because he couldn't handle her criticisms--i.e., "the turth hurt and he couldn't handle it." It's a dubious assertion, but the merits of the argument are, for all practical purposes, besides the point. This ad is designed to stoke the resentment of wavering Clinton voters and to make sure the Clinton controversy remains part of the convention storyline. I'll leave it to others to determine whether this gambit will work. I wouldn't think so, but, then, I didn't think this whole saga would last as long as it has.

Clinton has already released a response:

Hillary Clinton's support of Barack Obama is clear. She has said repeatedly that Barack Obama and she share a commitment to changing the direction of the country, getting us out of Iraq, and expanding access to health care. John McCain doesn't. It's interesting how those remarks didn't make it into his ad.

That's fine, although a visual--say, Clinton offering a sharp, emphatic response for the cameras--might help a lot more, particularly if it's quick. That way, it would refute the McCain argument while it's still in the news, rather than prolonging the story longer than necessary.

In the long run, though, what really matters is how the convention unfolds. If Clinton's supporters get the message that Obama believes what they do on the issues--and, perhaps more important, if that get that message from Clinton herself, in her convention speech--then they will come around.

Clinton has certainly shown herself capable of making that kind of appeal. Just think back to her final farwell speech, which was one of the high points of the post-primary campaign for Obama. But she'll need to do it again.

Having said all that, the media has some responsibilty here, as well. Controversy makes for good coverage, I know. But for all the talk of disunity, the really remarkable story about the Democrats right now is the absence of meaningful dissent on the party's agenda. When it comes to substance, the Democrats are arguably more united than they have been since the early 1960s. Yes, you can find divisions on both domestic and foreign policy, on everything from the relative priority of deficit reduction to America's response to Darfur. But these debates don't match the kind we've seen in the past.

--Jonathan Cohn

Posted: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:11 PM with 67 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

BHLnyc said:

The only person who can really put this Clinton "controversy" to rest is the woman herself. As you say, if she is high octane in her support for Obama-Biden, that will go a long way in reigning in all but the most irrational PUMAs (I'm looking at you, jacobt1). As you say, the rest is up to Obama to make the case that the gap between he and Hillary on policy is thisclose. I suspect, given his ability to deliver powerful speeches at key moments, that he'll deliver in spades.

August 24, 2008 3:28 PM

kevincollins said:

It just grows more and more laughable (not to mention, patheic) at the inane criticisms that McCain & Co. are launching. Hell, a high-school sophmore in debate class could counter these with the most minimum of effort.

August 24, 2008 3:59 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Huh. Who would have thought that McCain would latch onto the desperate, over-the-top rhetoric HRC employed even after the nomination was out of her reach.

Didn't see this one coming.

August 24, 2008 4:04 PM

jacobt1 said:

"Having said all that, the media has some responsibilty here, as well"

They should put the interest of Obama over their need for a good coverage.

"It's a dubious assertion"

It's not. Please point to any other case in history of US when a nominee chose his running mate from the list  of his  opponents in the primary race and he chose an opponent who got 1000 votes over opponent who got  50% of votes.

"if that get that message from Clinton herself, in her convention speech--then they will come around."

So if  then they will come around, it will be a Clinton fault. Starting blaming Clinton already for inevitable Obama defeat.

August 24, 2008 4:06 PM

rozenson said:

Like you said, their is a near-unanimity on most issues amongst Democrats is highly unusual. That's why all these anti-Obama cases are particularly strange -- they don't like him as a person, not as a politician. That kind of personal animosity is the most irrational and hard to shake. It's clearly not about Hillary anymore, since she's endorsed Obama; they just hate him. They can sabotage the convention if they want. They just shouldn't be surprised when their votes are the ones that end up overturning Roe v. Wade when Justice Stevens retires/dies.

August 24, 2008 4:15 PM

esmense said:

This is just the GOP creating mischief. But, as long as its doing so provides a chance to put a Clinton in a bad light too many Obama supporters are blinded to the danger such mischief offers.

In just the last week alone the media has been fed, and gleefully amplified, talking points from the GOP about how "the (evil, plotting, power mad) Clintons" have "taken over" the Convention (and made Obama look weak), how McCain is supposedly using lessons he "learned" from Clinton against Obama (thus excusing McCain's tactics while providing the media with another opportunity to trash Clinton), and now they are openly exploiting party divisions, and distracting from the campaign's real issues -- by exploiting the media's willingness to take up and amplify anything that gives them an excuse for bad mouthing a Clinton -- with this ad.

The GOP wouldn't be doing so if they didn't know that this provides them with some advantage in their campaign against Obama. How? By, among other things, detracting from and obscuring the message Obama's campaign hopes to put forward -- both positive messages in support of his campaign and negative messages aimed at the McCain campaign -- and by diminishing the Democratic brand.

What Obama and his surrogates need to do to counter this nonsense, and demonstrate unity, is to point out what the GOP is doing, show some outrage at the way these dedicated, competent and successful party leaders are constantly portrayed, and take the media to task for using these GOP talking points to distract from real issues.

Obama's branding has been brilliant, but, for the most part, niche, branding -- that affluent social liberals, especially the young, powerfully identify with (including those in the mainstream and political media), as well as African Americans. But Obama's support in the broader electorate is based, and, because of his limited personal resume, will continue to be based, more strongly in perceptions of the Democratic brand -- a brand that's most recent positive associations are based in the successes of the Clinton administration. Obama didn't tame an historic deficit and leave office with a projected budget surplus. Bill Clinton did. Obama doesn't have a record of supporting small business creation, job creation and over-seeing an economy in which working class wages saw real increases for the first time in decades. Bill Clinton does. Obama doesn't have a decades long record of demonstrated dedication to health care, protection of vulnerable children and the elderly, dedication to pay equity, family leave, etc. Hillary Clinton does. The party can't afford to let these values and successes be diminished. And Obama can't afford to run a campaign that continues to suggest, or fails to object when others suggest, that the most recent history of the party he leads contains nothing more than hypocrisy, corruption, power mad manipulation and failure. Destroying the Clinton brand is harmful to the party brand.

To win, Obama is going to have to attract millions of voters who won't be reached by the Obama branding efforts that are so effective at filling stadiums with thousands of dedicated loyalists. Most of those millions will be voting for Obama primarily because he is the Democrat -- so it does not serve him to see that brand diminished and derided. Plus, many of those voters, as long time Democrats, feel personally derided every time the Clintons and their achievements are derided.

A fact that the GOP understands very well, even if many of Obama's younger supporters do not.

The Obama campaign can't afford to be associated with that derision. Nor can the Clintons do anything to repair the damage to Obama any such association can cause.

Those Obama supporters who think otherwise are naive -- and, they (including many political commentators) are getting rolled by the GOP>

August 24, 2008 4:17 PM

jacobt1 said:

"As you say, if she is high octane in her support for Obama-Biden, that will go a long way in reigning in all but the most irrational PUMAs "

I have a good memory. I remember very well a year go when Clinton  was ahead, that most of Obama supporters claimed that they would never vote for Clinton. There were  good reasons for  Clinton supporters to   vote for McCain if Clinton would lose, there were  no reasons  for Obama supporters to   vote for McCain if Obama  would lose.

"I suspect, given his ability to deliver powerful speeches at key moments, that he'll deliver in spades."

Yes, I remember his pastor speech that was considered  for a week to be the best speech since the Sermon on the Mount speech.

August 24, 2008 4:19 PM

jacobt1 said:

Like you said, their is a near-unanimity on most issues amongst Democrats is highly unusual. That's why all these anti-Clinton  cases are particularly strange -- they didn't  likeClintons  as people, not as  politicians. That kind of personal animosity is the most irrational and hard to shake. It's clearly was not about Obama , they just hateed Clintons.  

Rozenson,

Barak Obama claimed that Clintons were terrible people, corrupt, divisive. He claimed that they played racist card, McCarty card and so on. I voted for Clinton. Barak not only assaulted Clintons, he assaulted me personally. I'm not going to accept that I voted for a racist. If they just disagreed  on the issues you can split the difference. You can't split the difference on the issue who played the racist card in the primaries.

August 24, 2008 4:29 PM

Crock1701 said:

Let's see Jacob:  Perhaps because most Vice Presidential Nominees were not Presidential Candidates to begin with?  Let's look at the Nominees since World War II:

Candidates: Biden, Edwards, Bush, Johnson, Kefauver, Warren

Not: Cheney, Lieberman, Kemp, Gore, Quayle, Ferraro, Mondale, Dole, Eagleton, Shriver, Muskie, Agnew, Humphrey, Lodge,  Miller, Sparkman, Nixon, Barkley,

Basically, nominating a former candidate doesn't happen very much.  Moreover, Biden, by virtue of his very early defeat, almost seems to fall into the latter camp anyway, forgotten by the end of the long primary between Clinton and Obama.  You don't earn anything by coming in #2.  Try asking Bill Bradley, John McCain, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson and Bob Dole, Gary Hart, or any of the other 2nd place finishers how much they were on the ticket?  Tapping the number 2 from number 2 is the exception, not the rule.

August 24, 2008 4:33 PM

simon greenwood said:

"Please point to any other case in history of US when a nominee chose his running mate from the list  of his  opponents in the primary race and he chose an opponent who got 1000 votes over opponent who got  50% of votes."

Dukakis in 88 I think

August 24, 2008 4:35 PM

jacobt1 said:

esmense said:

"Destroying the Clinton brand is harmful to the party brand."

To win primaries,  Obama had to destroy the Clinton brand, but now he needs badly the Clinton brand that he just destroyed.

August 24, 2008 4:46 PM

esmense said:

This ad isn't designed to get Clinton supporters to vote for McCain -- it's designed to encourage Clinton bashing by the media and Obama supporters.

Bashing that constantly distracts from the campaign, creates mutual distrust, keeps animosities alive, and is MUCH more harmful to Obama than any one ad.

Obama supporters in the media keep getting rolled by this GOP tactic again and again and again.

When will you guys wake up and see that maybe YOU, and your conviction that the Clintons and their supporters are evil, is the real problem for the Obama?

August 24, 2008 4:47 PM

esmense said:

jacobt1 --

"but now he needs badly the Clinton brand that he just destroyed."

Exactly. Which is why the McCain campaign is working so hard to keep the primary wounds open and raw by feeding Clinton controversies and Clinton bashing talking points to the media.

August 24, 2008 4:50 PM

jacobt1 said:

"Dukakis in 88 I think"

I don't think Benson was running in primaries.

"Tapping the number 2 from number 2 is the exception, not the rule."

It's not an exception, Franklin Roosevelt- Garner,  Kennedy-Johnson , Reagan- Bush, Kerry-Edwards.

In any case,  when  nominating a former candidate does happen, it's usually #2, not a #100.

August 24, 2008 4:56 PM

icarusr said:

And Jacob is doing his best to stoke this fires.

Simon: Lloyd Bentsen had not run for president in '88.  Dukakis chose him for "balance", and it goes him exactly two extra votes in Texas.  God knows why Gore chose Lieberman; Gore did not run in 92; Mondale chose Ferraro out of the blue.

August 24, 2008 4:59 PM

Crock1701 said:

Also, vis a vis the "50% of votes" thing:  Putting aside the speciousness of the popular vote claims, that's almost never really happened in Presidential history.  In the Primary Nomination times (post-1968) no candidate has ever gotten that much.  In conventions prior, close nomination fights eventually ended up being decided by "Dark Horse" Candidate, think John W. Davis in 1924, James Polk in 1844,  Franklin Pierce in 1852, Lincoln in 1860, Hayes in 1876.  

August 24, 2008 5:00 PM

jacobt1 said:

esmense said

"Which is why the McCain campaign is working so hard to keep the primary wounds open and raw by feeding Clinton controversies and Clinton bashing talking points to the media."

They are doing their job. Jonathan Cohn begs the media to shut up. I hope it's not going to happen.

I don't think that Bill Clinton can help them.  He can only make Obama smaller and insignificant compare to him. It's not Clinton's fault. Obama is small and insignificant. Clinton can't do anything about that.

August 24, 2008 5:02 PM

The Plank said:

Here's a rundown of TNR's Joe Biden coverage this weekend. *Jon Cohn explained why Biden is "very

August 24, 2008 5:24 PM

ironyroad said:

I think the real problem is that Bill Clinton sees an Obama presidency that's going to put his firmly in the past, and he hates that idea.  This is one of the problems when you get elected relatively young.  There's a whole lot of life left in which to get nostalgic.

August 24, 2008 5:35 PM

Barnacle said:

Jon,

This attempt by McCain is too obvious and too blunt -- when you make an ad that is so on target it makes people feel like they are being condescended to, the effectiveness is blunted by the pedantic tone.

HillaryIs44 lunatics will be excited about this ad; Obama supporters will also be fired up about this ad. It's preaching to the choir. The ad was made even more painfully obvious by Rudy's assertion this morning that Obama should have picked Hillary. This is from a guy who spent $50m to win a single delegate AND bashed Hillary for eleven months when she was "inevitable."

Oh, and Hillary can (and will) put all of this to bed in this little public appearance she is making on Tuesday...

August 24, 2008 5:46 PM

jacobt1 said:

The problem for Obama is that he doesn't have a good explanation why he hasn't  chosen Clinton.

He can't say, she is not ready on the day 1. If  she is not ready, is he ? He can't say, she is a Washington insider. Biden is.  He can't say that Clinton is corrupt. He can't say that he doesn't trust her. He is in a bind.  McCain was so much ahead of competition, that he doesn't have to explain why he wouldn't choose #2 or #3.

August 24, 2008 5:55 PM

jacobt1 said:

Barnacle said

"HillaryIs44 lunatics will be excited about this ad; Obama supporters will also be fired up about this ad."

You are wrong.

HillaryI's supporters  will be excited about this ad; Obama  lunatics will also be fired up about this ad.

There are no lunatics  among HillaryI's supporters , there are many lunatics among Obama's supporters. Many Clinton voters are not going to vote for Obama because they think that he can be ready, but right now  he is not.  The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.

August 24, 2008 6:03 PM

BHLnyc said:

Perhaps the idiocy will end sooner than we expected.

Clinton Expected to Release Delegates on Wednesday:

news.yahoo.com/.../cvn_clinton

August 24, 2008 6:05 PM

ironyroad said:

"The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

Jacob, your command of cliché and of yesterday's commonplace wisdom is impressive.

However, I think that the problem we've had for the last eight years is a president who has proven impervious to on-the-job training.  Obama's capacity to learn quickly is a plus, not a minus, in the Oval Office.

August 24, 2008 6:24 PM

kgrant1054 said:

Enough, Jacobt1, enough.

Enough with the rehashing of the primary battle.  Enough with doing John McCain's work for him.  Enough with throwing a tantrum because you didn't get the candidate that you wanted.  Enough with the spoiled, selfish behavior that will open the door for a McCain victory in the fall.  Enough with allowing your version of perfection to be the enemy of the good.

You didn't get Hillary anywhere on the ticket.  Ok, I get it, that sucks for you.  Guess what, I haven't had the person I wanted at the head of ticket for 24 years. (Frankly, Obama was not my first choice.)  I still went out and did my best to get the Democrat I didn't like elected, because I knew that the Republican running against him would have been a disaster.  Lo and behold, my fears were proven correct - the Republicans have been a disaster, and stunningly, Bill Clinton (who I didn't like (I voted for Tsongas in the primary)) turned out ok.  I wasn't thrilled with him, but I didn't need to be, because he was easily a better choice than Bush or Dole.  I voted for him.  I campaigned for him.  

But you, and folks like you, are not going to do the same out of spite and pique.  You are going to endanger the long-term health of the progressive cause by holding your breath because you didn't get your way.  You are going to hold the nation hostage because you didn't get your way.  You are going throw the baby out with the bathwater because you didn't get your way.  You are going to sacrifice civil rights, women's rights, the care of the poor, universal helath care, the end of the war, rational foreign policy, and immigation reform because you didn't get your way.  Do you not even begin to see how petty this is?  

No, no you can't.  You will dance and weave in your next post, claiming that this is all the fault of Obama and his supporters.  You will avoid the central argument and raise some nonsensical peripheral issue.  You will continue to parrot the old Clinton talking points that even Senator Clinton has abandoned.  Blind fools.  

August 24, 2008 6:39 PM

esmense said:

Ironyroad --

"I think the real problem is that Bill Clinton sees an Obama presidency that's going to put his firmly in the past, and he hates that idea.  This is one of the problems when you get elected relatively young.  There's a whole lot of life left in which to get nostalgic."

The above is nonsensical pop psychology (GOP/media spin). Clinton is a smart pol, and any smart pol knows that the last Democratic president's legacy is important in this election because it is the Democratic party's legacy -- a history of competence and achievement, especially in terms of the economy, that any Democratic candidate must run on (and would be mistaken to run against) -- made even more important in this case by today's dire economic climate and the fact that the current presidential candidate has such a limited personal history of real world achievement. Clinton isn't worried that his legacy will be forgotten -- he's worried that if it isn't used effectively, to the best political effect, the Democrats will lose...again, as usual.

Republicans are feeding the anti-Clinton animosity of the media and Obama supporters for a good reason. It is not at all in their interest to have Democrats draw clear and powerful contrasts between the gains experienced by middle class Americans under the last Democratic president and the losses experienced by those same Americans under the last 8 years of Republican rule.

If Obama runs on his experience alone, he loses.

August 24, 2008 6:43 PM

JEFF FREY said:

I'd go one step beyond "dubous assertion" and say that John McCain is full of shit. Which is also what Hillary ought to say -- it would be the best way to end this pseudo-controversy, assuming that she wants to do that.

But we should not get too worked up about what McCain says. I have no doubt that McCain had an attack ad ready in case Hillary was the VP choice: choosing Hillary a VP would have proven his wekaness and inability to unite his divided party. I have no doubt that McCain was ready with a dubious assertion about every one of the potential VP choices.

August 24, 2008 6:54 PM

jacobt1 said:

"However, I think that the problem we've had for the last eight years is a president who has proven impervious to on-the-job training.  Obama's capacity to learn quickly is a plus, not a minus, in the Oval Office."

Actually, you are wrong. Bush has learned and got better. I took him very long time.

There is no hint of evidence that Obama is any better.

Bush Cheney = Obama Biden.

"You will continue to parrot the old Clinton talking points that even Senator Clinton has abandoned.  "

I parrot the old Biden talking points. He was correct.

August 24, 2008 7:06 PM

jacobt1 said:

"I have no doubt that McCain was ready with a dubious assertion about every one of the potential VP choices."

Sure, it's his job. I'm sure that  Obama is  ready with a dubious assertion about every one of the potential VP choices.  Why are so surprised?

"But we should not get too worked up about what McCain says"

What does  it have to do with you? It's not about TNR readers.

August 24, 2008 7:11 PM

icarusr said:

Fascinating.  

Many here, mostly the supporters of Mrs. Clinton, have argued that TNR is an Obama echochamber.  Reading the back and forth between Jacob and esmense, I wonder who lives in an echochamber.  Seeing Jacob's multiple nonsensical posts, I see anger - seething, unremitting, unrelenting anger; reading esmense, I see the pain of loss, denial and justification all rolled into one.

Jacob has the cognitive capacity of a sponge and the absorption quotient of molten silica, so it's pointless trying to reason with him.  If wanted to copy-paste-edit my own comments in response to my own comments, I'd do that myself - no need to come here.  So Jacob, "whatever".

Esmense: you sound reasonable, if hurt.  Your point about whether the Democratic Party "needs" Mrs. Clinton to win this election may or may not be valid - I have not the polling results or indeed the analysis to be able to support or refute the assertion - but that, in a sense, is besides the point.  The fact is, can Mrs. Clinton, as a Democrat and as a progressive, as someone who truly believes (and I believe that she does) in the platform of her Party, really afford not to put down this insurgency in her name, and these attacks in her name?  Whether McCain is using the Clinton angle to rile up Obama's supporters or the Clinton faction is not pertinent: Obama himself will not rise to the bait; and it is up to Mrs. Clinton to put down, forcefully, any suggestion that she is aggrieved.  If -when she does so, then the matter will be dead for both the Clinton and Obama supporters.  

August 24, 2008 7:39 PM

Eos said:

The problem is that there are a lot of independents and Democrats who really wanted Clinton and who really did not want Obama. TThe way the primary campaigns were conducted have left them feeling rejected and treated with contempt. Personally, I am especially offended by the repeated imputations of racism. The idea that these Clinton supporters "should" or are morally obligated to now want Obama is a continuation of the offensive moral superiority of the bloggy left during the primaries.

A lot of these folks will likely split their votes.

August 24, 2008 7:44 PM

kgrant1054 said:

Jacobt1, do you even bother to make sense anymore?

August 24, 2008 7:49 PM

AlanSP said:

I'm actually a bit surprised by the lines they picked out for the ad.  They're pretty mild compared to some of her other comments during the primary (commander-in-chief test, "slumlord" with regard to Rezko, and assorted other hard shots).  I guess they didn't pull those out because they would make the question of why he didn't choose her look sort of silly (then again, I guess it would fit their moronic "the truth hurts" explanation).

Incidentally, I don't really get how we're supposed to reconcile the McCain campaign's claim that he passed over Hillary because he couldn't handle the criticism  with the McCain campaign's claim that "there has been no harsher critic" of Obama than Biden.

August 24, 2008 7:51 PM

jacobt1 said:

icarusr said:

"Seeing Jacob's multiple nonsensical posts"

Nothiing short of 100% support of the One is "sensical" for Obama lunatics.

August 24, 2008 7:57 PM

icarusr said:

"The idea that these Clinton supporters "should" or are morally obligated to now want Obama is a continuation of the offensive moral superiority of the bloggy left during the primaries."

Eos: no one is morally obligated to vote any which way.  The "should" is not a moral imperative; the juxtaposition may be inadvertent, but it is incorrect and misleading: where the "should" comes in is in relation to policies, directions and so on.  If you want another Alito or Roberts on the court, vote for McCain.  As to "splitting the vote", of course everyone is entitled to do that, but then when McCain fucks the Constitution over, his VP declares the office of the VP above the law, his Attorney General argues for the overturning of Roe, his foreign policy pronouncements enrage US allies, he fails to deliver health care and actively seeks to destroy Social Security - then don't complain.  If these are the results you seek by not "wanting Obama", then more power to you.

But if any of the above is a problem for you politically or as a matter of national policy or personal interest, then you "should" vote for the nominee of the party.  That simple.

August 24, 2008 7:59 PM

kgrant1054 said:

They don't have to 'want' Obama, and they certainly don't have to 'like' Obama.

They simply have to think about the long term implications of not voting for Obama if they support progressive causes.  My goodness, I have held my nose, or downright dreaded voting for some of the deadbeats that the Democrats have offered up since 1984, but I voted for them, because I could see that not to was to willfully turn my back on the political agenda that I supported.

Are Clinton supporters going to embrace a conservative agenda?  Are Clinton supporters going to hope that John McCain all of a sudden turns into a progressive?  

Again, so you don't like Obama, I get it, but that is not really relevant - you have to ask yourself, 'who is going to support a political agenda that is more closely attuned to my own?'  If, and only if, that answer is John McCain, should Clinton supporters consider voting for McCain.  Not out of spite.  Not out of hurt or pain over real or perceived slights.

What will happen to the possibility of universal health care?  What will happen to the Supreme Court?  What will happen to Roe v. Wade?  What will happen to our foreign policy?  What will happen to civil liberties?  What will happen to education?  What will happen to the economy?  What will happen to Social Security?  Is John McCain really the answer?  Did not Senator Clinton campaign on these issues?  Are you really willing to sell out her positions?

August 24, 2008 8:07 PM

AlanSP said:

"The idea that these Clinton supporters "should" or are morally obligated to now want Obama is a continuation of the offensive moral superiority of the bloggy left during the primaries."

Well, only if they actually care about the things which Clinton stood for.  I can think of exactly two policy issues on which Clinton and McCain were on one side and Obama on the other: suspending the gas tax and meeting with antagonistic foreign leaders.  If you thought she was right on those, but wrong on everything else, then you *should* be voting for McCain.  On the other hand, if you are actually committed to things like universal health care or having a sensible tax policy or any other issue that Clinton stood for, then yeah, you *should* be voting for Obama.  Not because of any moral obligation, but because he wants to achieve those goals and McCain does not.

August 24, 2008 8:15 PM

AlanSP said:

jacob writes,

"Nothiing short of 100% support of the One is "sensical" for Obama lunatics."

You may not have noticed, but you aren't the only Obama skeptic at TNR.  basman, tep, literatehobo, lymon, TammyA, jkolic, Chan, and numerous other people have all expressed doubts about Obama and yet I do not call their posts nonsensical.  I may disagree with them on various points, but unlike you, they are capable of making coherent arguments and having an intelligent, generally civil, debate.

So no, It's not a criticism of your anti-Obama sentiment; it's a criticism of your crappy, lazy, arguments.

August 24, 2008 8:48 PM

Eos said:

AlanSP:

There are lots of reasons to support Clinton, but not be willing to support Obama. The idea of a very left govenrment, with Obama and Pelosi sharing power, is unappealing to many moderates. A Democratic congress and a Republican presidency--when the Republican is formidable character like McCain who is genuinely open to bipartisan policies--has considerable appeal.

August 24, 2008 8:51 PM

jacobt1 said:

AlanSP said:

"Well, only if they actually care about the things which Clinton stood for."

In 2004, Kerry offered McCain vice presidency, in early 2008 many Obama supporters were going to vote for McCain if Obama wouldn't be a Democratic nominee.  Suddenly voting for McCain is a betrayal. Would you vote for a school board member, a city council member or a state representative for a President. ?

August 24, 2008 9:02 PM

BHLnyc said:

AlanSP:

Don't waste your effort on arguing with someone as delusional as Jacobt1. Clearly his life has no meaning beyond his personal animus towards Obama. How else could he devote the time to post nearly a dozen screeds on this thread alone? I actually worry for his sanity. Be kind and don't taunt him any further.

August 24, 2008 9:07 PM

ironyroad said:

jacobtl:  "Actually, you are wrong. Bush has learned and got better."

That's almost as funny as the thing you said yesterday about Biden and the surge.

August 24, 2008 9:08 PM

ironyroad said:

"The above is nonsensical pop psychology (GOP/media spin). "

Well, as I'm neither nonsensical (except at home), nor given to "pop psychology" (whatever that is), nor amenable to GOP media spin (oh come on!), I have a hard time connecting your comments with any plausible reality.  I agree that we are in the area of imponderables here to some extent, but there is no obvious contradiciton -- that I can see, at least -- between confirming the value Clinton's achievements in the 1990s and observing the irrational dynamics that seem to drive his interventions of recent memory.

August 24, 2008 9:14 PM

gennitydo said:

Eos: Obama is no more "left" than HRC.  In fact, he is probably slightly to the right of HRC.  You can't take the Repub memes at face value.  If you are against Obama sharing power with Pelosi for ideological reasons, then you would be equally against Clinto sharing power with Pelosi.

You also might want to look at bit more closely at the McCain of '08.  He is no longer open to bipartisan policies.  He is now firmly beholden to the Repub powers that be and he has reversed position on most of his famous bipartisan views from immigration to tax policy to campaign finance reform.

August 24, 2008 9:16 PM

icarusr said:

"The idea of a very left govenrment, with Obama and Pelosi sharing power, is unappealing to many moderates ...."

Eos: There is no evidence at all that Mrs. Clinton and Obama disagree on broad policy prescriptions, such as to make an Obama-Pelosi "power sharing" more dangerous to "moderates" than with Mrs. Clinton in the White House.  In fact, Mrs. Clinton ran far to the left of Obama in the last stretch of the campaign, and even on UHC, is more interventionist than Obama.  I'm sorry, but UNLESS you start with the proposition that a divided government is best for the country - something that might make sense but I disagree with - there is no basis at all in the argument that Mrs. Clinton would have delivered such a divided government where Obama would not.  In fact, by comparing (favourably and on policy grounds) Mrs. Clinton to McCain, I'd say that you are perpetrating a greater calumny upon her character than anything any "Clinton-hater" might say.

August 24, 2008 9:26 PM

icarusr said:

I'll take the bait Jacob: "Would you vote for a school board member, a city council member or a state representative for a President. ?"

In fact, between a competent, uncorrupt and intelligent school board member and the apes, charlatans, fraudsters, thieves and rogues who run the current administration, I'd take the school board member.  In the context of the incompetence of the last eight years launched upon this country by the most experienced administration in its history, this post of yours demonstrated how out of touch with reality you are.

August 24, 2008 9:29 PM

jacobt1 said:

"In fact, between a competent, uncorrupt and intelligent school board member and the apes, charlatans, fraudsters, thieves and rogues who run the current administration"

It not the choce. The choice is between a state senator and  McCain who just 4 years ago was asked by Kerry to be his running mate and who was preferred candidate over Clinton by many Obama supporters just few months ago.

August 24, 2008 9:39 PM

AlanSP said:

"There are lots of reasons to support Clinton, but not be willing to support Obama. The idea of a very left govenrment, with Obama and Pelosi sharing power, is unappealing to many moderates. A Democratic congress and a Republican presidency--when the Republican is formidable character like McCain who is genuinely open to bipartisan policies--has considerable appeal."

It would have every bit as much appeal in a McCain-Clinton election as it would in a McCain-Obama election (not much, in my opinion).  In terms of policy, Clinton is every bit as much to the left as Obama is.  They differed on two real issues; meeting with hostile leaders, on which Clinton was to the right of Obama, and health care mandates, where she was to his left.  I'm not sure where this idea of Hillary as moderate and Obama as lefty extremist is coming from, but it certainly isn't from their policy positions.

August 24, 2008 9:40 PM

AlanSP said:

BHL, for some reason I can't help myself.  I know it's a waste of time.

"In 2004, Kerry offered McCain vice presidency, in early 2008 many Obama supporters were going to vote for McCain if Obama wouldn't be a Democratic nominee.  Suddenly voting for McCain is a betrayal. Would you vote for a school board member, a city council member or a state representative for a President. ?"

Did I use the term "betrayal" somewhere?  I don't recall doing so.  My point is that if you want to accomplish the things Hillary wanted to accomplish and your choice is between Obama and McCain, Obama's your guy (to the extent that you care about said objectives.  Other things are more important to some people).  That's why Hillary herself is supporting Obama and not McCain.

And no it doesn't matter that McCain was offered the VP spot by Kerry or that a handful of Clinton-hating Obama supporters were saying they'd vote for McCain.  As someone who actually wants to see universal healthcare get done, I think that would have been just as dumb as die-hard Clinton supporters doing it now.  There are big-time policy matters at stake here.  UHC and the other changes Hillary was pushing for simply won't get done under McCain.

August 24, 2008 10:24 PM

JEFF FREY said:

AlanSP asks:

"Incidentally, I don't really get how we're supposed to reconcile the McCain campaign's claim that he passed over Hillary because he couldn't handle the criticism  with the McCain campaign's claim that "there has been no harsher critic" of Obama than Biden."

Alan, your mistake is assuming that intellectual consistency is considered a desirable trait by the McCain campaign. Neither of these ridiculous attacks are aimed at the thinking voter. They just hope that some of the mud sticks, and that their noise disrupts the script of Obama's nominating convention. And if some Clinton hardliners disrupt it even more, then McCain will be even happier!

August 24, 2008 10:25 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Eos: A Democratic congress and a Republican presidency--when the Republican is formidable character like McCain who is genuinely open to bipartisan policies--has considerable appeal.

Well, if that is how you feel about it then your voting decision is pretty easy. I think you are completely mistaken to place Obama well to the left of Clinton (except on the issue of the war, although I don't think they are as far apart as they used to be). On most issues, Obama and Hillary have almost the same positions, which is why the choice ended up becoming almost entirely based on personality, and maybe in part why the bitter fight became so personal for their supporters.

You probably have thought about it, but I suggest you think carefully about the fact that the President is in many respects more powerful than the Congress (judicial and other appointments, foreign policy, etc), so be careful what you wish for.

If McCain was acting like the guy who ran in 2000 or was considered a plausible VP for Kerry in 2004, then I would be more inclined to find your position reasonable. But he's turned the wheel hard to the right in order to finally become the Republican nominee. I don't think he cares deeply about many of the issues hardline right-wingers care about, but because he doesn't care so much one way or the other about them, I can guarantee you that he will shore up his base by handing some issues over to the sort of extremist ideologues who have harmed this country so much in the last 8 years.

August 24, 2008 10:37 PM

JEFF FREY said:

And I forgot to compliment AlanSP in my comment to him -- it was a good catch to notice the contradictory nature of the two McCain attacks. What will McCain come up with tomorrow?

August 24, 2008 10:43 PM

Eos said:

Alan and Jeff:

Clinton is certainly much more moderate than Obama, probably because she is much more experienced and realistic. She is in about the same place as her husband who, as I am sure you know, was a founder of the DLC whose entire purpose was to restore moderation to the Democratic Party. Obama reprises McGovern in 1972. National Journal ranks Obama as the most liberal senator in the entire US Senate. Biden is ranked as the third most liberal. Clinton on the other hand, is ranked as 17th--about in the the middle of the Democratic contingent. Obama is on the extreme left of the Democrats in the Senate--there is literally no one to his left and everyone else in the SEnate is to his right. Biden is very close.

Clinton's moderation is one of the reasons that she has been treated with such contempt by places like TNR, the HuffingtonPost, Olbermann, TPM, Daily Kos, etc. Even the liberal Media Matters called Chait and TNR on the carpet for their unfairness to Clinton (e.g. "Stop Thief"). All of their contempt has not been forgotten now simply because they would like our votes.

So, Obama and Clinton are not the same. Nor are their supporters. The far left of the Democratic Party has once again hijacked the nomination. And the fact that CLinton as a professional politician is being a good party soldier does not mean that Obama gets my vote.

And, Jeff, btw--McCain 2008 is bipartisan enough to want to run with Lieberman ,who is a liberal on everything except Iraq.

Here is the National Journal link:

www3.nationaljournal.com/voteratings

August 24, 2008 11:11 PM

BHLnyc said:

Eos:

You're way too hung up on stats. You seem to think that someone's entire governing philosophy can be broken down by some simplistic formula that spits out a number and tells you where they are on the political spectrum. This is hogwash. Bush is considered a "conservative," but has run up huge deficits, allowed the federal government to become bloated, has conducted a weak, meandering foreign policy and has a terrible record on privacy and individual rights.

These labels are meaningless and it's quite clear that you're letting your personal obsession with Hillary cloud your judgment about assessing the minor policy differences between she and Obama.

August 24, 2008 11:58 PM

gennitydo said:

Eos:  The National Journal?  Are you kidding?

The SOP is that the Dem candidate is always the "most liberal".  This how the Repubs work.  In 2004, the "most liberal" Senator was John Kerry.  Did you vote for him?

Rubin, Reich, Tony Lake, Jason Furman, Neera Tanden all working for Obama.  How can he be so far to the left if all of his advisors are the same advisors that worked by Bill or Hill or both?

August 25, 2008 12:12 AM

jacobt1 said:

" How can he be so far to the left if all of his advisors are the same advisors that worked by Bill or Hill or both?"

Can any of Obama supporters  remind us why did they support Obama over Clinton with such passion? Please don't tell us about "judgment " anymore? We now  know that was a fake argument.

August 25, 2008 12:20 AM

AlanSP said:

Eos, while Bill was certainly a moderate, Hillary is not.  As to those national journal rankings, Josh Patashnik had a great article about why they are something of a joke www.tnr.com/.../story.html  It's particularly silly as evidence of their supposed ideological difference because they cast different votes on exactly twice (see the list of votes used in the calculation here: nj.nationaljournal.com/.../votes.htm )

Notably, you didn't actually address my argument that Clinton and Obama ran on essentially identical platforms with the few differences not clearly placing one to the left or the right.  It makes no sense to say that one person is a moderate and the other is at the extreme left of the Democratic Party when they have nearly identical policy positions.  Explain how Obama is *substantively* so far to left of Hillary.

August 25, 2008 12:56 AM

JEFF FREY said:

Eos: I did read an article about the National Journal rankings, and I would not put any weight on them. And as gennitydo pointed out, somehow the Democratic nominee always ends up being "most liberal". They get the answer they want to get. In any case, color me unconvinced by your argument -- I still think they are quite close together in terms of their positions. A better guide, in my opinion, would be to contrast their policy stands in the campaign, which were very close together.

Jacobt1, I know I ought to ignore you, but here goes: I thought (and still think) that Obama has a better chance than Clinton of getting his agenda through Congress and rallying the public behind it. I think the two would want to do mostly the same things if elected, but Obama has a better chance of succeeding, thanks to his ability to inspire people. And a better chance of being elected, due to the fact that Hillary makes Republicans froth at the mouth and unite to oppose her (translation: her negatives are high). And for me, Obama sealed the deal with his thoughtful response the Wright crisis. I had no passion against Hillary until she went too far in some of her campaign attacks. I think "hard-working Americans, white Americans" was the absolute end of her for me, although she had come close to that on other issues, so that was just the last straw.

Sorry to tell you that neither kool-aid nor religious epiphanies were involved.

August 25, 2008 12:57 AM

GSpinks said:

"Please don't tell us about "judgment " anymore? We now  know that was a fake argument."

The only thing fake around here is your reasoning. The AUMF is not a disqualifier for VP selection. It isn't a disqualifier for nominee for president either, but it is one of the few actual differences between Obama and Clinton and therefore a natural issue for debating and around which some people will make a decision.

"Can any of Obama supporters  remind us why did they support Obama over Clinton with such passion?"

Because I want a president who will make the right calls in the first place (aumf, vp not as important a consideration), and readily admit when they are wrong about something in the second (drilling). I want a president who is willing to exercise diplomatic options first, and get visibly involved in diplomatic efforts (Bill C was awesome, I never got the same impression from Hill). I want a president who wont exaggerate the truth to make a better story out of an issue (sniper fire). I want a president who does not accept that PACs are the only source of good money and willfully partner with them to promote their political career (Penn). The reason I am so passionate this time around is because, for the first time in my life, I won't be holding my nose when I push the Democrat button on the voting machine.

Eos: first, the National Journal is still working out significant kinks in their methodology, especially as it relates to missed votes. second, the National Journal's methodology is designed to normalize the scale, and establish a clear binary division on all issues based on voting trends of other politicians and not on the issues themselves; its a lot more like a guage of party affiliation than an legitimate ranking of the strength of a politicians liberalism or conservatism. I mean, their only contributing factor to the liberalism or conservatism represented by any vote is how many Dems/Reps voted for/against a bill; this, in and of itself, eliminates legitimate significance from the report because its a big, normalized line indicating how many times a politician voted for a bill when other politicians in their party voted for the same bill, a ranking which is then strengthened if the bill is strongly divided on party lines and weakened if the bill has bipartisan support.

August 25, 2008 2:06 AM

gennitydo said:

I am sure I will be branded a lunatic, but I voted for Obama over Clinton because he has more and more valuable experience than Clinton.

In the Senate, Clinton, who has served only one full term has authored and passed into law twenty pieces of legislation including 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.  

Senator Obama has been the primary sponsor of 55 bills including the following: the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill.

mediamatters.org/.../200801110003

I also value the experience as a state legislator and community organiser over experience as a First Lady and corporate lawyer.

Finally, I cannot forgive her for her role in selling pardons to fraudsters in drug dealers.

transcripts.cnn.com/.../ip.00.html

August 25, 2008 3:19 AM

icarusr said:

gennity, GSpiks and Jeff: man, you guys are too kind.  Jacob is a babbling brook of banalities and baseless broadsides.  S/he is an algorithm designed to generate nonsensical arguments rather than a sentient being capable of rational thought.  

August 25, 2008 8:16 AM

jacobt1 said:

gennitydo said

"Senator Obama has been the primary sponsor of 55 bills including  ... The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act"

Yes, you are an Obama a lunatic.

August 25, 2008 9:59 AM

BHLnyc said:

icarusr:

do you notice how Jacobt1 comes along right after your last point to make your point for you?

August 25, 2008 10:59 AM

icarusr said:

BHL: yeah, in that way, Jacob's too kind.

August 25, 2008 11:12 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

It’s safe to say this will probably never, ever end.

August 25, 2008 11:35 AM

JEFF FREY said:

Too funny. But why hasn't he said, "I know you are, but what am I?"

August 25, 2008 11:47 AM

sex partners said:

Rare Editions Toddler Slippers Dress 2

September 26, 2008 8:43 PM