All apt. It has amazed me that anyone who has followed these campaigns does -not- recognize much of the indefensible negativity from Obama - especially the character stuff which is not political debate at all. And wasn't it his spouse who suggested that Hillary only got to where she is because of her husband's mishaps? How is that not the ultimate political flame-bait!
However I think the NYT endorsement of Hillary also makes an apt point: it's really up to her (and us) to figure out how to transcend this and unify the party.
For what its worth I have some suggestions, beginning with recognizing the real strategy against Hillary: dehumanization. When we know how to counter that with inclusive, humanizing dialog instead of reaction, we will have won.
Please check it out:
Dehumanization '08
re: #4. A caveat. Nothing Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reports regarding any Democrat, especially the Clintons, is to be trusted. She is a conservative hack.
Posted by DeanOR at January 24, 2008 09:38 PMCue the unhinged... right about NOW.
Posted by blogtopus at January 24, 2008 09:52 PMSo if Obama wins the nomination will you Clinton folks support him?
I'm guessing the answer is no.
Posted by asdf at January 24, 2008 10:00 PMOn the contrary, I've seen more than enough sentiment to believe the opposite is true.
My guess is that Obama's people are younger voters, inexperienced and not really aware that a 'conscience vote' for a third party is what got us Bush in the first place.
I will completely support Obama, if only to make sure that we don't keep digging a hole for America. I would like to hope that at the very least Obama would stop digging.
See? That wasn't hard. :-)
Posted by blogtopus at January 24, 2008 10:04 PMUhOh. I dared to post a link to this on a kos hate diary. Duck!
Posted by jen at January 24, 2008 10:08 PMI would absolutely vote for Obama if he were the nominee. Because all our candidates are good. He isn't my first choice, but neither was Kerry. I really hate to hear Obama supporters say they won't vote for Clinton if she gets it. She isn't the devil and she isn't a republican. She is very intelligent, and politically savvy and will get the job done in November.
Posted by cdo at January 24, 2008 11:27 PMThe divisiveness in this race is WAY over-hyped by the starved media and by certain stalwart supporters in each campaign (and reactionaries in the blogosphere). I think as strategy it's a periodic function of the self-appointed insurgent campaigns; if it was all a clean positive love campaign Hillary would be walking away with it because positive policy messages didn't begin to convince most people. But Obama knows better (than Edwards) than to be relentlessly negative; it's a one-two character jab and then a fade, with an innocent look when the counter-attack comes.
According to yesterday's LA Times / Bloomberg poll, 62% of Democrats would still like to see Clinton choose Obama as her running-mate if she wins, and 60% would like to see Obama choose Clinton as his running-mate if he wins. So let's be straight: a good solid majority of voting Democrats just want unity, they want our two stars to be working together and making the Republicans tremble. Most folks know the policy differences between these two are in many respects negligible.
Another interesting statistic in the mentioned poll: 70% of each candidates supporters consider themselves firmly committed. There's no dig Obama can make that is going to sway that "core" 70% of Clinton's supporters, and that is a HUGE number of people. But he could anger of those people by continuing to go negative on non-debatable accusations about character etc. Similarly in the other direction, of course, and the NYT is probably correct in laying the difficult task of forging unity at Clinton's feet.
However much he repeats the word "unity", Obama's whole campaign strategy is based on being an insurgent and therefore a divisive anti-Clinton; that's why it's valid (if not necessarily constructive) to question his claims of being the positive "hope" candidate. The media seems to willingly turn a blind eye to basic political strategy and its implications for reality; it is only in Obama's interests to have this periodic confrontation because he's so convincing at playing the innocent and casting character aspersions; just as it was only to his advantage to have a racial brouhaha. People as smart as the Clintons do not provoke fights that hurt them, and they didn't provoke that one.
I think Bill probably will re-tune his message some and Hillary will rise to the occasion and unify us, but this process may well drag out because Obama's clearly playing non-zero-sum and probably will continue to do so until Hillary seals the nomination, which may take a few months yet. All the same, now is the time for all Democrats to stop believing the polarizing narratives and remember that we're all on the same side, we're all human and we all want a better America. If we sacrifice any of our party's stars - including Hillary, the most admired woman in the world for 13 of the last 16 years and a great inspiration to millions - we will have failed regardless of who sits in the White House next year.
Chris, thanks for the sensible note.
I was just thinking about the "divisiveness" question, and I think the Democrats ARE divisive---just in a different way.
It's not that public support is fractured, but that the prima donnas at the top can never stop criticizing each other, both in public and private.
If Obama is the nominee I will have no problem voting for him. I just think Hillary Clinton will be a better president than he will at this point.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2008 05:58 AMNo offense but I think you people at this site are seriously sheltered if:
A) you think Obama brought all this on himself
and
B) You don't understand what the Clintons might have done that has caused many of us to decide never to vote them again:
The List
1. #1 Barack Obama May Have Been a Drug Dealer!
2. #2 Actually, LBJ Did it
3. #3 I can't make her... black?
4. #4 Imaginary Hip Black Friend
5. #5 Mandela
6. #6 Shuck and Jive
7. #7 BET Founder Bob Johnson Attacks
8. #8 Three Volunteers Resign for Spreading MADRASSA EMAIL
9. #9 Bob Kerrey and his Dog Whistle
10. #10 "Beautiful Symbol"
11. #11 "Fairy Tale" & "Kid"
12. #12 "False Hopes"
13. #13 Bill Clinton's Charlie Rose Interview
14. #14 "I just don't want to see us fall backwards"
15. #15 Andrew Young Says Bill is "every bit as black" as Obama
16. #16 Clinton Team Quietly Raise Obama's Cocaine Use
17. May
18. #17 Geraldine Ferraro Blames Obama for Race Talk
19. #18 Charlie Rangel Blames Obama for Race Talk
20. #19 Rangel: Obama put drug use in book to sell books
21. #20 The "Spadework" Comment on The Today Show
22. #21 The "Spadework" Comment in JULY 2007
23. #21 Playing on the Obama-will-be-assassinated fears
24. #22- Hillary Shufflin' about Bob Johnson
25. #23- Black and Brown Instigation
26. #24- Lawd, the Black Man will DOOM..DOOM the entire ticket
27. #25-State Senator Robert Ford on Obama's Iowa Victory
28. #26- Obama's got 99 Problems
29. #27- Vetting Obama
30. #28 Earl Ofari Hutchinson Says Obama Should Apologize To Hillary
31. #29 Attempted Disenfranchisement of Nevada Caucus-Goers
32. #30 Obama "Unwilling to take a stand on choice"
33. #31 I'm in an interracial relationship
34. #32- Bill Clinton says people in South Carolina will vote for Obama only because he's black
Feel free to put up your own list
Posted by MW at January 25, 2008 12:32 PMMW,
Where's "She killed Vince Foster"?
Posted by Nathan at January 25, 2008 01:14 PMI spend a lot of time leisurely trolling the internet, reading stories that range from the general to the mainstream to the fringe. I have to say, in my 15 year experience navigating through issues on the world wide web, this is perhaps one of the silliest web pages I have seen and simultaneously an incredible disappointing use of an adults time. Most disappointing is that your compilation is tantamount to a collection of unsubstantiated information, and surogate statements masquarading as concrete fact. I'm not a politician or a consistent voter to be quite honest, but I feel comfortable saying that as a sensible adult you should be ashamed that this is the kind of work you have been reduced to doing. This required hyper partisanship and clear support for a specific idea at all costs. That is not a sign of great intelligence and I'm sure when you dreamed of covering national elections and you felt you had finally received your opportunity this isn't what you had in mind. This is not a good use of your bachelors degree.
Posted by Questionable at January 26, 2008 12:19 PMQuestionable:
If you were so "sensible" or were so "adult", you would always vote. Its your duty. Spare us the lecture. Eric in Austin
Posted by eric l at January 28, 2008 09:07 AM