Running alongside the bandwagon

I was a fly on the wall during a conference call two of Hillary Clinton's top campaign advisers and a Clinton supporter on the DNC's Rules and By-laws Committee had with journalists and bloggers Wednesday.  Howard Wolfson, Harold Ickes, and Tina Flournoy were outlining the arguments they were going to make before the RBC when it meets Saturday to decide just what to do about the Florida and Michigan delegation's at the convention.  (Sam Stein took better notes than I did on the call.)

In the course of the discussion Wolfson repeated what has become the Clinton argument to the uncommitted super-delegates (and, as Wolfson added, "the entire universe of super-delegates") which is that the primary results and recent polls show that Hillary has the best chance against McCain come November.

Senator Obama can win, Senator Clinton will win, is what they're saying. The Party should nominate the sure thing.

This is what Senator Clinton herself said in another conference call I was in on a couple weeks ago.

Do I have access or what?

Next thing you know, somebody will be inviting me to blog the Convention.

I said, next thing you know SOMEBODY WILL BE INVITING ME TO BLOG THE CONVENTION!!!

(Insert sound f/x of crickets chirping here.)

At any rate, this is the argument they've got to make, and I just don't think it will convince enough of the supers.

It doesn't convince me.

I buy the first half.  Clinton will win.

I don't buy the second half, which isn't to say I think that Obama can't win.

Obama will win.

Your protest votes of conscience notwithstanding.

Obama will win.

Quick rundown of why.

Polls at this point aren't very reliable, but it's interesting that they all keep showing the same thing.  McCain is stuck in the mid-40s.  Bob Barr and Ron Paul aren't going to take many votes from anybody, but they are going to take more from McCain, and they don't have to take much more to bring him down to the low 40s.

McCain is a poor campaigner.  Obama is an excellent one.

McCain has nothing to run on but vanity and his campaign has basically two planks, I can beat anybody at Indian wrestling and Everything I say is the truth even when I'm contradicting myself and making shit up and out and lying.

McCain doesn't wear well.  Obama does better the more people get to see him and hear him (which is why I think he made a mistake opposing do-overs in Michigan and Florida and why he should have campaigned in West Virginia and Kentucky.  But then, as I said, Obama is an excellent campaigner and part of what makes him excellent is that he and his staff are very, very smart about where and how to campaign, so what do I know?) and by the time November arrives voters will have had months of watching a crabby, red-faced, squeaky voiced old man boasting about how once upon a time he could whip every candy-ass in the bar and a tall, handsome, youthful and smooth Barack Obama talking about what he's going to do to fix the economy, end the war, and get the country back on track to greatness.

Obama will win and it will be a good thing.

He will be a good President.

As good as Hillary would have been---Well, almost as good---because he's going to do pretty much the same things she would have done.  They are just not that much different on the important issues.  Where they do differ is mainly a matter of emphasis.

There's been a lot of concern expressed by Hillary supporters that Obama is the Republicans' Manchurian candidate and that once in office he will turn out to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

This is about as big a bunch of malarkey as all the carping that Hillary is a Republican-lite.

Folks, can we please remember what it means to be a Republican.

Being a Republican does not mean being more conservative than you on a handful of issues dear to your heart.  It does not mean having friends and advisers who happen to be rich or who work in corporate offices.   There are many Democrats and liberals who wear pinstriped suits to work (Are pinstripes still in?  What about power ties?  I'm so trapped in the 1980s.) because the business of America is business these days.  That's where most of the jobs are for very smart people who are good with money, and Democrats are better with money than Republicans are.

In national politics these days, Republicans are people who believe that the country should be run by a handful of rich assholes for the benefit of making themselves richer and if that means turning the rest of us into serfs, well, that's what the riff-raff are for, so shut your yaps.

Look over the voting records of Obama and Clinton, then compare them to even the most reasonable of the Republicans.

Then tell me they're Republicans in Democratic clothing.

And let's keep in mind where most of us here in Western Blogtopia (TM Skippy) get our ideas about what's happening in politics.  Mainly from each other and let's face facts.  We're all nuts.

We're a pack of zealots, fanatics, kooks, and weirdos.  Mostly nice weirdos, but weirdos still.  We are not representative of the rest of America.  Making judgments about what Hillary's supporters or Obama's supporters are like based on what's being said on the blogs is like making judgments about what New York City is like based on the conversations in the psych ward at Bellevue...or in coffee shops in Greenwich Village.

And all we know beyond what we know from reading too much of each other's work is what we read in the newspapers...and watch on TV.  We are dependent on the National Press Corps and too many of those people are crazier than we are and a whole lot dumber.

Not to mention corrupt.

Which brings me to this post by Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest, Do You Want to Beat McCain or Just Score Points Against Hillary/Obama?

Because, as Dave reminds us, if it's the latter then you're playing the game according to the rules the Republicans set down thirty-five years ago:

I'm not going to get into the argument about this here, except to remind everyone that in 1972 the Nixon campaign pioneered the strategy of disrupting Democratic primary races. I think it should be clear that much of the conflict in this year's primary is being pushed by the right through the Drudge report, Washington Times, Fox News, etc. but for some reason in this election many Democrats seem willing to pick it up and run with it. This is a mistake.

Turning Americans against each other, that was Nixon's greatest talent and he bequeathed it to the Republican Party who bullied and brainwashed the Media into thinking that Americans hating Americans and especially Democrats hating other Democrats is just the way things are, can't be helped, but if there's any blame to be placed it should be placed on...the Democrats.

The idea that having had two strong and smart and talented and deserving candidates making their cases to the voters of all fifty states has been divisive and destructive, despite all the polls showing that the voters have been loving it, is an idea that the Republicans relish and the National Press Corps gleefully pushes.

And it's an idea that cannot be supported by evidence gathered from the field or from inside the Party, where the leadership and the money are already lining up strongly behind Obama.  The only evidence for it is right here in the blogosphere.

They're using us as tools!

Dave goes on:

Here's the thing. The Republicans and Bush cronies have a lot of money and the incentive that many will be going to jail (and/or The Hague) if there is an honest accounting of the Bush years. The corrupt crony machine stands to lose billions and billions of dollars. They have the conservative infrastructure's message machine of think tanks, information outlets, etc. They have the corporate media and the power of the entire American corporate structure that is siphoning so much of our money away to a top few. And they have a public conditioned to reflexively support conservatives after decades of unanswered right-wing, and pro-corporate propaganda. This combination is going to be hard to overcome. So it is going to take Obama supporters and Hillary supporters both voting for the Democratic nominee--whoever that is--to beat the Republicans in November.

I'm not saying that we all should forget our differences or give up any and all criticisms.  I'm not saying that your concerns and hurt feelings don't matter.

I'm just saying that this particular Hillary supporter, although disappointed, is just fine with the prospect of an Obama Presidency.

But more than that I am horrified at the thought of President John McCain.

He plans to kill a lot of people, folks, and get a lot of people killed.

And that's about all he plans to do, except for appointing lots of Right Wing judges to the Federal Bench, making sure we don't get universal health care, cutting more taxes for the rich, and otherwise advancing the failed policies and stupid ideas of George W. Bush.

And did I mention he plans to get a lot of people killed?

A hundred years of war!

Ok, I'm done.  If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go check my email now.

Maybe that invite to the Convention has arrived.

__________________

Related and recommended:  Julia rates McCain's VP prospects, a field that has to give hope to the Democrats.

Note, though, this line Julia quotes from CNN's Politicalticker's report of the gathering of wannabes:

Many weekends, Sen. John McCain takes advantage of the prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama by heading to his home in Arizona to relax and get away from the glare of the media.

Besides the reflexive sycophancy we've come to expect from members of the National Press Corps when reporting on McCain and the unintended irony of McCain's escaping from the glare of the Media by bringing the Media along with him for a staged Media event, there's that idea again that everything is bad for the Democrats especially other Democrats.

Updated just to brag and whine:  Just got off another conference call with Wolfson, Ickes, and Flournoy.   Argument remains the same.  I did not get my invite to the convention.

Optimistic update:  Bob Beckel ain't worried.

Updated to shake my head and say this doesn't help at all:  I think Obama should be a little more than "disappointed" with this jerk.  Sorry, Father.  This Reverend Jerk.

Comments

[lina]

Lance Mannion: the voice of reason

[Victoria]

At one of those Senate Iraq hearings, I got to hear McCain's voice asking questions right next to a clip of Obama asking (better) questions. The voice quality difference was more than striking. Then I imagined debates: McCain next to a taller, more flexible Obama - plus those voices. Throw in a pinch of McCain's inclination to get pissy about Obama. Oh, please-oh-please-oh-please may that leak out while they are standing next to each other. I tell you, it was a beeeeeutiful thing.

And while we're on the subject of my imagination, as I was reading your entry, Lance, one of your sentences transmuted right there in front of me to this:

He plans to kill a lot of people, FRIENDS, and get a lot of people killed.

There's yer John McCain.

[actor212]

McCain is stuck in the mid-40s.

The GOP as a whole, including the universe of Congressional candidates, the party itself, and the sitting President, poll in the mid to upper 20 percent range.

Obama is stuck in the mid-40s.

Democrats, including the universe of Congressional candidates, as well as the party itself, poll in the mid-50 percent range.

You underestimate McCain's chances, I think. The man who outpolls his own party by twenty percent against a man who can't even capture a clear plurality of polling numbers in a party that is destined for a big win in November is a very weak candidate indeed.

[Doug H. (Fausto no more)]

Excellent, excellent post.

You underestimate McCain's chances, I think. The man who outpolls his own party by twenty percent against a man who can't even capture a clear plurality of polling numbers in a party that is destined for a big win in November is a very weak candidate indeed.

Or maybe the former candidate, who's all but coalesced his coalition, has hit the ceiling of his support while the other, who's still trying to come to a conclusion with his well-supported challenger, is nearer the basement.

[HenryFTP]

Lance:

I want to believe this is true, and from my own Upper West Side coffee shop perspective, it sure looks that way.

But then it also looked that way to me when decorated veteran, determined prosecutor and distinguished Senator John Kerry was our nominee in 2004, running against that hopelessly inarticulate frat boy who had dragged the good name of the United States through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison. And 56 million of my fellow Americans agreed with me. Problem was, 59 million did not.

I think Obama will be a more effective candidate than Kerry, in no small part because his contest with Hillary has given him invaluable experience. On the other hand, I still think McCain is a much more dangerous opponent than Bush -- he's at least a recognizable adult, instead of an arrested adolescent, and the corporate media will simply airbrush away all the true unflattering ugliness of his true adherence to 95% of the radical right-wing Republican agenda that has wrecked our country.

That's why I think the Obama team's notion that they can bank the Democratic base and go vigorously fickle independents is daft. That's fighting on ground of McCain's choosing, where he has the corporate media as crooked refs in his corner.

He's already got a reservoir of 34 million people who voted in Democratic primaries and who have little stomach for another Republican kleptocratic trainwreck administration. That's the wave he should be catching. He can worry about "transformation" and "realignment" in his re-election campaign.

[Bluegrass Poet]

I'm with HenryFTP and Actor 212 here, Lance. I don't think we can say either Democratic candidate will win. It's a long way to November and who in the world was a worse candidate than GWB??

Speaking as a disgruntled woman (so I have an ax to grind), I think Obama has some real fence-mending to do with the female part of what should be his base. I don't know if women defections will be enough to cost him the election but I think he ignores this problem to his peril. Dismissing it only fans the flames.

And I'm not talking women who haunt the blogosphere. I'm talking "normal" women who are quiet but who vote.

Mind you, I'm not one of those who vows never to vote for Obama. I await further developments.

[Lance]

Poet,

The fence-mending and the reaching out are a matter of course, and if Obama doesn't do it he will lose and deserve to lose. I think he's already started, tentatively. Would have helped if he'd been a little more forceful about smacking down Father Pflegler.

Also, in politics, as in much of life, "will" is always a conditional term. We're going to have to work for this.

Henry, I think this way of looking at 2004, that Kerry should have beaten Bush, turns things on their head. Four years ago Bush was the War President and most of the country, including many Democrats believed they had to support their President during wartime. It wasn't until after Katrina and the Social Security raid that the majority caught on to what we in blogland knew all along, that he was stupid and heartless and either incompetent or criminally negligent, take your pick. In 2004, he was the one who should have won in a walk. Instead he squeaked out a win against the stiff and relatively charmless Kerry who was himself running a tone deaf and slow-witted campaign, and Bush had to cheat in Florida and steal votes in Ohio in order to do it.

As for McCain, no, he won't be a mere tackling dummy, but having the Media on his side is not going to be the big help people think it is. The Media was on his side in 2000. Didn't help him then. They were on his side going into this election season and he fell by the wayside immediately. He's only the nominee by default. Romney turned out to be a stiff. No Great Right Wing Hope appeared. And Rudy Giuliani---who let's not forget also had the Media in his corner---forgot you actually have to run for the nomination in order to get the nomination. Looking back over the last dozen years, being the Media's darling has usually been the kiss of death---Tsongas, Bradley, McCain, Giuliani, and now McCain again. (This of course is a bad omen for Obama, but I think the Media's just been infatuated with his not being Hillary and when the election heats up they'll return to their true love, McCain.) They didn't love Bush in 2000, they loved McCain, but when Bush won they didn't fall in love with him as much as they decided they hated Gore.

[Lance]

actor, I'm with Doug H. on this one.

lina: Lance Mannion: the voice of reason

Lance Mannion: Voice of reflexively and rabidly partisan Democrat.

[Victoria]

Poet - No question, Obama will have some serious work to do with Hillary-supporting women. I also think Hillary will need to join in this work with inspired enthusiasm. It's not just one side's responsibility or fault.

[David Parsons]

I don't know if that will make any difference. Ms. Clinton isn't the one who's riding the sexism, homophobia, and Rove-style campaigning bandwagon to the convention. If the DNC can bully Ms. Clinton into doing the cleanup work after Mr. Obama's slime-throwing, I might as well just register as a Republican now and get my evil without the infusion of hypocrisy that the Democratic Party brings.

[Tom Hilton]

This is eminently reasonable. I'm less certain about [Democrat] winning, but I'm optimistic, and I think your reasons are sound.

Obama will have some serious work to do with Hillary-supporting women. I also think Hillary will need to join in this work with inspired enthusiasm. It's not just one side's responsibility or fault.

A-frigging-men.

[HenryFTP]

Lance is right on the merits, but what worries me is the skewed perspective to which I plead guilty, namely that of underestimating an opponent who in my own eyes may be unthinkable, but right here in my own household I find that I have to keep reminding my Brooke-era Massachusetts Republican spouse that McCain is not some reincarnation of Charles Goodell or Mac Mathias.

Bluegrass Poet will find that a very large cohort of men likewise feel that Obama has quite a bit of fence-mending to do. Charles Pierce put it most aptly recently when he wrote that he was perfectly happy for Obama to appeal to "the better angels of our nature", but that he expected those angels to be armed with flaming swords of justice.

There is a real difference between counting on my antipathy for the radical right-wing Republicans and getting my enthusiastic support. Hillary got my support by convincing me that she would not just depose the Republicans but lead us in extricating ourselves from the wreckage of Republican foreign and domestic policies and back into the light.

Obama has been saying a few things that give me some hope that he sees that it won't be nearly enough to declare our latest long national nightmare over if he's elected. Obama's "legitimacy" will be under assault from the corporate power structure from the get-go, just as the Carter and Clinton presidencies were under attack even before their inaugurations. He's going to need all the help he can get. I may be prejudiced but I persist in thinking that we graying boomers and our seniors have a lot more political staying power than more youthful "morning glories" -- if for no other reason but that we know only too well how much Ronald Reagan's "ideas" have so profoundly corrupted public policy and political discourse in our country.

[James Wolcott]

If you want a good, healthy scare, go read McCain's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg over at Goldberg's Atlantic blog, especially the parts about Iran, in particular this exchange:

JG: What do you think motivates Iran?

JM: Hatred. I don’t try to divine people’s motives. I look at their actions and what they say. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the state of their emotions. I do know what their nation’s stated purpose is, I do know they continue in the development of nuclear weapons, and I know that they continue to support terrorists who are bent on the destruction of the state of Israel. You’ll have to ask someone who engages in this psycho stuff to talk about their emotions.

Scary, too, is the passage where McCain uses the phrase "hell-bent" three times in succession to describe Iran's regional, political, and military intentions. It's real apocalyptic-cauldron rhetoric, and a major reason why I, unlike some Hillary supporters, refuse to entertain the possibility of voting for McCain out of spite or because he's more experienced than Obama, whatever.

McCain's the one who seems hell-bent.

[James Wolcott]

I should have phrased that "Jeffrey Goldberg's interview with McCain." Oh, well, it's Friday.

[lina]

Re McCain and the whole Neocon view on Iran: Obama will have to find a way to explain the dishonesty and the inherent failure of this approach to foreign policy. McCain knows the nutty president of Iran does not run that country. But it makes for a better Fox News jingoistic sound bite, just like "I will NEVER surrender in Iraq."

Not only do I want a President Obama to meet with Achmadinijad, I want Obama to go to Tehran and walk through the streets, shop in the markets and visit the cafes. I want a President Obama to speak OVER the leadership of Iran directly to the people of Iran. He should do the same thing in Syria. He should do it in Latin America. He should do it all over.

Somehow the American public has to be reintroduced to the idea that you can have a strong national defense AND a strong diplomatic presence in the world.

However, I don't know how you sell it if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

[Bluegrass Poet]

I also think Hillary will need to join in this work with inspired enthusiasm. It's not just one side's responsibility or fault.

In the event that Obama's the nominee, Clinton has said she'll "work her heart out" for him.

But Obama will be the one asking for votes.

[Bluegrass Poet]

Well, I phrased that badly. I'll plead Saturday morning.

Of course Clinton will be asking for votes for Obama.

What I meant to convey is that in the event Obama is the nominee, Clinton's most "inspired enthusiasm" won't win him the election unless he reaches out more than tepidly to his base. (Sorry to be sexist, HenryFTP.) If he is the nominee, he is the one responsible for the campaign.

McCain is scary to us but not to everybody. "Not McCain" is not enough.

And again, I'm not here vowing not to vote for Obama. I just have my doubts. But it's a long time until November, believe it or not. Time for it all to play out.

Lance, your Nixonland quote in the subsequent post is telling.