Here’s a little story that, if accurate, I find to be quite telling in its own way.
As she ran for Senate as a sitting first lady in 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton was facing an obstacle that her advisers found a bit awkward to discuss in her presence.
Her husband’s impeachment and the sexual affair that precipitated it were still recent memories. Now, that scandal was causing a headwind for the candidate as she found her own values questioned by a key segment of New York voters. This was the delicate subject on the table one evening at a White House strategy meeting, several participants recalled. The president gazed intently at poll data and then turned to his wife. “Women,” he announced, “want to know why you stayed with me.”
There was an awkward pause. But Hillary Clinton did not seem embarrassed. Instead, a half-smile crossed her face. “Yes,” she responded, “I’ve been wondering that myself.”
Jabbing the air for emphasis, Bill Clinton gave his answer: “Because you’re a sticker! That’s what people need to know — you’re a sticker. You stick at the things you care about.”
I suppose different people will have different reactions to that account, but one thing I’m sure of…that’s not normal. Of course, normal isn’t necessarily good, perhaps especially in those that would lead us. But still…
And I got to thinkin’ and rememberin’
Yeah, that little book came out in January of 2000. It was an early Valentine’s Day present for the president explaining why good, decent people stick with their friends even when they really, really screw up. And I think you know what Carville advises doing to your enemies.
Democratic strategist James Carville says his party should dump Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party because of incompetence.
Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, instead of the nearly 30 they have so far.
The reason they didn’t, he said, is the Democratic National Committee did not spend some $6 million it could have put into so-called “third tier” House races against vulnerable Republicans.
Carville said the other Democratic campaign committees had borrowed to the hilt.
He said he tried to meet with Dean to argue for additional spending for Democrats in the final days of the campaign, but Dean declined and gave no reason why.
Asked by a reporter whether Dean should be dumped, Carville replied, “In a word, do I think? Yes.”
He added, “I think he should be held accountable.” He added, “I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.”
Of course, Paul Begala felt the same way about Dean’s 50-state strategy:
BEGALA: He — yes, he’s in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He has raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it’s a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That’s not how you build a party. You win elections. That’s how you build a party.
Begala privately went much further:
“Look,” [Begala] said, “When we started there were only about 15 competitive races, but Rahm made the field over 35 by the end and that had nothing to do with the 50-state strategy.” I told him we never would have had so many competitive districts if not for the DNC investing staffers and resources into those states early on and expanding the playing field. “So you have people out there, what are they doing there though?” he questioned. ” I told him they were building a long term infrastructure for the Democratic Party, and we had people all over America knocking on doors and spreading the Democratic message. “So what do they say when they knock on the doors then?” he asked me. I told him they had a succinct 6 point plan for a “new direction” that they were discussing, a cohesive message that we haven’t had in the past. “Anyway,” Begala continued… “I don’t need some a**hole from Vermont telling me what to do.”
After that our conversation was interrupted and I walked away, but I couldn’t leave before stopping by one more time. “He brought a lot of new people into this Party, ” I told Begala as I passed by. He didn’t reply, so I said it again, “Paul I know your view on him, but he brought a lot of new people into this Party.” “Excellent, excellent,” he said. Shortly after that I left the ballroom.
Look at Will Marshall, the man known as Bill Clinton’s Idea Mill expounding on foreign policy in 2004:
Iraq, however, is the grand strategic prize. If we succeed in helping Iraq’s moderate majority establish a stable, decent, representative government in Baghdad, the ripple effects throughout the region will be enormous. A precipitous withdrawal, on the heels of Spain’s craven pull-out following the Madrid attacks, would be a strategic windfall for bin Ladenism. It would confirm the extremist claim that America lacks the stomach and stamina to fight against jihadists who, in al Qaeda’s famous boast, “love death more than you love life.” Bringing home the troops before our mission is done in Iraq would save lives in the short run, but only invite bolder attacks down the road.
I’m pretty sure these people are not on our side.
It appears in one of about 1000 US trash newsheets. ALL of which spewed propaganda during the runup to the invasion of Iraq; all of which are pushing one line or another depending on who owns them. (And of course who owns the owners.)
Just for starters.
More?
It is unattributed.
Was the writer there?
And even if he was…why should he be trusted? Because he writes for a U.S. paper? Please. Judith Miller worked for one too. So does Novakula. Please.
More?
Sure?
It REEKS of bad journalism. There used to be a series on the New York News, years ago. Sunday edition. True crime shit. The WORST. I would buy the paper just to read it. The WORST. Same routine. Writing as if the reporter was there in the room listening to Dillinger or Pretty Boy Floyd or whoever talk like Cagney or some other Hollywood actor.
And here we have:
C’mon…
“Jabbing the air for emphasis!!!???”
What drivel.
No wonder she’s losing.
With support like this, who needs opponents?
Shameful.
AG
you’re totally off your game.
This is an excerpt from a book.
I am by NO means “off my game”, Booman.
In fact…I ain’t even playing.
Homie don’t play that game.
Published by a major newspaper OR Random House…both organs in good standing of the hypnomedia…the fact remains that taken simply on the evidence of its syntax and style, the book is full of shit.
Read a real reporter…say Seymour Hersh…for a reference point if you need one.
And if is IT full of shit…why quote it in support of your position?
Here’s what I see happening here.
Anyone who “opposes” Hillary Clinton and does NOT oppose Barack Obama is dealing with largely non-substantive isssues that are driving that choice, because they are fucking twins in all but appearance, style and the use of that appearance. Twins in terms of their ability to beat any Republican out there as well.
Further, those who are repeatedly and gleefully bashing Hillary Clinton are doing the Democratic Party AND the nation a disservice, because the only sure winning Dem ticket is Clinton/Obama. (Or of course Obama/Clinton, but I think that combination is out of the question.)
The two of them in tandem could break the 60+ year stranglehold that the right has had on this country, and keep it broken it for decades. If it is NOT broken this time around we will end up with one hundred years of war. Only those intended hundred years will likely last no longer than about five years (if that) and will be terminated by a nuclear holocaust.
If you wish to oppose Hillary Clinton on principle…on the principle that her ass is certainly and truly in hock to Corporate America and its international allies…then you must oppose Barack Obama as well. Look at his “economic advisors” for all you need to know on THAT subject. A position of that sort would be at least principled if not particularly pragmatic.
But this droning leftiness kneejerk anti-Hillary shit?
It is ludicrous, Booman.
Ludicrous.
And absolutely, perfectly typical of why the so-called “American Left” pretty much does not even exist outside of the web-ghettoed confines of the leftiness blogosphoof.
So it goes.
You object to being told to wake the fuck up?
Well then…WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!
If the compulsive Hillary sniping…YOUR compulsive Hillary sniping, sir, among that of way too many others… does succeed in eliminating her candidacy and Obama’s undeniable charisma is not enough to overcome the racial hatred that bubbles so fucking close to the surface in this fucked country, then the blame for what comes will rest squarely on the shoulders of the so-called “principled” left, which group is acting in this circumstance on largely unexamined and unrecognized motives in my opinion.
Anti-female AND (in a very shallow way) anti-“establishment”.
And the U.S., will get just what it deserves.
More right-wing bullshit, because rabid, armed, full of hate right wingers will beat Joe Bageant’s, “soft, moody, self-absorbed” lefties every time.
Ask the ’30s Germans about that.
Listen to Marx speak of the bourgeoisie with justifiable scorn.
Dig away, bubba.
But don’t expect me to help.
Later…
AG
accepting your basic Twin argument (& that only Clinton/Obama is on the table), i’ve gotta say Clinton’s overall strategy doesn’t support a Twin setup.
in your opinion, how should we objectively critique Clinton? doesn’t seem possible in the current environment.
I am not sure that our “objective critique” means a great deal in this environment.
What should we do?
This depends on how one defines the word “we”, doesn’t it?
But given the left blogosphoof in general as a “we” (That’s a stretch, of course. To say the least.) then I believe that what “we” ought to do is neutral out some. Which is all that I have been asking on these blogs.
Stop both the unwonted demonization of Hillary Clinton and the equally unwonted deification of Barack Obama. Let them fight it out among the great unwashed, the sleeple mainstream Dem electorate, and may the best (hu)man win.
It’s an audition, and the judges…the primary voters…accurately represent the voters of this country to a much greater degree than do the blogger folk. Yet “our” constant yammering about Hillary Clinton’s unfitness to run for much more than Dog Catcher is unduly affecting the race. It affects the other yammerers, the pundits, and that in turn affects the media coverage.
Let ’em be.
And take a good look at WHY H. Clinton is receiving such widespread negativity.
From ALL sides.
Let me ask you…what do you think the overall attitude would resemble towards the Clinton candidacy if that “H” stood for Harry in stead of Hillary? Same general resume minus the First Lady thing, same position in the Dem hierarchy, same age, same performance in the debates and in the polls.
C’mon…
Do you REALLY think that she would be receiving the same amount of heat relative to Obama?
I don’t.
I mean…show me where their substantive voting records or their supporters/advisors are different.
“Youth”?
Hell…he’s ONLY 12 years younger than she is.
12 years ago she was a primary advisor to the most successful Dem President we have had since FDR.
Hmmm….
See what I mean?
I hope so.
Yes, she is a corp-rate tool.
So are they all if they wish to ascend the ladder of American politics as it is now constituted.
And?
And WHAT, exactly?
I’ll tell you.
And Obama is running an “I wish” candidacy. Not a bad tactic, but there it is.
Plus Hillary Clinton is a middle-aged woman.
And this is Hollywood America.
Middle aged women do not GET many juicy starring roles on THIS lot..
But 48 year old men?
Even black ones?
Prime time, baby.
Prime time.
Bet on it.
See what I mean?
I hope so.
Later…
AG
ROTFLMAO. i see your “neutral out some” points & i raise some slack.
From the article “little story: “http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002329307_hillary11.html
“The speculation about the Clinton marriage is not confined to ordinary voters. In the White House years and since then, it has been a common topic of discussion among Clinton friends and aides. With few exceptions, most of these people concluded that the marriage is a genuine if turbulent romance, powered by a shared sense of mission about politics and government.”
One reason many professional women do not support Hillary is her acceptance of public humiliation from her husband–way before the White House incident.
ENOUGH WITH THE EFFING MARRIAGE!!!!!
Look at the situation TODAY! Because of the horrendous approach that the Clinton campaign has taken, she is on the verge of losing the nomination. Don’t get me wrong. She is a formidble person. But, with the likes of the dlc, begala, ford and their ilk, to hell with them. They are over with.
Look at the Obama approach. Look at the breadth of his obvious impact. Look at the diversity of his support. I am not in love with the man but as was pointed out by Gov. Dean, every state counts. Sure, that costs bucks but it doesn’t seem to be a problem for the O man so far.
If anyone has been right, It has been DEAN! Now, will the voters turn out for the Nov election? I think so if the candidate assumes that each and every one of the voters feels that he/ she is important and that is the O mans message. Hold you noses, cross your fingers, take a deep breath- whatever turns you on but don’t forget that this election is the most important election in the history of this country.
The friends you keep is so true! But what is even more true is the simple fact that turning te enthusiam of this voter population will be a disaster of epic proportions!
Look at the Obama approach. Look at the breadth of his obvious impact. Look at the diversity of his support. I am not in love with the man but as was pointed out by Gov. Dean, every state counts. Sure, that costs bucks but it doesn’t seem to be a problem for the O man so far.
If anyone has been right, It has been DEAN!
Yes, yes and yes. I do not get the nostalgia from ANY elected Democrat over Billary–ESPECIALLY if they were still in the Congress after 1994. It makes no sense. He lost us the Congress, governorships, state legislatures–it was just ugly! And now, these types want us to sign up for this again? Seriously?
Do they not see what Obama has done and is doing? He is expanding the party! And it all started with the good Dr. Dean. It was just followed up and tweaked by someone who was an organizer and gets it.
How is this a bad thing? Just look at her “wins”–she won all the big blue states. And? Democrats will win NY/NJ/etc. It’s the same stupid John Kerry strategy of win the coasts and pray to win a big state. It. Does. Not. Work. Also, the McAwful types were never serious about crafting a low-donor strategy; they never took it seriously. It was all about finding the folks who could max out.
Obama’s so-called “naivete” is just their inability to get the job done.
Begala, et. al. were wrong then, and they are wrong now. I DO NOT want these cretins anywhere NEAR the DNC. Not now, not ever.
Sorry to rant, but I am just so sick of these people.
Is anyone going to buy a Coke (or was it Pepsi) because Carville’s ugly mug was in a commercial? Quite the opposite.
it’s all about money and power.
One more plus if Hillary LOSES the primary…..
Mr Mary McCheney Carville and Paul THE IDIOT Begala will be pariahs, oh and let’s not forget Mark THE ROVE Penn….having them gone is worth pretty much anything!
And I’ve thought they irrelevant since ’94. My only proof that they are irrelevant is that they’re reduced to being talking heads on cable infotainment channels.
So, I’m going to ignore all this and go to the 50 State Strategy. This is Dean’s baby. The Kerry campaign almost thought about maybe trying it about 2 weeks before the election. It was clearly in play during ’06 and no amount of credit-stealing from Emmanuel or any other dolt is going to take that away.
It’s obvious that Obama has taken the 50 State Strategy and put it in effect. The one thing I hear from veteran Dem. volunteers and organizers is how big Obama’s ground campaign is. My father was stunned that there was an Obama office near the church where he sometimes preaches. This place is in the middle of nowhere in Missouri, yet the Obama campaign had an office there. To make it even more impressive, in most of the states, regardless of wins or losses, many of the offices are still running.
Dean has to feel totally vindicated by this approach, his baby. Yet, it’s amusing to watch him speak in interviews. He’s incredibly diplomatic, yet one comes away with the impression that he’s no fan of Obama, despite the fact that we know he’s no fan of Clinton. From what I heard, this is the same approach Obama took in his Illinois campaign–the 50 County Strategy, if you will–so it’s nothing new to him, just a bigger scale. But I’m very interested in knowing if Dean is annoyed that Obama is doing well using this 50 State Strategy. Did Obama do this without Dean’s “blessing”?
I don’t expect anyone to actually answer the question, it’s just something I’ve been wondering about since Super Tuesday.
Dean likes the Clintons almost as much as they like him, which is three times less than a case of genital herpes.
They wanted Dean out and it should be obvious by now why they wanted him out. With McAuliffe in there they’d be sitting pretty at the convention. With Harold Ford and his people in there, they’d be set.
With Dean? They’ve got a problem.
Carville and Begala are just symptoms of the problem. These are not good people. They are enemies of all the people that have tried to push the party to oppose the war. They hate the grassroots. They hate primaries. They want to control everything in the party and run it as the Steny Hoyer DLC show.
…they hate caucuses. Totally undemocratic. They’re only for lazy, unemployed losers and the elite types you’d find on a Wal-Mart Board of Directors.
:<)
Black people and activists aren’t representative of the electorate. I’m burning up over this. Hell, I’ll just post what I posted on my blog:
Geez, another defeat, another chance to whine and offer excuses for it. Surely, another moment for tears is in the offing.
fabooj. great question, i’d like to see that answered since the 50 State Strategy seems to be such a critical element.
This Florida and Michigan thing is haunting me. I keep remembering Kos saying not to worry, the delegates will be counted. But it’s starting to look like they won’t — not without a lot of really bad feelings
Anyway I’m STILL wearing my Dean lapel pins — he speaks for me — but even I am wondering if there might have been a better way to handle this issue back when the calendar was being set.
What do you guys think? Am I making too big a deal out of this question?
i’d count Florida & give Michigan’s Uncommitted a do-over. imho, FL & MI didn’t anticipate The Mod Squad, but hindsight makes the DNC calendar seem almost prescient.
Clinton will lie, cheat, and steal to get those delegates and we ought not let her. What will she do? Stamp her feet? Cry. Again?
The states agreed to the primary/caucus calendar. That was a contract. Florida and Michigan chose to break the contract despite being told that the penalty was no delegates. Their decision.
Clinton left her name on the Florida ballot when Obama removed his. Her decision to break the contract. To lie. Why penalize Obama for keeping his word? Why reward Clinton for cheating?
And now she’ll make excuse after excuse after excuse for why she is not raising money, why she is losing proper elections, and why she is losing delegates. Bull shit.
“In it to win it!” is a pitiful attempt at self-aggrandisement compared to “Yes. We. Can!”
No dynasties! No entitlement! No more Bushes or Clintons running for anything, ever again. They want to be third world dictators, they can simply move to the third world. And no more sorry excuses, either.
If she had the grace of a true leader, she’d recognize the major groundswell of new voters and step aside for the good of the Party and the Country. Unfortunately she has the greed and ego and self-centeredness of someone intent upon power and power alone.
Naked ambition is no reason to let her have bogus delegates from an unfought state, much less 2 of them.
I will NOT vote for Clinton.
Fine — I get that. I’m a rule player
But what about all those REGULAR people in Florida & Michigan?
They didn’t have ANY say about this. Are we really going to send a Democratic candidate to campaign in those states come November after not seating there Delegates?
We’re just supposed to explain that they shouldn’t have voted so early? And rules are rules?
Look, I’m a librarian — no one believes in rules more than me. But alienating — almost writing off two major states in the 50/50 electoral college is flat-out stupid.
to be fair, hauksdottir is also REGULAR people & has a valid complaint.
fortunately, i’m not on the DNC. but i hope they have the wisdom of solomon on this one.
LOL…I’m so gonna see if my husband would photoshop me that one.
LOL, please send it to me if he does it. i’d love to see it.
That’s should have told how this election was going to play out. We all know Linc and Julie, but what was the white guy’s name? Pete? John Edwards?
Michael – Julie – Linc. forgot what color Captain Greer was. (my email: axisnorthanger<at>yahoo.dot.com).
Michael was the actor’s name! HAHA…I can’t believe I remember it and I wasn’t even born when that show was on the air.
I can’t believe I remember it and I wasn’t even born when that show was on the air
stop rubbing it in you you you… young person! while i admit i messed up on the names i at least have direct experience of the show. so there.
“Not normal.” Based on what? Believe it or not, lots of couples manage to work things out and stay together after infidelity. The only difference here is, they went through what should have been a very private ordeal in the public eye, thanks to the panty-sniffing Republicans.
so if you ever catch me cheating on you, susie, I’ll just explain to a room full of people why you let me get away with it. And then you’ll go out and tell the world that you’re a sticker. Yeah, that’s Ozzie and Harriet, right there.
Very few couples are Ozzie and Harriet and people in politics, even less so. It’s a strange game that attracts strange, driven people.
And just for the record, the question was why Hillary stayed with him – not why she “let him get away with it.” Do you really think he did get away with it? If so, based on what – the fact that they’re still together?
And as long as we’re using tabloids for idle speculation, gee, do you suppose there’s anything to the tabloid cover this week that says Stedman told Oprah she had to choose between him and Barack? Tsk, tsk. Why do you think Michelle “lets him get away with it”?
Very well said Susie.
Speaking of the Clinton marriage… Look what I saw at the grocery store checkout yesterday:
Consider the source. But it caught my eye, like when we had all the tabloid stories of Laura leaving George because of his drinking.
What’s the big story on the “Beverly Hillbillies Suicide Tragedy”? Inquiring minds want to know. I want to know.
I need to find out about the “Price Is Right” DISASTER for Drew.
Maybe he got the price wrong?
what happen Bill got a little drunk and went to the Frig, opened up the freezer and said “Hillary, you seem to be warming up a little.”
If there is any doubt the direction that Republican foot soldiers will take over the next 9 months, here it is via Digby and Down With Tyranny from the CPAC Conference just held:
I saw something similar to the Hillary one stuck in the back window of an SUV on the way home just a few minutes ago. It’s all they know how to do. Misogyny, racism and hate. Welcome to the new GOP, same as the old one. I bet McCain is proud. Can’t wait for the condemnation by our illustrious Congressional representatives.
Oh wait………..I forgot. It’s fine if you’re a Republican. Nothing to see here, move it along folks. Just people exercising their right to free speech.
God this is going to be ugly beyond description.
For the life of me, I just cannot understand why the media covers that Crackpot Convention seriously. Just a bunch of nutjobs, with no one to tell them to take their white robes home.
Well, when the presumptive Republican nominee for President, the sitting President, the sitting Vice President, the recently dropped out but second choice for the GOP nomination, a former House Majority Leader and a former House Speaker all make speeches and appearances; that would seem to validate that these “crackpots and nutjobs in white robes” pretty much are mainstream in the Republican Party.
Ergo, they get covered. But you certainly will not see the extreme elements, which are the majority really, portrayed anywhere in the mainstream corporate media. If anyone is highlighted spouting their extremist beliefs you can most certainly bet that it will be portrayed as “all in good fun, really”. Along with “liberals need to lighten up.”
It is revolting. Racism, misogyny and hatred. That is what motivates the base of the Republican Party.
I’m less interested in details of the Clinton’s personal life, which, although character revealing, are out of bounds — IMO.
However, the attacks on Dean in the aftermath of the 2006 election outraged me, and that was at a point long before I had decided on who to support in the 2008 Presidential election. My reaction to comments by Carville and others was one of shock, since it was obviously a power play by the Clinton people which had nothing to do with disagreements over strategy.
Carville’s specious claim about Dean being the reason for the Democrats not taking more seats was not only clearly empirically wrong — from a political science point of view — it was also amazingly ill-timed. This last point, of timing, is extremely significant.
The significance of the aftermath of an election, particularly a landslide, lies in the psychology of decision making. Mandates are formed in the post-decisional phase of cognitive dissonance immediately following an election. This is the period when voters have the chance to mold the meaning of their vote into an agenda for the incoming Congress (or Administration). Curiously, or perhaps not, discussion about the meaning of the 2006 election was short-circuited by the media, as well as by comments by Carville.
The timing of Carville’s comments was extremely bad, but I hardly think it was the only dynamic in play. One of the other reasons — quite obviously — was the eagerness to move to Presidential ‘horse race’ coverage, but it’s also extremely suspicious that the media preempted coverage of the meaning of the 2006 election. This is one of the few instances in which I encourage conspiratorial thinking, since there was clearly a decision made by the corporate management of the media giants to quell discussion of the meaning of the 2006 election. Considering the fact that businesses have applied social-psychological theory on the post-decisional phase of cognitive dissonance into their business practices, there is little doubt that they were unaware of the impact on public opinion regarding the 2006 election.
great comment.
pre-decisional conflict, post-decisional dissonance. dissonance reduction. turning-point decision.