I’ve spent way too much time the past few days in futile email arguments with Clinton supporters who are certain (1) Obama supporters are not thinking rationally; (2) Obama supporters don’t realize how nasty the GOP will be on him in the general election; (3) Obama supporters aren’t real Democrats.
Let’s take the first one. The phrase “cult of personality” is getting applied to Obama supporters because many are young and enthusiastic. (Jeez, let’s just shoot them now. ) Cora Currier has a good response to this at The Nation. See also Michael Tomasky:
Any time you get millions of young people involved in a project, it takes on the feel of a movement. It becomes a little idealistic. Its defining features do tend to include optimism – even perhaps a somewhat unrealistic optimism – and do not tend to include steely pragmatism.
I would have thought these were good things! Would it be better that young people were once again floating along on the usual currents of dissolution and apathy? Would dark pessimism about the country be a preferable state? And most of all, is it incumbent upon the candidate, having inspired this reaction in people, to tamp it down?
Only Democrats could get themselves overwrought because a Democratic candidate inspires too much enthusiasm.
Jim Sleeper has a lovely essay at TPM Cafe called “Obama, Crowds, and Power” that I urge you to read. It begins:
As a political movement gathers what seems to be irresistible force, it rides currents of anger as well as affirmation. How it balances and channels those currents determines its fate. A movement can be fired up by outraged decency, but it will come to little — or worse — if its participants spend more time and energy venting the outrage than advancing the decency.
I can understand why us lefties might be a bit squeamish about big, loud, boisterous, and enthusiastic mass movements. In recent years all of the mass moving has been coming from the Right, fueled by resentment, hate, and fear. “Movement conservatism” has always seemed nakedly negative and destructive to me. But Sleeper steps back and takes a broader view. He provides examples of big, emotional mass movement that did good — mostly because their leadership kept them focused on creating something positive, not just tearing down what they hate.
As for item #2 — please. Like they’re not going to be nasty to Hillary Clinton?
On to item #3 — Paul Lukasiak argues that Clinton has more primary and caucus votes than Obama. Really? John Cole explains,
Apparently, if you only count votes up to Super Tuesday, discount every state that had a caucus, only go by the exit polling, and eliminate any voters who weren’t registered Democrats, then Hillary Clinton actually has the popular vote lead. In other news, based on exit polling and early voting from 2004 President Kerry will be running for reelection.
Apparently, pledged delegates totals are illegitimate, because some states have open primaries. Consequently, it is the responsibility of the superdelegates to overturn the preferred pledged delegate candidate if another candidate wins the national popular vote among “self-identified Democrats.” When caucuses are excluded, Michigan and Florida included, and overall totals determined by evaluating exit poll data rather than counting votes, Clinton wins!
To say this aloud is to refute it, but it is nevertheless generating excitement at TalkLeft. For good measure, Lukasiak throws in the “but can Barack Obama REALLY win California and New York?” meme. Christ, the stench of desperation is sickening.
I don’t know about California, but New Yorkers will vote to elect a Democratic potted plant before they will vote for a Republican.
Today the Clinton campaign is calling Obama a plagiarist; see Jeff Fecke to see why the charge is bogus.
This is not what the Democratic Party needs. First, it’s creating charges that will be used against Obama by the Right if he’s the nominee. Second, I am damn tired of politicians who can win campaigns only by telling lies about the other guy.
The Clinton campaign may be in trouble in Texas, which is a must-win for Clinton if she’s going to stay in contention. Matthew Mosk writes at WaPo:
Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.
When I read this, I dissolved in giggles after the first sentence. It was that part about the Texas delegate selection rules “creating a new obstacle for her” that got me. In what sense are the Texas rules a “new obstacle?” Were they only recently passed? Not as far as I can tell — here, for instance, is a pdf about them from August 2007, which should have given the Clinton campaign ample time to get up to speed. While I was having fun thinking of possible analogies — would I describe the existence of the Pacific Ocean as “creating a new obstacle” for my plan to walk from Baltimore to Beijing? or the fact that five is a prime number as “creating a new obstacle” to my proving that it is a multiple of two? –my co-blogger publius was actually writing the post I might have written, only funnier:
“Good lord, let’s see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After – after – implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they “discovered†that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).
While they were busy “discovering†the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose. (ed. Maybe foresight is an obsolete macrotrend.)”
Note to self: If I ever run for office and base my campaign on the idea that I am ready to lead from day one, I must remember to actually run an effective campaign.
That last part is what gets to me. Hillary Clinton’s primary selling point is that she’d be a better manager of the nation’s business than Barack Obama. But the way the campaigns are being run says otherwise.
Russ Wellen of Scholars and Rogues says that the Clinton campaign is trying to guilt-trip the Obama supports into voting for Clinton.
The questions beg to be asked: Where do Hillary’s supporters get off trying to foist a candidate on us whose foreign policy sell-by date has expired? And whose strategy seems to be based on calling in markers on her husband’s administration?
Furthermore, how dare they make women who choose not to vote for her feel like they’re letting all women down? Shame on you, Hillary supporters, for shaming them.
If Hillary is nominated, Obama supporters will be expected to fall in line behind Hillary just because she’s a Democrat. But, no doubt, they’ll still be licking their wounds from the defeat of a candidate whose ambition was leavened by what looks, for all intents and purposes, like genuine idealism.
A defeat borne of strong-arming superdelegates, as well as an after-the-fact certification of the Florida and Michigan primary votes, will leave many Obama supporters in no mood to vote for Hillary. But pressure from not just Hillary supporters, but Democrats at large who are preparing for such an eventuality, has been ongoing.
How dare Democrats desperate to regain the White House at any cost guilt-trip reluctant Obama supporters into voting for Hillary? The onus isn’t on the latter if the Democrats fail to take the White House — it’s on the party for driving a lemon of a candidate out of the showroom.
Also, do read Wellen before you leave a comment here telling me how bleeping accomplished Hillary Clinton is and how you can’t understand why I might have doubts about her. He sums it up pretty well. See also Gary Younge, “It’s up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy.”
I don’t know about California, but New Yorkers will vote to elect a Democratic potted plant before they will vote for a Republican.
It’s a pretty clear shot here in CA for whoever the Democrat turns out to be. The state GOP is in disarray, and in debt, and has few people of stature on their bench – Arnold and Tom McClintock are the only two that come to mind, and Arnold has been forced to govern like a Democrat, much to his party’s chagrin. The GOP tried to install a ballot measure that would require the state’s 55 electoral votes to be distributed proportionally, instead of winner-take-all, but this effort came up short. Plus, the GOP keeps making these genius moves that completely alienate the Latino/immigrant vote… McCain will appeal to the far right nut cases but not to the Silicon Valley crowd. All I can say is, Way to Go, GOP!
I’ve been mildy alarmed by the Obama phenomenon (although I prefer him to Hillary, on most days), and I do see the personality cult a la Reagan, at work. It alarms me that 1) people are so willing to project their needs and desires onto more or less a blank slate, and 2) the true believers are so quick to condemn anyone who criticizes them or their man. Rereading what I just wrote, it sounds like teenagers in love.
I just hope that when the disillusionment inevitably sets in – and mark my words, kids, it will, no matter what you think right now – that people will find the maturity to get past the infatuation (oh, well…), and will still be willing to work for progressive goals, even though the Thrill is Gone.
A cautionary note from Orcinus:
“People today forget that when he was elected in 1992, Bill Clinton’s campaign was all about finding a “new vision” and a fresh, bipartisan approach to politics, “reaching across the aisle” and forging the same kind of alliances that Barack Obama likes to tout now. He entered office full of hope that he could work with conservatives and liberals alike to get things done — essentially the same kind of politics Obama is now touted by the George Wills of the Beltway for representing.
Well, we all saw how that worked out, didn’t we?”
The Clinton attack strategy against Obama supporters which is most unfair and unreal is the attack line about Obama fans being ‘cultish’. As a 64 year old small town grandmother who has devoted a whole lot of time and effort to support of Obama, I really find such an assertion demeaning to my years of groundedness and years of fighting/working for a better world.
The assertions coming from the Clinton camp just end up insulting lots and lots of folks, not just the young……. those assertions also target not just Obama’s impressive grassroots achievements, but also intentionally try to deflate the people’s energy coalescing around a higher level of sanity in politics and Washington.
TPM has this great montage up from the Sunday bobbleheads:
Rules Rules Rules
As for item #2 — please. Like they’re not going to be nasty to Hillary Clinton?
I don’t think that’s the point of this. It’s not that the wingnuts won’t be nasty to Sen. Clinton; it’s that choosing to support Obama because the wingnuts won’t be as nasty to him, is naïve. (I think that’s very true, actually–that is not a good enough reason to support Obama..)
There’s also a second argument in there: that since Sen. Clinton has known for the better part of two decades exactly what the wingnuts are going to throw at her, she’s prepared for it and has a strategy all planned out for coping with it–whereas the avalanche of negativity will blindside Obama. (This argument would hold a lot more water for me if Clinton’s people hadn’t themselves been so completely blindsided by Obama.)
Full Disclosure: Obama supporter since before Iowa.
I would point out that I don’t want the super delegates to be more than a rubber stamp. And the office-holders among the SDs for one, are the ones who have to run with the nominee at the top of the ticket and deal with them after they are elected. Why shouldn’t they also have a voice and be more than just a rubber stamp?
Second if it’s fairly tight how do we determine the “will” of the voters?
TPMCafe had another good post called “Cultus, not cult”.
When people complain / villify Obama’s speaking ability, I regret that Pat Paulsen didn’t leave a more extensive video record.
I don’t think that’s the point of this. It’s not that the wingnuts won’t be nasty to Sen. Clinton; it’s that choosing to support Obama because the wingnuts won’t be as nasty to him, is naïve. (I think that’s very true, actually–that is not a good enough reason to support Obama..)
I have yet to encounter anyone who is supporting him for that reason.
Methinks thou doth protest too much!
I see nothing coming from the Hillary camp that isn’t more than reciprocated from the Obama camp. Everyone is just citing whatever makes them feel good about their decision and bashing the other guy. The few voices of reason are usually attacked without mercy. In other words, a typical political contest.
The posts here, by moonbat, wmr, etc. seem much more reasonable than most. A good sign.
Put me in the camp with moonbat and wmr, I think their points are on the mark and well made.
I have to say that I have a strong reaction to “Cult of Personality.” To me, it is as bad as calling someone a “Nazi” – don’t do it unless you have evidence to prove it. Stalin had a Cult of Personality. Mao had one too. I can remember China when it was under Mao’s – when astronomy papers, for example, were prefaced with things like “Under the guidance of Chairman Mao’s thought, and using the insight given to us by his saying, Learn from the People, we have observed the star … ” THAT’s a Cult of the Personality. It means a nasty dictatorship backed with Gulags and guns where the people are taught that the ultimate ruler has god-like properties. If that’s what people are accusing Obama of, I want to see evidence. If not, then these are just a words used to smear without thinking, and they don’t have the desired effect on me, at least.
“Sen. Clinton has known for the better part of two decades exactly what the wingnuts are going to throw at her…”
I’ve seen this argument before, and I don’t buy it. It assumes that what was thrown at her while her husband was President is all there is; that there is no new dirt. Personally, I don’t know that there is any, although stuff like this is kind of worrying, and I have heard persistent rumors of other stuff. (Not from the Obama camp, I should say.)
But even assuming the complete absence of any actual grounds for concern, the idea that we can just assume that no new dirt has come into existence since 2000 seems to me wrong.
I see nothing coming from the Hillary camp that isn’t more than reciprocated from the Obama camp.
Not even close, but thanks for playing. Now, go away. You just broke the first rule of commenting on The Mahablog — don’t piss off maha.
Sen. Clinton has known for the better part of two decades exactly what the wingnuts are going to throw at her, she’s prepared for it and has a strategy all planned out for coping with it
I can’t wait to see it! Because what she’s done so far hasn’t been very good.
Then why am I not falling for Obama? Don’t get me wrong, if he wins the nomination I will work for his election as hard as I can, but why am I not falling? Is it my age, 52? Or is it my experience in the past with other “youth” movements?
I don’t know.
I do know that , in my opinion, the right will eat him alive. Clinton on the other hand, has already been there and knows the depths of their, the rights’, lies and deception. I usually like the fighter who has had some heavy weight fights and not the one who has not and is a question mark. At least in my mind. I think the right punditry like Obama for this reason, he’s an easy target, but not Senator Clinton who will give as good as she gets and that scares them.
Forget their BS about unifying the party, that’s just smoke.
We’ll see.
I’d like to second Donna’s comment in #3. I’m not particularly old, but I campaigned and voted for Clinton in 1992, again in 1996, voted Gore, and voted Kerry. I’ve spent a lot of time reading and writing about politics for those sixteen years and I find the argument that I support Obama because I’m brainwashed rather offensive. And the argument that Obama is a “blank slate” I can project my “idealistic beliefs” on is supremely off-putting.
I’ve done a lot of reading and thinking about these two. I don’t find Clinton’s arguments to vote for her or her claims of competence particularly persuasive. She’s not been effective facing down Republican criticism of her for the last sixteen years, why should I think that gives her the ability to do it in the general?
marcus —
1. I’m older than you are.
2. See Hilzoy in comment #11
Good for you, Barbara.
(My comment here definitely belongs in the ‘politics makes strange bedfellows’ hall of fame.)
I’m not all that worried about Obama’s ability to step in the ring with the GOP. Obama has a political history of taking the tough questions head on – a far departure from most politicians who are more skilled at sidestepping them. I had a hard time supporting Kerry because of his slick psudoanswers to straightforward questions. Hillary is not so bad, but she still practices the art of deflection that is the status quo. Obama comes straight out and says things like “Yes, I know my stance on immigration is not the most popular right now, and maybe that will hurt my campaign, but I stand behind it because I believe it is right.” That level of character, in contrast to the politics of the last 8 years, is what inspires this movement. If Obama can stand up to direct attacks from Bill Clinton and come out with more momentum for it, I would like to see McCain try to rattle him.
Hillary, on the other hand, won’t even publicly disclose her tax returns from last year. When considering future GOP smear campaigns, the question must be asked “Who has more dirt to dig?”. Call me an idealist, but I’ve been waiting for a leader like Barak Obama to come along for a long time… and apparently so has Ed Kennedy.
maha: I have yet to encounter anyone who is supporting him for that reason.
I don’t know anyone who’s still primarily supporting him for that reason, but I do recall a lot of people early in the race saying they were for “anyone but Hillary” because she’d get buried in mud and could never win the general election. Also, I still see people talking up head-to-head polls in which Obama beats McCain by a comfortable margin but Clinton and McCain are in a statistical tie. I think the Clinton campaign is trying to undermine that argument.
Which is good, I think, because it really is a silly argument. You can’t tell what’s going to happen in November from head-to-head polls in February. And Sen. Clinton’s got some game; she’s already done better in this race than I ever expected. I feel pretty confident that she can win the general if she gets the nomination.
Maha —
to be fair to Bron @ 9, if you go to blogs like The Left Coaster or Taylor Marsh or First Draft, you’ll see ostensible Obama supporters behaving badly. I’m an Obama voter; I’ve seen some truly despicable things said about Sen. Clinton, and some of them rankly sexist.
Because I cannot read the entire Left Blogtopia (AYSDITT) in quantitative mode, I cannot evaluate the claim that one side’s supporters are worse than another’s.
I think it’s safe to say that any broad collection of people has its share of bad actors, and that neither the Clinton nor the Obama camp is a complete exception to this rule.
Let’s turn our guns on McCain.
Obama and Clinton are very similar in the positons on issues. SO why are the voters so passionate about candidates who are near clones on issues? IMO, it is not just a question of style, gender or race. My perception of Senator Clinton is that she is secretive and arrogant. She wants my vote, and she wants me to go away after I have voted, so she can govern as she pleases. This attitude is familiar; we have seen it for the last 7 years, and my fear is that the secrecy and clanish nature of her campaign will spill over into her presidency. Granted, she would be more benevolent than Bush, but I have a distain for the way business is done in DC. And she is married to the DC format.
Obama promises government that is inclusive. He implies that the wave of popularity which carrries him to the Oval Office will be the wave of change AFTER he takes the Oath of Office. ‘You are the ones we have been waiting for.” For YEARS I have pondered what force can compell our governement to transform itself.
Obama seems to be enlisting an army of activists, and if the tour of duty for those activists extends BEYOND the innaguaration, and he acts as Commander in Chief for those voters, where he educates them and focuses their energy when the system is resisting change, it is possible, just possible that the strangle hold that special interests have can be broken, and government can start to work for ALL of us again. (And I do mean ALL.)
Their platforms are similar to several decimal places. But Clinton is absolutely devoted to the status quo (in my opinion). Obama says he is not. (I can’t read his mind.) The difference between the 2 seems microscopic to the multitudes most of whom don’t even think about how things are being done inside the beltway, or the others who believe it has always been that way, and always will.
Young fools hope with abandon; old fools hope with caution. I am in the second group. I support Obama.
joel — there’s a lot of bad behavior going on, on both sides. I’m not putting up with it here. It’s fine with me if someone prefers Clinton to Obama; it’s not fine to insult and badger people who support the other candidate.
I concur, o sage. This is not a place for acting badly.
Let us hew wood and draw water.
And let us also kick the crap out of that poor grasping man McCain, whose visceral need for the validation of the Presidency so keenly signals that he must never, ever have it.
I had a nephew who died of cancer at 35 years old. Before he died he went down to Mexico to a clinic that was offering some miracle herbal extract cure. In his desperation to live he grabbed at a chance. It didn’t save him, but he knew if there was a chance at life he had to take it.
The same logic applies for me in choosing Obama..It could be a waste in desperation, or it could be a cure (in some degree) for what ails America, but Obama appears to be for me a chance for a better America..and if that chance comes my way. I’ll take it.
Before I make my comment, I want to make it clear that my only preference is for a Democratic President (Supreme Court is my biggest reason). Further, though it really shouldn’t be necessary to say this, I am not characterizing every supporter on both sides, so if the shoe don’t fit, don’t put it on.
I’ve seen older folks who seem to have forgotten what it was like to be a kid and I’ve seen kids who don’t believe us geezers ever were young and crazy. Both sorts ought to know better.
Please stop attacking your fellow democrats! Your title “Stench of Desperation” is offensive to me. Maha, I expect more from you.
Allison — I hope you are actively criticizing the Clinton campaign for the bogus plagiarism charge. And please note I am not here to be the Democratic Party’s cheerleader.
A “bogus” plagiarism charge? The candidate of “authenticity,” in high-flying passages claiming that “words mean something,” is revealed to be Charismatic Candidate, Weak on Substance v2.0 as packaged by David Axelrod, and you come out swinging against Clinton? One would at least think you’d appreciate the irony.
Full disclosure: I dislike both the Dem candidates, but both of them are infinitely preferable to McCain.
Maha, I stop by here every day. No more. Stench of desperation, indeed. Hey, any thinking person has “doubts about Clinton.” Hardly takes any thinking at all, though, to write a post like this.
Weak on Substance v2.0 as packaged by David Axelrod,
You have drunk the Kool Aid, m’dear. Hope it tasted good.
For as much as Obama has focused on reaching across the aisles, I take that with a grain of salt. Most candidates say that at some point. Bill said that.
Hillary, however, for all her “forcefulness” is a creature of the DCLC.
The DCLC has completely, profoundly, and continually grossly underestimated the depth and intensity of anti-Bush sentiment among the public, hewing instead to a far less “forceful” centre position that nods at much of the Republican rhetoric while saying the Democrats will do a more competent job of carrying this rhetoric out. We’ve seen the result in Congress: endless caving.
If Obama wins, it will not only be a repudiation of the neocon vision, but a rejection of the DCLC’s “competent Republican” agenda as well. Whatever Obama stands for, the truth is that he has capitalised far better on the anti-Bush sentiment far more effectively than Clinton’s “competent Bush” sales pitch has.
At this point, Clinton seems intent on destroying Obama with attacks that bring no advantage to her, other than being the last one standing. This is the classic DCLC strategy of “find a way to lose”. The “plagiarism” charge would be justified if Clinton wrote her own speeches as well, but she admits she doesn’t.
“Not even close, but thanks for playing. Now, go away. You just broke the first rule of commenting on The Mahablog — don’t piss off maha.”
Are you kidding? That’s all it takes to piss you off? Just disagreeing with you? So much for free speech and discourse. And after all the nice things I said about you and your blog.
Well, certainly an eye opener and yet more evidence that *some* Obama supporters are very closed minded.
Good bye!
Bron
“to be fair to Bron @ 9, if you go to blogs like The Left Coaster or Post#20 “Taylor Marsh or First Draft, you’ll see ostensible Obama supporters behaving badly. I’m an Obama voter; I’ve seen some truly despicable things said about Sen. Clinton, and some of them rankly sexist.”
Thanks very much, Joel, for coming to my defense. I must say I was quite caught by surprise at Maha’s reaction to what I saw as a rather innocuous post. Anyway, I have far better things to do with my time, so no big deal.
Best regards and thanks again!
Bron
Bron
Bron — This is not a public utility. It’s my property. You don’t come here, insult me and other commenters, and expect to be treated better than your behavior deserves.
This is a bitterly waged political war between two politicians. Neither holds any great claim of purity, as they are simply playing the same game as every presidential candidate before them, mudslinging and sugarcoating not withstanding. Banning someone for posting an opinion that could inspire healthy and open-minded debate is petty and sadly shows a severe lack of integrity on behalf of the dear Maha. I greatly enjoyed your blog, and am an Obama supporter myself, so take no opposition there. I simply disagree with your weak response to a legitimate argument. If you want to make a point, come up with a counter-argument like a mature adult engaged in civilized debate rather than banning someone like an temperamental child. You’re an intelligent and well-versed blogger, so understand that I feel only disappointment over such immature actions. Was Bron being disrespectful? Not in the least. Where his arguments fair? Completely. If you feel you can bring fair justification to your claims of insult, please do. People are always going to disagree with you, so I suggest that perhaps instead of just banning at will that you learn to discuss to reach a mutual understanding of both sides and find truth in debate. Not much healthy debate stems from banning, dear.
Otherwise, a terrific site. I’m sorry that this little thing had to go an leave such a sour taste in my mouth or I would likely be an avid reader, but who knows. I’m a forgive-and-forget type.
-Reverend Nait
If you want to make a point, come up with a counter-argument like a mature adult engaged in civilized debate rather than banning someone like an temperamental child.
Sorry, but I don’t have time for this. Bron didn’t have an argument at all, just an observation, but the condescending tone and the remark about the pro-Clinton comments being “more reasonable than most” annoyed me. I don’t run this site to be annoyed.
You’ll notice other commenters also prefer Clinton to Obama, and they didn’t annoy me and didn’t get banned.
Again, this site is not a public utility. Please see commenting rules.