Politicking time bomb
Apr. 17th, 2008 05:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
penfield"Debate is the death of conversation."
- Kitty O'Neill Collins
I didn't watch the Democratic primary debate last night, as I have recently been switched off by the mass-media howling about the screeching between the candidates, which itself has genesis on the candidates own campaign-trail bloviating. I had a feeling that the debate would be little more than a "2008 Primary Bleeps and Bloopers" clip show and if the Washington Post's Tom Shales is to be believed, I was correct.
Stray observations:
- Maybe it's just the television wags and D.C.'s chattering classes, but has anyone else noticed that people commonly refer to Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" and Barack Obama as "Obama"? I suppose at least some of these people are simply trying to precisely distinguish between her and former President Bill, but I don't think that's the full answer. Could it be that people enjoy the connotative load that "Hillary" brings with it -- images of a vaguely aryan, cold-blooded taskmaster? Linguistically, could this be an unconscious diminutive assignation to a female candidate? Psychosocially, could it be that we are simply so familiar with Hillary Clinton that we feel like we're on a first-name basis with her, while we still view Obama as something of a stranger? And what, if anything, does this say about their performances in this contest and their prospects for the general election?
- After Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana, there is going to be even more whining and hand-wringing about what to do with the disposessed voters of Michigan and Florida. In all the caterwauling that's been raised so far, I haven't heard anyone note the basic irony of the situation: Michigan and Florida were punished because they wanted to move their primaries earlier in the season, thereby increasing their relevance. But in this election, the later states have become even more relevant and important than the earlier states. Michigan and Florida each effectively shot themselves in both feet with one bullet.
- Another thing that nobody has mentioned: the controversial statement by Obama adviser Samantha Power that Hillary Clinton was "a monster" was literally spoken "off-the-record." (The newspaper explained that because Power asked that it be off the record after the fact, it was "too late" to retract it, which I guess is technically true but certainly very weaselly, like the Scrabble stickler who says that if you put a letter in the wrong square that it has to stay there.) Similarly, the whole brouhaha about Obama's "bitter working class" comment erupted after it was leaked from a private fundraiser. Now, I'm not saying that transparency isn't important. And I believe we do have to demand accountability from our politicians -- especially during campaign season -- to make sure they aren't giving us the ol' Eliot Spitzer treatment. But the implied privacy under which these comments were uttered establishes (a) a broader context in which the comment should be framed, and (b) a shared lexicon and understanding between the speaker and his/her audience that may not be applicable to the public at large. Maybe it is in the Democratic tradition that communication between people should conform to the lowest common denominator, but it makes for much less enlightening and interesting discourse.
- A few weeks ago there was a hue and cry for Clinton to just give up already, since her prospects are so mathematically slim and strategically dubious. There seems to be an open debate about whether this protracted internecine steel cage match is helpful to the Democrats (by keeping McCain off the front pages) or harmful to them (by so weakening whomever will be the eventual nominee). I temporarily joined the crowd calling for Clinton's capitulation not because I am so sanguine for Obama but because I just want it to end already. If you told me I had the choice of electing McCain tomorrow or Obama in six months, I would pause to think it over.
- Kitty O'Neill Collins
I didn't watch the Democratic primary debate last night, as I have recently been switched off by the mass-media howling about the screeching between the candidates, which itself has genesis on the candidates own campaign-trail bloviating. I had a feeling that the debate would be little more than a "2008 Primary Bleeps and Bloopers" clip show and if the Washington Post's Tom Shales is to be believed, I was correct.
Stray observations:
- Maybe it's just the television wags and D.C.'s chattering classes, but has anyone else noticed that people commonly refer to Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" and Barack Obama as "Obama"? I suppose at least some of these people are simply trying to precisely distinguish between her and former President Bill, but I don't think that's the full answer. Could it be that people enjoy the connotative load that "Hillary" brings with it -- images of a vaguely aryan, cold-blooded taskmaster? Linguistically, could this be an unconscious diminutive assignation to a female candidate? Psychosocially, could it be that we are simply so familiar with Hillary Clinton that we feel like we're on a first-name basis with her, while we still view Obama as something of a stranger? And what, if anything, does this say about their performances in this contest and their prospects for the general election?
- After Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana, there is going to be even more whining and hand-wringing about what to do with the disposessed voters of Michigan and Florida. In all the caterwauling that's been raised so far, I haven't heard anyone note the basic irony of the situation: Michigan and Florida were punished because they wanted to move their primaries earlier in the season, thereby increasing their relevance. But in this election, the later states have become even more relevant and important than the earlier states. Michigan and Florida each effectively shot themselves in both feet with one bullet.
- Another thing that nobody has mentioned: the controversial statement by Obama adviser Samantha Power that Hillary Clinton was "a monster" was literally spoken "off-the-record." (The newspaper explained that because Power asked that it be off the record after the fact, it was "too late" to retract it, which I guess is technically true but certainly very weaselly, like the Scrabble stickler who says that if you put a letter in the wrong square that it has to stay there.) Similarly, the whole brouhaha about Obama's "bitter working class" comment erupted after it was leaked from a private fundraiser. Now, I'm not saying that transparency isn't important. And I believe we do have to demand accountability from our politicians -- especially during campaign season -- to make sure they aren't giving us the ol' Eliot Spitzer treatment. But the implied privacy under which these comments were uttered establishes (a) a broader context in which the comment should be framed, and (b) a shared lexicon and understanding between the speaker and his/her audience that may not be applicable to the public at large. Maybe it is in the Democratic tradition that communication between people should conform to the lowest common denominator, but it makes for much less enlightening and interesting discourse.
- A few weeks ago there was a hue and cry for Clinton to just give up already, since her prospects are so mathematically slim and strategically dubious. There seems to be an open debate about whether this protracted internecine steel cage match is helpful to the Democrats (by keeping McCain off the front pages) or harmful to them (by so weakening whomever will be the eventual nominee). I temporarily joined the crowd calling for Clinton's capitulation not because I am so sanguine for Obama but because I just want it to end already. If you told me I had the choice of electing McCain tomorrow or Obama in six months, I would pause to think it over.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The all-important Puerto Rico primary
Date: 2008-04-17 09:58 pm (UTC)Meanwhile, I'm still confused at the uproar over calling Hillary a "monster." People acted as though uttering the word "monster" should have been regulated by the FCC. Should we bleep it out? Can you actually say "monster" on TV? (Why did that word have people up in arms?) As for her request that it was off the record, you can't make that claim after the fact. That's not how it works.
Re: The all-important Puerto Rico primary
Date: 2008-04-18 02:58 pm (UTC)RE: "Monster," I agree that it's not such an awful word. If Clinton were more interested in touting herself as a strong candidate and less interested in scoring "gotcha" points, she would have responded by saying, "You're goddamn right I'm a monster. I am a monster for the American people. I will claw and maul any sonofabitch that tries to get between this country and its well-being."
RE: "Hillary," I should have mentioned that about the campaign signs and bumper stickers, etc. I never meant to imply that Clinton was suffering because of it -- she seems to embrace it, as you say. I was merely postulating what it says about *us.*
Re: The all-important Puerto Rico primary
Date: 2008-04-18 08:10 pm (UTC)Just a terrible idea (http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/1998/results_1998/garep.html). (Scroll down to the 8th District.)
-- Josh
Re: The all-important Puerto Rico primary
Date: 2008-04-18 08:31 pm (UTC)Re: The all-important Puerto Rico primary
Date: 2008-04-21 07:26 pm (UTC)Re: The all-important Puerto Rico primary
Date: 2008-04-21 08:48 pm (UTC)