I haven’t weighed in on the rhetorical context of the whole Crazy Old Pastor phenomenon (I think Colin McEnroe pretty near nailed it), but I would like to point out something to the people who are shocked—shocked—that Hillary Clinton is continuing to peg away at it.
I don’t want to pretend to speak for all supporters of Sen. Clinton’s candidacy, but it seems to me that very few of them would be dissuaded from that support because it turns out that the Senator is ruthless, shameless and pretty close to heartless in politics. That's her biggest asset in the campaign. That would be her biggest asset in a general election campaign, the willingness (and ability) to go for the proverbial instead of clearly setting out her policy points. And that would be her biggest asset as President.
To the extent that I’ve chatted with supporters of Sen. Clinton about Sen. Obama, they’ve expressed concern that his message of hope, bipartisanship and a New Politics fails to include the essential message of crushing the Republicans who will certainly be trying to crush us. And not just Republicans, either. Politics ain’t beanbag. The evidence that she is using every tool in her arsenal to destroy Sen. Obama is evidence that she is capable of being the only kind of President she could successfully become, which is a second LBJ. Or a Democratic Dick Cheney.
Now, I voted for Barack Obama, and I’m glad that he has essentially won the nomination (unless he’s caught on the Monkey Business with Donna Rice, Monica Lewinsky and Mark Foley). I would be happier, given that, if Hillary Clinton would gracefully retreat to the Senate and become the great legislator that I think is her best destiny, and the best use of the brass balls the good Lord gave her. But the idea that the Hillary Clinton campaign is somehow damaged by her willingness to sit down with Richard Mellon Scaife to get what she wants is just silly.
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.
On the subject of “crushing Republicans,” it seems likely to me that Senator Obama’s political strategy will lead to larger and more progressive Democratic majorities in Congress than will Senator Clinton’s political strategy. Those who fault Obama for not broadcasting that “essential message” might do well to look more carefully at what Obama is doing for Democratic campaigns, and for the Democratic party. “Bipartisanship,” when it means in practice, as it has recently, “giving corrupt and malicious Republicans everything they want,” is deplorable, and the elected Democrats in the Congress ought not to be engaging in it as a strategy of governance. Campaigning on bipartisanship, when that means attracting Independent and Republican voters to become Democratic voters, is quite a different thing. Obama is _building_ the party in a way that suggests, I think, that he does not view politics, at the present moment, as a zero-sum game, and his successes so far bear out his view.
Is Hillary Clinton’s campaign building the Democratic party and helping other Democratic campaigns? What is the evidence, one way or the other? From what I can see, her approach to campaigning is not helping to strengthen the Democratic party. To run a “ruthless, shameless and pretty close to heartless” campaign may manifest her individual toughness, but does it strengthen the Democrats? My sense is that it does not, and therefore Democrats are right, both morally and pragmatically, to criticize a campaign strategy that may weaken her opponent but does not strengthen her party. I’d be happy, incidentally, to be shown evidence that her campaign is having more positive effects on the Democrats than what I have described here, but I don’t know what that evidence is.
Personally, I’m inclined to your view, and I think a lot of people are, which is why, you know, he won the nomination. I think Mark Schmitt is right that Barack Obama has communitarian instincts (to some extent), which is a Good Thing, and could make for a wonderful presidency (and an improved nation and world, hurrah!). Given the choice between a communitarian Reagan or a second LBJ, well, it’s a fairly easy choice for me.
The thing is that supporters of Sen. Clinton have, it seems to me, already decided that they want an ass-kicker, so telling them that she wears steel-toed boots and kicks really hard isn’t going to make them faint. Making the argument that Sen. Obama would have coattails big enough to govern without ass-kicking seems to me like it would be much more persuasive.
Thanks,
-V.
yeah obama’s definitely undermining the wingnuts. i just can’t figure out if he’s first-way, discussed more broadly, or third-way, made more palatable. how can we tell, until the cabinet starts forming, and the congressional results are in?
How would you describe a “first-way” perspective?
bottom-up. top-down economics came after considerable population consolidation.
i’m totally making this up. is it useful?
is it useful?
Yes.
I think it’s safe to say, if the Clintons are taken to be representative of “Third Way” centrists, that Obama is not, or not merely, “Third Way.” His rhetoric does not actively challenge most third way assumptions about how the world works and what government is for, but he doesn’t limit his responses to problems to the third way playbook, and his campaign’s stress on organizing certainly runs counter to the third way’s comfort with corporatism and reliance on benevolent plutocrats. On the other hand, his rhetoric definitely doesn’t embrace an Edwards-style populism, and the primary so far has justified that choice as politically astute.
When the electorate simultaneously wants change and fears change, where else can an astute, and basically honest, politician stand?
don’t know. i’m really only waiting for his “i’m tiger woods” ad.