Just think, what might have been..

John F. Harris, in a 2000 issue of the Washington Post

There is a popular view, which many of her advisers once endorsed, that Bill and Hillary represent two distinct poles in the Clinton Enterprise. She is the ideologue, eager to win but motivated principally by the higher cause; he is the compromiser, eager to do good but motivated principally by the imperative of victory. But it is Bill Clinton’s brand of politics that is the animating force of her campaign.

Nothing illustrates this more than a tense episode early this year when she was deciding who to hire as her media adviser. The job had been all but offered, several sources say, to a veteran Chicago political consultant named David Axelrod. The president himself then weighed in with another idea: Hire Mark Penn. He was already signed on as pollster for both Hillary’s campaign and the White House. Clinton believed he should take on an additional role in shaping her campaign’s message.

“That was her decision,” Clinton said in our conversation, acknowledging that he had been thoroughly familiar with it. “She’s got the best of both worlds because [Axelrod] is working for the state party.”

The significance of Penn is that he, more than any other adviser, is the architect of the president’s successful effort to define and occupy the political center. Penn believes that swing voters are moved not so much by a candidate’s inspiring rhetoric or compelling personal biography, but by concrete issues whose popularity is scientifically ascertained through exhaustive polling. It is a data-driven approach to politics, wonderfully suited to a president who inhales data, and over the years the smooth pol and the rumpled pollster have established a remarkable communion.

Whats more if Clinton had decided to run for Senate in 2000 from Illinois instead of New York, Obama wouldn’t be the nominee because she would be holding his Senate seat.

Wait, so the blatant racism and xenophobia of the Clinton campaign was really all Mark Penn’s fault?

I mean, hey, I’m happy to blame somebody else, and I hate Penn as much as the next girl, but come ON, people.  It’s not like Penn held a gun to her head.  Hate to be a blatant Obama partisan (sorry if it gets the Clintonians’ panties in a twist), but seriously, both Clintons had a thousand opportunities to decide NOT to run a racist campaign.

Something that’s interested me this year is the fact that both Obama and McCain are Americans with strong transnational roots (some Democrats have sunk so low as to question whether a child born to Americans living in the Canal Zone is a “real” American).

Is this just coincidence, or evidence of a growing demographic trend?

Just a thought.

MAJeff, that seriously broke my brain. I’m just reeling.

Shit-eating motherfuckers for President!!!

http://www.nostate.com/28/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-obama-overlords/

I also hate Mark Penn.  That is all. 

God!  I feel so communal!

Hate to be a blatant Obama partisan (sorry if it gets the Clintonians’ panties in a twist), but seriously, both Clintons had a thousand opportunities to decide NOT to run a racist campaign.

Yes, and took none of them. Nice, eh?

Now, if only Barack Obama could say that he decided not to run a sexist campaign.

And why does Pandagon feel the need to keep dissing Clinton, even now she’s lost?

Whats more if Clinton had decided to run for Senate in 2000 from Illinois instead of New York, Obama wouldn’t be the nominee because she would be holding his Senate seat.

Except for the minor detail that there was no Illinois senate race in 2000.  Obama won the seat of retiring GOP Senator Peter Fitzgerald in 2004.

Cheers to Auguste for reinforcing both points and the main reason why Clinton was a very bad idea this year.  Her campaign was shot through with creitins like Penn.  Can you imagine what her administration would be like?

That said, my interactions with Obama’s national people have been better on ideological basis but on a personal basis, most of them act like young republicans.

Hey, there’s no question I’ll be pulling the proverbial Obama lever in November I just wish his organization reflected the values Obama talks about.

That said, my interactions with Obama’s national people have been better on ideological basis but on a personal basis, most of them act like young republicans.

That’s too bad. I haven’t had any experience with Obama’s national people, but his local ones (YMMV, obviously) have been just fine.

Don’t hate Mark Penn. Promote him. Make him work for McCain. haa haa…

At least this time we got Penn and MacAuliffe out of the way BEFORE the General Election! Both are great at coming in SECOND.

The first 4 words of that para before you cut them out were “Backed by Bill Clinton,”

Wasn’t he your hero not so long ago?

Amanda wrote: Because if we don’t examine what went wrong, we won’t learn nothing.

I almost never comment here or anywhere else, but posts like these are why I’m a big AM fan. To this whole post I have but one word: Exactly.

Mark Penn really was a loathsome, shit-eating motherfucker.

Was?

I for one think we ought to collect money to pay Mark Penn and MacAuliffe to work for McCain.

I’ll pay good money to watch them both screwing up McCain campaign.

Personally, I think the people McCain has now are doing a fine job all on their own, and sending McAuliffe and Penn over there would actually improve things.

I just heard that the disaster that was McCain’s speech on Tuesday night was the result of 3 weeks of nonstop planning.

What Amanda said!

I wasn’t a fan of Bill’s - I had to hold my nose to vote for him in ‘92 - and after his Republican-lite first term voted for a Boulder teacher on the Socialist party ticket in CO just to avoid contaminating my fingers by touching the lever next to his name. Worst Democratic president in my lifetime and I was born in 1948 (Jimmy Carter was merely inadequate and a victim of circumstances.  Bill OTOH did lasting harm with botched health care reform, “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”,  DOMA, welfare “reform” and that damned stained cocktail dress.  Frankly, I’d like to send the Clintons and the Bushes together to a remote island with a 55-gallon drum of STFU and four straws.

I for one think we ought to collect money to pay Mark Penn and MacAuliffe to work for McCain.

I’ll pay good money to watch them both screwing up McCain campaign.

After watching this last week, I think you can save your money.  The current campaign staff seems to be screwing things up just fine on their own.

Now, if only Barack Obama could say that he decided not to run a sexist campaign.

Can anyone point me to solid documentation that Senator Obama ran a sexist campaign? I’ve seen examples of major media figures spouting sexist nonsense, but I never noticed Senator Obama saying anything remotely sexist. I’m not saying he didn’t, but I’d like to see the evidence.

Senator Clinton, on the other hand, ran an openly racist campaign for many weeks. And if it weren’t already obvious, now Amanda points to documentary evidence.

Personally, I think anyone who acknowledges those facts and still supports Senator Clinton needs to examine his or her values.

Chuckling:
Jim Geraghty at the corner has a selection of incidents.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWFkMjc1ZTJjNzgyMWI3ZjliMDQ3MzQ2MjhjYTZhOTQ=

As a south asian, I have never forgotten who first drew the race card in this election.  I do remember the D-Punjab memo which was distributed ‘not for attribution’ to the press.  You may believe that was the last time the campaign sent out a not for attribution memo to the press, I believe it is the last time they got caught.

The campaign to a considerable extent was fueled by CDS (I personally know people who are ABCs (anyone but clinton)...I live under the same roof with one…and I am married to her).  So I have difficulty believing that they holstered their weapons after that one incident.

Because if we don’t examine what went wrong, we won’t learn nothing.  Don’t you feel that learning from the mistakes of your own and others is a good thing to do?

Examining what went wrong, however, doesn’t have to be done in a way that serves to push away Clinton supporters.  What’s more, if the votes of Clinton supporters are wanted in November, then anything that serves to push them away is counterproductive.

Clinton had her faults, Obama had his.  Many people supported Obama - but almost as many supported Clinton. 

Many people who preferred Clinton over Obama last week still think Clinton would have been the better candidate.  Most of those people are, however, equally convinced that both Obama and Clinton are miles ahead of McCain.

But rehashing all of Clinton’s faults only serves to highlight the differences between Clinton and Obama.  Which means that those who liked Clinton are more likely to see Obama as very different from what they want.  Which serves to push them away at the time when they need to be invited in. 

Most Clinton supporters don’t think she’s wrong, they recognize that, among the Democrats, Obama is more popular and the elected candidate. 

An insult or criticism of Clinton can feel like a personal insult or criticism to a Clinton supporter.  If Obama supporters (and, by implication, Obama) think she’s so horrible, then it feels as if they think that Clinton supporters are equally horrible.

When it comes to second-place candidates for presidential nominations, Clinton did far, far better, and has far more popularity, than most second-place candidates.  Which makes the conversion of her supporters a much bigger deal for Obama than it would be in a typical election.

There is a difference between “Yay! We won!” and “Nya! You lost!”

There is a difference between “Look how great our guy is, and how well he fits the things you care about” and “Look how horrible the person you liked is.” 

There is a difference between being respected as a powerful second-best and dismissed as a complete failure.

There is a difference between Clinton supporters considering what went wrong, and how things could have done better, and Obama supporters seeming to gloat over her failures. 

The first set of things are things that will help bring the party, and the progressives, together.  The second set serve to make Clinton supporters feel unwelcome in the Obama camp.  Since the movement needs to be from Clinton, toward Obama, and not vice versa, it is up to Obama and his supporters to invite Clinton supporters in, and Clinton supporters to graciously accept the invitation.  But, absent an invitation, there is no way for Clinton supporters to enter.  Absent a genuine welcome, there is little incentive for Clinton supporters to enter. 

Obama gets this.  But for people who are following the election via the Internet, the fact that Obama gets this can get obscured and overwhelmed by the voices of Obama supporters who present as more anti-Clinton than pro-Democrat.

UP With Physiognomy!
[I’ve heard,...anecdotally-speaking,..of course,
that he looks like a Vogon. Fuc*king perfect, then.]

It is a great thing that the presidency is within the reach of women who don’t hire Mark Penn.

I never noticed Senator Obama saying anything remotely sexist.

The only thing I can come up with is that time he called a female journalist “sweetie”.  Which is irritating and probably shows his male privilege on a personal level, but not at all the same thing as specifically playing up the idea that your opponent isn’t qualified to be president on account of his race.

Though I should admit I was away from the blogosphere for most of January, all of February, and the first week of March, and during that time got all my primary analysis from a friend who is male and non-white, which means that while he definitely saw the racism in HRC’s campaign, he may not have been as well-poised to parse the sexism in BHO’s.

Examining what went wrong, however, doesn’t have to be done in a way that serves to push away Clinton supporters.  What’s more, if the votes of Clinton supporters are wanted in November, then anything that serves to push them away is counterproductive.

Exactly. And brushing off the Baby Boom generation the way the campaign (starting with Obama’s book) isn’t smart politically, either. We’re here; I’m ready to support Obama whole-heartedly but a lot of Obama bloggers are making it tougher by the day.

What’s more, if the votes of Clinton supporters are wanted in November, then anything that serves to push them away is counterproductive.

I’m going to tell a story.

In the last NYC mayoral election, I was really, really rooting for Anthony Weiner (one of the local congress-folk, who also had a long stint on the City Council, so obviously mega-qualified). 

Well, in the end, the Democratic choice was not Weiner but Fernando Ferrer, a similarly qualified Democrat who had an equally liberal platform and who would have been the first Latino mayor of New York.  (hmm, now that I think about this, the situation is actually an even better parallel than I thought…)

Even though I was really annoyed that my candidate didn’t make it to the general election, and even though I think Bloomberg, who was running for reelection, is a perfectly acceptable mayor, guess who I voted for in the eventual election?

Fernando Ferrer. 

Because being spiteful is lame, and I’d much rather have a liberal Democrat as mayor than throw my vote away over sour grapes.  And I didn’t need weeks and weeks of Ferrer supporters tiptoeing around my pweshus feewings, either.

And brushing off the Baby Boom generation the way the campaign (starting with Obama’s book) isn’t smart politically, either. We’re here; I’m ready to support Obama whole-heartedly but a lot of Obama bloggers are making it tougher by the day.

Exactly.  Obama is a baby boomer.  The traditional definition is those born between 1946 and 1964.  Granted he’s a late boomer (ouch!) but a boomer nonetheless. 

I’ve stopped reading the comments at places like Daily Kos to avoid the hostility to both boomers and Southerners.  Whether they like it or not, even early boomers like me are going to be around another 20-30 years and we are a more reliable voting demographic than the 18-34 set.

You know what’s funny about Mark Penn?

For all of the accolades that so many Washington wonks once lavished upon him, for all the money the Clinton Campaign sank into believing in his strategic thinking, this nimrod made a mistake along the way that even my 7 year old nephew wouldn’t have made if he were managing the campaign…

CALIFORNIA

Somehow, Penn got it into his head that California was a winner-take-all state, and that it would be California that would close the deal on Super Tuesday back in February.  By the time the Clinton Campaign realized this utterly moronic oversight, it was too late…

Clinton did win California, but not nearly convincingly enough to knock Obama out of the race.  Having absolutely no post-Super Tuesday plan in place, the Clinton Campaign watched as it all went to shit right in front of their eyes and Obama won 11 contests in a row before the big Texas and Ohio primaries.

Clinton was able to regroup for the final races from early March until the end, but it was too little, too late.

Those 11 contests won the nomination.  Even though Clinton actually did a little better than Obama in the final contests from March 4th until the end, she was just too far behind to catch up.

And it’s all because Penn was too much of a know-it-all to realize that California’s Primary wasn’t a winner-take-all contest.

It was the tiniest little gaffe that could have been avoided altogether if he had just used the Google.

At least this time we got Penn and MacAuliffe out of the way BEFORE the General Election!

Exactly. Because I none of that “Hope” stuff really resonated with me, this particular reason is why I came down on Obama’s side. Obama’s rhetoric of “turning the page” and “getting beyond our past partisan disputes” wasn’t, as I worried, about “taking a mulligan on the 90s and forgiving the Republicans,” it was about purging everything that went wrong, and that includes moving beyond the useless consultant class that screwed over the Dems in the 80s and 90s.

There is a difference between “Look how great our guy is, and how well he fits the things you care about” and “Look how horrible the person you liked is.”

Well, to Clinton’s credit, she didn’t approve of some of Penn’s more loathsome ideas, but she still kept him on board as the only source of polling data and let him coordinate a lot of strategy. And I don’t feel I should hold my tongue about what a problem this was just to protect the egos of Clinton supporters.

No one likes losing, but let’s be realistic: Clinton’s campaign was symptomatic of a lot of problems in failed Democratic campaigns. This is anecdote is yet another example of that.

Whether they like it or not, even early boomers like me are going to be around another 20-30 years and we are a more reliable voting demographic than the 18-34 set.

I wonder if it’s possible to pinpoint the exact moment when the catchphrase morphed from “Don’t trust anyone over 30” to “Don’t trust anyone under 35.”

Tyro:
If hillary’s campaign was emblematic of a lot of problems in failed democratic campaigns, she is a phenomenal campaign.  She came pretty close to beating the Saviour.

If examining one’s faults is important, I am sure none of you mind tha Hillary Supporters for McCain movement and other ‘dead enders’ and their comments…because that should inform us about Obama’s campaign’s faults.

One comment above implied that Clinton said that Obama was unqualified on account of his race.  I don’t recall that ever happening.  I do remember racially insensitive things said by Clinton and her campaign.  Never heard’em say he was unqualified because of his race.

I heard Obama criticise Clinton as having a ‘washington mindset’...belonging to the ‘old school of politics’ and so on.  If they are valid criticisms, her criticism of him ‘not meeting the C -in -C threshold’ is also valid.  You can’t have it both ways:  Look I am inexperienced in the washington ways so I am better…but don’t you dare criticize me for being inexperienced in the washington ways.

I wonder if it’s possible to pinpoint the exact moment when the catchphrase morphed from “Don’t trust anyone over 30” to “Don’t trust anyone under 35.”

Please don’t put words in my mouth.  It is a fact that my age group has historically turned out with greater reliability.  That was true of the 60+ demographic when I was under 35.  Citing that fact does not equate to not trusting someone under 35.

One of the most encouraging things about the Obama campaign is the enthusiasm it has generated in that age group and the many new young voters that have signed on.  I have long maintained that the Democrats’ success lay in outreach to the 40 to 50 percent of the eligible electorate that doesn’t show up on election day, many of whom are young people who saw a corrupt, cynical process and opted not to play.  Obama’s campaign has done that, as the video of his Friday meeting shows.  Only time will tell if that change is permanent.

She came pretty close to beating the Saviour.

While it amuses me to see how Senator Inevitable has been rewritten as “Scrappy Insurgent Taking on the Savior,” I can only appreciate it in the sense that I hope that narrative helps former supporters feel better about themselves.

As I can tell you from personal experience, it’s a lot easier to brush yourself off after your favored insurgent falls by telling yourself that insurgent campaigns almost always lose than it is to convince yourself to go along with the party nominee if you harbor a bitterness that something inevitably owed to you was torn away. So if that’s what it takes, go for it.

<i>Obama’s rhetoric of “turning the page” and “getting beyond our past partisan disputes” wasn’t, as I worried, about “taking a mulligan on the 90s and forgiving the Republicans,” it was about purging everything that went wrong<>

Actually, while I’m by no means eager for conciliatory tactics wrt the Republicans, I think Obama’s “reaching across the aisle” rhetoric is really interesting, and could possibly be what wins him the presidency.  Mainly because, like it or not, we’re going to need the moderates to win, and poaching some folks who vote Republican wouldn’t hurt, either.  I see “bipartisanship” in the Obama campaign taking a similar role to “maverick” and “straight talk” in the McCain campaign—using certain key words to make him more palatable to moderates, despite his straight-up liberal platform. 

I also think that when he says “reaching across the aisle” he means the kind of shift in Democratic strategy that we all want to see, anyway.  Less letting them set the framework for debate.  Less red state blue state campaign tactics.  Less always being on the defensive.  Bipartisanship = Not DLC.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

I won’t put words in your mouth if you don’t use it to spout generational talking points.  It always surprises me how well the Boomers transitioned from “The Times They Are A Changin’” to “Damn Kids Better Get Off My Lawn”.  Especially the way that “kids” = “people under 50”.  It’s not just a political thing, though it’s amazing how Clinton’s campaign latched onto it.  I’m 27 years old and most Boomers I know treat me like I’m in preschool.

Ice weasel:
If Mark Penn’s being in Clinton’s campaign was a terrible idea, isn’t Obama’s association with Rev Wright and Fr Pfleger equally problematic (they were on his campaign and only got kicked off after public flame-outs…the operative word is public…it wasn’t the actions themselves that got them out, it was the publicity around them)

I wonder if it’s possible to pinpoint the exact moment when the catchphrase morphed from “Don’t trust anyone over 30” to “Don’t trust anyone under 35.”

That’s easy 1946+35=1981

If Mark Penn’s being in Clinton’s campaign was a terrible idea, isn’t Obama’s association with Rev Wright and Fr Pfleger equally problematic

You cannot possibly be equating Mark Penn’s role in Hillary’s campaign with Wright’s non-role in Obama’s campaign. Seriously, there is no way you can be arguing this.

Tyro:
You are the one priding yourself on beating Senator Inevitable and chest thumping about insurgent campaigns. 
We never said she was invincible…but did say she was a strong candidate.  Nobody was under the illusion that it would be easy for a woman to win the candidacy (any more than anyone thought it would be easy for an African American).  She was a frontrunner with a phenomenal money machine; no more no less.  But we always knew that it was votes that mattered and as recent elections have shown, being progressive does not necessarily translate into more votes at hustings.  I supported her because after Edwards left I thought that she was the more progressive of the candidates left.

So maybe that’s your way of pumping yourself up…we beat senator Inevitable…we’re the cat’s pajamas.
.because with all the mistakes she made, Obama’s fabled campaign barely beat her…so he must suck as a candidate.  So maybe you need that feel better about your candidate.

We don’t need to rely on any illusions like that.  She was good candiate because of her work for progressice causes and her position on a number of those causes.  I am sorry she lost…and none of this psychobabble will make it feel better.

Wait, Sam, you know that Pfleger was a guest-speaker at Obama’s church (and not necessarily at any time when Obama happened to even be in attendance), and not actually running his campaign, right?

There are days I think Obama is de facto already the President Elect.  There are other days I think we’re in for a long, bumpy ride.  This is one of the latter.

Tyro:
On second read…I don’t think you were being as facetious as I thought you were.  Sorry I jumped the gun with my response

Fr. Pfleger was invitation to the TUCC did not come out of nowhere.  He was a part of the Obama campaign’s catholic outreach and a very long time friend/associate.

Let me translate all of the anti-Boomer sentiment for people of that generation who didn’t hear the subtext:

We didn’t want another damn presidential election that revolved around Who Did What During Vietnam.

Our entire political landscape has revolved around Vietnam since, well, Vietnam.  Our presidential elections have been about who did what and who was more patriotic and what counts as service and what doesn’t since 1992—that’s over 15 years now.  Twenty years if you count the rumors during the 1988 campaign that there were pictures of Kitty Dukakis burning an American flag during anti-war protests in the 1960s.

McCain tipped his hand early with his commercials about how Clinton and Schumer wanted to spend $1 million on a Woodstock museum.  That was the writing on the wall:  once again, the election would not be about the issues or who would be the better president.  It would be about who was a dirty fucking hippie 40 years ago.

So when you hear people complain about the Boomers, they’re not complaining about them being too old.  They’re complaining that it’s now more than 30 years after we left Saigon and the #1 question is still Who Did What in Vietnam.

Barack Obama was 14 years old when Saigon fell, so it’s not even going to come up.  And that’s what I, at least, am looking forward to.

Anyone else getting the feeling that Sam Jackson is a concern troll?  It’s the immediate recourse to the National Review that’s setting off my troll-dar.

Tyro:
Rev Wright was a part of Obama’s campaign.  His role may have been in the background (and if you believe internet innuendo it was because Obama didn’t want him to be a public face of the campaign and switched the minister in the last minute..I don’t necessarily care)..but he was a part of the campaign.

mnemosyne:
Suit yourself.  I cannot make you listen to what I have to say…and I have no particular obsession to.  There are many boards where these issues are being discussed…this was a more respectful board (until your dismissive comment) and that is why I participated here.

Suit yourself.  I cannot make you listen to what I have to say…and I have no particular obsession to.  There are many boards where these issues are being discussed…this was a more respectful board (until your dismissive comment) and that is why I participated here.

Yep.  Concern troll.  Thanks for playing.

I heard Obama criticise Clinton as having a ‘washington mindset’...belonging to the ‘old school of politics’ and so on.  If they are valid criticisms, her criticism of him ‘not meeting the C -in -C threshold’ is also valid.  You can’t have it both ways:  Look I am inexperienced in the washington ways so I am better…but don’t you dare criticize me for being inexperienced in the washington ways.

Yet with 35 years of experience in Washington ways, they thought that Dem primaries were winner take all and didnt know there was a caucus in Texas.  A “Washington mindset” does not equal knowing how to get things done, and “old school of politics” does not equal knowing how to win elections

If Clinton thinks that McCain passes the C-in-C test, then she must think that W passes too.

Sam: I cannot ban you, but I can say that I will never acknowledge or respond to any of your posts ever again. Mark Penn was the Chief Strategist (official title) and only pollster for the Clinton campaign and was paid tens of thousands of dollars per month to him and his firm by the campaign. He was in charge of coordinating what Clinton should do and why she would do it. His role is not in any way analogous to Wright’s, who was not a campaign staffer. If you do not know that this distinction exists or are being willfully dishonest about these differences, then I cannot speak with you, ever. Not worth my time, intellectually speaking.

Rev Wright was a part of Obama’s campaign.  His role may have been in the background (and if you believe internet innuendo it was because Obama didn’t want him to be a public face of the campaign and switched the minister in the last minute..I don’t necessarily care)..but he was a part of the campaign.

1.  I’ve been on the Obama Campaign email list approximately since such a thing existed.  I’ve been getting at least one or two emails from various campaign staffers every day for almost a year and a half.  Never saw a single mention of Wright as officially working for the campaign, in any capacity, either before or after that whole “scandal” broke. 

2.  I’ve been going to Obama campaign events in my area for about the same amount of time.  Again, no mention of Wright, no appearance by Wright at said events.  And I live in a predominantly black area of Brooklyn where nobody would have any fear of his supposed politics.  Shit, I live in a neighborhood where, if Wright ever was on the campaign payroll, we probably would have been the exact demographic he’d be used to appeal to.

3.  My roommate volunteered for the Obama campaign in several East Coast primaries, before the Wright “scandal” hit—never heard of the guy during that time.

4.  Since when is there an official “spiritual leader”/“minister” position on the payroll of a political campaign?  How is that even legal?

5.  Trinity Church and Reverend Wright are, however, copiously mentioned in Obama’s book, Dreams of my Father, which was written long before Obama ran for any office.  Including the edition he wrote an introduction to during his 2004 Senate campaign.  I’d guess those passages are still in there even in the current printing.  Anybody who wants the lowdown dirt on Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright, dating back many years, can just go buy a book about it written by Obama himself long before he had anything to hide.

I won’t put words in your mouth if you don’t use it to spout generational talking points.  It always surprises me how well the Boomers transitioned from “The Times They Are A Changin’” to “Damn Kids Better Get Off My Lawn”.  Especially the way that “kids” = “people under 50”.  It’s not just a political thing, though it’s amazing how Clinton’s campaign latched onto it.  I’m 27 years old and most Boomers I know treat me like I’m in preschool.

You paint with a very broad brush.  I thought one of the overriding themes around here was to not deal in stereotypes. I resent you lumping me in with “most boomers I know” because you don’t know me and have no idea how I would treat you if we were face to face.

I fail to see how facts relating to voter turnout by demographics are “generational talking points”.  That said I would expect people of all ages participating on blogs like this (and on conservative blogs) to turn out with greater frequency that that of their demographic overall simple because they are engaged.  This fall will provide a perfect opportunity to bring new and more positive facts into that discussion. 

Truth be told, I look back on my generation with decidedly mixed feelings and more than a little sadness.  We were young, idealistic and full of hope. We had some positive impact, notably in the arena of civil rights, and became the core around which popular opinion against the Vietnam war finally coalesced.  But that activist core was never as large a part of the boomer generation as it appeared from the inside and from the disproportionate reactions of the media (sound familiar?). 

Then we grew older and acquired mortgages, families and other assorted baggage.  Too many of my contemporaries traded their idealism for a self-indulgent cynicism and a “me first” greed in the Reagan ‘80s.  Others seemed unable to let go of the ‘60s and in something of a perpetual adolescence kept trying to find a road back. I’m sure I did a little of both myself.  The Clinton Era just extended that self-indulgence.  Hell, Bill was the poster boy for it.

What I object to (and admittedly get defensive about) is the attitude in some corners of the blogosphere that all of the ills of today can be loaded on the backs of the boomers. The generational blame game is a road to nowhere (and understand that when I cite voter turn out facts I’m neither blaming you nor your contemporaries - facts are simply facts).  I could just as easily turn on my parents’ and grandparents’ generations with a litany of ills that my generation inherited to lay at their feet.  And they could just as likely make some of the statements about their contemporaries that I made above.

I hope your generation will be more successful than mine, because the world needs you to be.  But as you may have already discovered, this change shit ain’t easy.

One should note that Kathleen Hall Parker fired a similar shot across Obama’s bow by arguing that Obama is not really a full-blooded American. I thought the moment in Obama’s keynote speech when he said that the “politics of hope” is “the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too,” was one of the best parts.

There’s a dark undercurrent among some people that politicians are going to try to exploit that just because you’re an embodiment of the American Dream doesn’t mean you can go around claiming to be American, or, even worse—acting like you should be elected to a position higher than “full blooded” Americans.

Our entire political landscape has revolved around Vietnam since, well, Vietnam.

It’s worse then that.  Since 1972 Democratic candidates want thier main message to be “I am not George McGovern”.  Thats why Clinton voted for Kyl-Lierbman and the AUMF

I doubt that the American public is living in terror that McGovern will come back and bus thier kids.

We need candidates whose main message is “I am not George Bush”

Mnemosyne,

I hear you.  I never felt anyone was saying we were too old.  See my previous post for my objections to the attitudes I find.

The political landscape has revolved around Vietnam overtly or covertly since the moment those helicopters lifted people off the embassy roof in Saigon. It was part of the dialogue before the boomers started getting elected.  And as you say, if McCain has his way , it will be a backdrop to this campaign. 

All of his foreign policy positions, such as they are, are founded in his belief in the “stabbed in the back” theory adopted by many members of the officer corps to explain away the defeat.  His entire Iraq policy is predicated on unleashing the military to do whatever it takes.  He would bankrupt the country in order to give the military “everything it needs to win” when no definition of win exists.

I, too, would love to see the focus on substantive issues of today, and that’s what we’ll get from the Obama campaign.  So ignore the grumpy old man who can’t let go.

Since you’ve seen how pernicious and pervasive events from 40 years ago can be, steel yourself for the elections cycles 30 years from now when these same things will be happening, only it will Iraq and not Vietnam around which the “gotcha” game is played.

I thought one of the overriding themes around here was to not deal in stereotypes. I resent you lumping me in with “most boomers I know” because you don’t know me and have no idea how I would treat you if we were face to face.

It’s not a stereotype if virtually everyone you know over a certain age fits into it.  Also, I ‘lump you in’ with those folks because you seem to be talking like one here on this blog.  I’m not sure whether it’s true or not that folks 18-34 “don’t vote”, and to be honest I find that to be kind of an odd age bloc.  I think it’s likely that full-time students don’t vote in large numbers (i.e. 18-22 or so), but the idea that “nobody under 35 votes” or “nobody younger than Baby Boomers votes” to be completely ridiculous.

I guess what really frustrates me is the logic “since nobody under 35 votes, candidates who appeal to people under 35 have no chance of winning, even if the WON THE NOMINATION in the first place by doing so.  Therefore all people under 35 are deserving of my ire, since it’s their fault my candidate did not win.  You under-35 voters are going to lose this election!”

Sam:  Funny how Hillary and Bill liked Rev. Wright just fine when they invited him and other preachers to be their godly human shields at the September 11, 1998 prayer breakfast held the day before the release of the Starr Report.  Hillary and Bill repaid this act of decency on Wright’s part by using him to beat up on Obama.

Meanwhile, Amanda’s bringing up the Iraq war and the insistence of the media to cover up their roles as Bush’s ‘complicit enablers’ (Scott McClellan’s term, not mine) fits here, as the media has gone to great lengths to downplay Obama’s opposition to the war as a source of political strength for him—and also downplayed Hillary’s vote for the AUMF, a vote for which she never apologized (unlike Edwards and Gephardt, who also were once presidential timber) as a potential political weakness.

Opoponax,

Who the Hell said nobody under 35 votes? Or nobody younger than baby boomers votes?  You are reading a lot of things I never said into what I’ve written.  Maybe rather than make me the whipping boy for your generational issues, you should try googling up the data on voter turnout by age and see for yourself.  The data say that younger voters do not turn out at as high a rate as those in my age group.  How you get “nobody” out of that it a mystery to me. 

As far as the way I talk to you on this blog goes, I’ve tried to respond to you in a way that assumed you to be an intelligent adult capable of processing a POV from a different perspective.  If that screams preschool to you, perhaps its not the way others say it but the way you hear it that is at fault. 

I’m not trying to be condescending but if you feel I am, please share with me what I’ve said that communicates that to you and I’ll endeavor to explain or remedy that, for condescension is not my intent.  It may be just a matter of style.  I still write like I did in the pre-Internet days.

Yes, it does appear that Sam is a McCain supporter out to sow a little discord. Nevertheless, I asked for any examples of Obama’s sexist campaign strategy and just because information comes from the National Review doesn’t mean it’s (in every single case) wrong.

In this case, the link he provided gave not one example of sexist campaign strategy, and actually concluded that Senator Obama did not run a sexist campaign. But the article does contain a few examples of what the author considers sexist utterances by Senator Obama, one of which, the one about throwing china, could legitimately be defined as sexist because it does play to a stereotype. I don’t mean to defend any kind of sexist speech, but if out of all the words he uttered in that long, long campaign, that’s the only sexist metaphor that came up, I’d say senator Obama is nearly a saint on that score. I trust there were more since I don’t think any man or woman can talk that much without something coming up out of the depths of our culture, but a few of those mild examples definitely do not support accusations that he ran a sexist campaign.

Again, If there is any evidence out there, I’d like to see it.  On the other hand, you don’t have to search real hard to find examples that Senator Clinton ran an openly racist campaign for many weeks. It’s very well documented, including in this article we’re commenting on. Truly, people who so easily look past that tragedy should seriously consider re-examining their values.

If Mark Penn’s being in Clinton’s campaign was a terrible idea, isn’t Obama’s association with Rev Wright and Fr Pfleger equally problematic
Sam Jackson on 06/08 at 04:44 PM

Mark Penn was a Hillary’s campaign strategist. Rev. Wright was OB’s pastor. Penn plays role in shaping Hillary’s campaign direction, in OB’s case, that person would be Axelrod.

Several thing about Penn: a) he represents money-politics-think tank in DC. b) cynical electorate strategy/market research base PR/ID politics. c) and of course he plays pivotal role in several key democratic races.

Essentially, with the end of Hillary’s campaign style, one era is passed. The era of big donor-corporate media-PR based electorate strategy.  Another viable form emerges. One that is based on grassroot-social networking-small donor.

For the first time a major race can less depend on big donors, bundler, and think-tank players. The numerical difference between OB and HRC is stark.

Phoenix Woman:
Obama himself said it was justifiable to look into his relationship with Rev Wright.

Having said that, Hillary and Bill did it too is non-responsive.

The point is not that our politicians only associate with those pure as the driven snow…it is that given the nature of politics they will associate with people who are less than exemplary.  I am not here to argue that Mark Penn is a superior moral human being to Rev Wright or Fr Pfleger or Tony Rezko or any body else.  The Clintons have a lot of skeletons in their cupboard too. 
Whether or not they were paid as much for their services as Mark Penn was , Rev Wright and Fr Pfleger were part of the campaign.
Sure…some people join campaigns because their motive is to further one or more causes that is important to them.  But both these Reverends were not lowly campaign staffers…they were advisers to the campaign.  And again, I am sure they have done yeoman work in their communities and that is how they got on the campaign.  Their actions however, lead us to question the causes they were trying to advance on the campaign.
I am not the only one questioning that…Barak Obama himself did it…that is why they are not on the campaign and he is no longer associated with them. 

I don’t want to play the game of who has more sleazy friends (yes, partly because it is a game that the Clinton camp loses…but also because it is a game nobody wins).  I am asking that you don’t either; because while it is true that the other side will lose that game (yes Mark Penn was a major league ass-hole)—you lose just by playing the game.

... btw,

Age is not the problem. It’s the world view associated with age. as people has mentioned (vietnam war, hippies, 60’s “liberal”, damn kids, etc)

If I were to run McCain campaign, I will pump up those cases to rile up the older generation and wedge it out. That way I don’t have to talk about a)Bush adminstration b)shitty economy c)damend corruption in McCain/Bush/repugs.

So basically what you see in this thread is a trial run to create wedge issue. (translation: Pandagon.net is the hottest property online. since McCain is testing out his “marketing trick”. Tho’ It would be fun if everybody in here pretend to be conservative for few days for chuckle effect and skewing McCain market research/open source focus group.  Anybody remember that sad McCain video? You don’t see it on TV or anywhere else anymore right?)

Chuckling:
Only one of has had links…even if they were from the Corner.
BTW..the idea that a comment is sexist or racist is a judgment and you cant always get agreement on that and so I appreciate you conceding that there were (I will admit…piddling) instances of sexist comments.  It is perhaps a problem with how heightened we were to sexist commentary around clinton from the media and some of obama’s surrogates as well as a large number of his online followers, that this is even an issue.

I can tell you this however:  I certainly was and still am offended by the Punjab memo.  But having just said that politicians make unsavory associations and that shouldn’t be held against them, I certainly don’t plan on holding them against Obama in the GE. 

The slash and burn approach that we are seeing recommended sometimes feels like there isn’t room in the party for Clinton supporters.  True it is your party now…if only because Obama had (a few) more votes than Clinton…but it won’t be much of a party if you insist on purging everybody associated with the Clintons.

That should have been
Chuckling:
Only one of us had a link…even if it was from the Corner.

I don’t want to play the game of who has more sleazy friends Sam Jackson on 06/08 at 06:41 PM

I do…I doo….let’s playyyy!!!

1. Keating Five (oldie but goodie)
2. Did he have sexual relationship with that blond? (Hello Ms. Iceman)
3. Sub-prime/UBS (yeah baby. this is going to be hot. mark my word)
4. ... etc

man. McCain has been around since the beginning of universe. Everywhere I look. I see “stuff”

Opoponax:
I didn’t say that Rev Wright was an important part of his campaign…if anything, I did say that Obama was trying to diminish his role in the campaign even before all of this came up.

Re whether campaigns can pay Spiritual Advisers…if they can pay the bar tabs, I am sure they can pay spiritual advisers as well.
This has nothing to do with the establishment clause

Donald Duck:
Playing this game in the comment thread is one thing (and I am sure a lot of fun)...but playing it on the front page is another…so play away…

Playing this game in the comment thread is one thing (and I am sure a lot of fun)...but playing it on the front page is another…so play away…
Sam Jackson on 06/08 at 07:03 PM

well, you wouldn’t be here if thread isn’t so important right?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/starr

Ms Iseman

I don’t know whether Senator John McCain had sex with lobbyist Vickie Iseman, but I do know, first hand, that he broke the rules while doing the bidding of media mogul Lowell “Bud” Paxson, a major contributor to McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign. McCain’s staff lied it about it then and they are inventing new lies even now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Keating Five

After 1999, the only member of the Keating Five remaining in the U.S. Senate was John McCain, who is the Republican candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Before McCain was named the presumptive nominee, The New York Times ran an article on January 28, 2008 revisiting the scandal in addition to some other allegations of inappropriate behavior by McCain. Robert S. Bennett, whom McCain had hired to represent him in this matter, defended McCain’s character and was one of many people who criticized the piece. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of “no evidence against him.”

Whether or not they were paid as much for their services as Mark Penn was , Rev Wright and Fr Pfleger were part of the campaign.

No, they were not.

But both these Reverends were not lowly campaign staffers…they were advisers to the campaign.

No, they were not.

...and that is how they got on the campaign.  Their actions however, lead us to question the causes they were trying to advance on the campaign.

They did not “get on the campaign”.  Neither Pfleger nor Wright ever held paid positions for the Obama campaign.  If either man was attempting to advance any sort of personal agenda via the Obama campaign, it was not in an official capacity, because neither of them ever officially worked for the Obama campaign.  Even if you were to assert that either of them worked off the books or under the table or in an unofficial advisory role that was deliberately not publicized, that is hardly equivalent to Penn’s role in the Clinton campaign, because Penn worked in an official capacity, in one of the most important staff positions, and was one of the key players in setting Clinton’s strategy.  Mark Penn’s association with the campaign was specifically publicized and well known not only by people close to Clinton’s campaign but also by anyone who occasionally picks up a newspaper or turns on CNN.

Also, if you’re going to continue to assert that Pfleger and/or Wright worked in any legitimate capacity for the Obama campaign, I’d like to see evidence of it.  Considering that I didn’t follow Clinton’s campaign that closely and can tell you that Penn was paid millions of dollars for his work there, it should be pretty easy for you to dig up similarly concrete information regarding Wright or Pfleger.

tee hee, if Sam Jackson’s strategy is an outline of McCain opening salvo. I think I know where McCain is going and he is not going to win.

I will so run around in wingnut blogs and create havoc.

The blog is going to eat McCain crew alive.

Senator Clinton, on the other hand, ran an openly racist campaign for many weeks. And if it weren’t already obvious, now Amanda points to documentary evidence.

See, the piece doesn’t prove that Clinton ran a racist campaign—it points out racist advice from a key advisor, and, this is kind of important, THAT ADVICE WAS NOT TAKEN.

As for the Wright crapola, it has no bearing on Obama or his positions… but he was part of some kind of Obama campaign committee, IIRC.  There’s a very strong parallel between Wright’s involvement in the Obama campaign and Geraldine Ferraro’s involvement in the Clinton campaign:  i.e., they were both big-mouthed, embarrassing supporters of their candidates.  Neither was a key advisor (Penn was, which is why that’s a _poor_ parallel) or anything like a spokesperson or “surrogate.”

THAT ADVICE WAS NOT TAKEN.

Wait, what?

And btw, Ferraro was one of the Clinton campaign’s key surrogates, who Clinton never did get around to denouncing.

Rev Wright:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_leaves_Obama_campaign.html

I can’t find anything readily about Pfleger’s links, I will readily concede you are right.  He was just a spiritual adviser not a campaign adviser…and you are right that is a completely different kind of connection.

I don’t know what, if anything at all, Rev Wright was paid…but he was a part of the campaign.

Duffy/donald…i kid you not…I have no interest in McCain; I am just concerned with the continued picking at Clinton’s campaign and her supporters.  I am not the one keeping it afloat…you are.
Stop picking on her campaign and we’ll stop responding.
Now you tell me who is the concern troll.

Phoenix Woman:

You said that the media/commentators have in general ignored the AUMF vote.
I do think there were some excuses for that in the last few weeks, there were other differences more worth exploring.  I also think the Obama campaign itself had move on to other issues, having put the experience issue to bed.
However, it should certainly have figured in campaign autopsies.

While I still don’t agree with it and I will agree that we are paying a huge price for the war….I hold Bush more responsible for that.
I respect the position that Clinton is more responsible (at least more responsible than I hold her);  I didn’t think it was a fatal flaw…many did.

Atrios regularly makes this point if you want a kindred soul.

THAT ADVICE WAS NOT TAKEN.

Wait, what?

Did Clinton “own the word American”?  Did she depict Obama as un-American?  Nope.  In the Ohio/Pennsylvania season there was an element of “he’s out of touch with regular Joe,” but not “because he’s a skeery furrener.”  They ran the (kinda dumb) “elitist” strategy instead.

And btw, Ferraro was one of the Clinton campaign’s key surrogates, who Clinton never did get around to denouncing.

No way.  Ferraro was nothing, nowhere, nobody.  She hadn’t been visible before that ill-fated interview with an obscure California newspaper, and the fact that it was an obscure California newspaper also indicates her low standing.  She supported Clinton and ran her fool mouth.  She did not run her fool mouth at the behest of Clinton or in coordination with a Clinton campaign strategy. 

That’s why it’s almost exactly like Wright.  Loudmouth, loose cannon, perhaps a friend of the candidate but not part of the coordinated operation.  And only part of the narrative because the media put them there.

Well, Sam, then I guess you’d have no problem at all with looking at John Sidney McCain III’s relationships with Rod Parsley and John Hagee (whose endorsement McCain actively sought, though he lied and said he didn’t).

The Opoponax:  Yeah.  Somehow everyone forgot that Gerry Ferraro, she of the mobbed-up hubby, made her name as a Congresswoman by fiercely opposing busing.

And there’s also this:

A Democratic superdelegate from New Jersey said he is worried that unifying the party behind Barack Obama may be difficult because the Clinton camp “has engaged in some very divisive tactics and rhetoric it should not have.”

Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, disclosed he received a phone call shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary from a top member of Clinton’s organization and that the caller explicitly discussed a strategy of winning Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.

“There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me,” Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the U.S. Senate nomination. “Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing.”

Ferraro was nothing, nowhere, nobody.

Um, FlipYrWhig:

Geraldine Ferraro headed Hillary Clinton’s national finance committee for her campaign.

That’s not exactly “nothing, nowhere, nobody”.

Meanwhile, as for Reverend Wright:  Donna Brazile warned the Clintons not to take a guy who had been so kind to them in 1998 and repay his kindness by using him as a bludgeon against Obama.  For her troubles, Brazile was attacked just as Richardson was attacked.  (By the way:  The Clinton camp didn’t freak out at all when Lieberman—a guy who betrayed them in 1998 by enabling the GOP to push on with impeachment—betrayed them a second time by backing McCain in December.  Then again, Bill said around that time that Hillary and McCain are “very close” and a McCain-HRC matchup would be “the most civilized election in history”. )

Sam:  How many post-mortems has the mainstream press done on HRC’s campaign?  How many of them mentioned Obama’s early opposition to the Iraq war, versus Hillary’s unwavering commitment to the AUMF, as a reason for progressives backing Obama? 

The Iraq war is still the stinky dead moose in the living room.  And a lot of pundits in the media, many of them with DLC or other “centrist” connections, are desperate to keep people from examining how we got into this war, and who was backing Bush—and why.

Phoenix Woman:
I agreed with you…what I didn’t agree with was Hillary’s vote…badly edited paragraphs make the meaning unclear.

THAT ADVICE WAS NOT TAKEN.

Let’s play “Who Said That?”

“I think it’d be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. “

Right outta Penn’s playbook, no? And that was far, far, far from being an isolated incident.

I didn’t say that Rev Wright was an important part of his campaign…if anything, I did say that Obama was trying to diminish his role in the campaign even before all of this came up.

What a totally dishonest thing to say.

Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame.

gwangung:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01wright.html?_r=1&hp;&oref;=slogin