SIVACRACY.NET

Siva, sadly, I could spend the next week doing nothing but give you examples. But I will not, out of respect for you and the blog that bears your name, and because I still want Obama to be President. E-mail me of you want a host of links. Otherwise, I'm letting this drop here. I will be working for the Obama campaign tomorrow in North Carolina, so won't be available tomorrow in any event.

Incidentally, however, if Florida and Michigan primary voters were counted, the race would look very different. I know the story of why that is the case is long and complicated, but I think in five years the history books are going to say "Rovian" or something very similar about that process that left those states out of the process, combined with the various caucus system irregularities. Though if Obama loses in November because the Clinton Dems of Florida and Michigan stay home, I guess Rovian would be the wrong term because Rove generally managed to win.

I'm sorry if I sound angry, I'm not, just depressed.

Okay, I KNOW I need to walk away, but one quick example is Michelle Obama bringing up Bill's infidelities and saying "If you can’t run your own house you can’t run the white house" which the campaign turned into signs that are regularly passed out at events. Clip of her saying this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc
Welcome to the anti-feminist universe where women are shamed for the bad acts of their husbands.

And we South Carolinians had a tough time rolling with this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/26/obama/
Yes, Clinton will do a lot of dubious things to win. But sadly, so will anyone trying to win.

Cripes. Just remembered the $80 billion tax cut Obama promised "the middle class."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html
See also: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Yes, he really his my preferred candidate. But, no, he is not any less ruthlessly, panderingly political than anybody else who really wants to win. Wouldn't it be better just to admit that, and focus on his positive attributes, and get away from all the Obama is Jesus and Clinton is Satan crap? No answer necessary, that was rhetorical.

Ditto. What Ann says. (Like how I did that?)

Seriously, I will give you one example that I experienced first-hand. I received a call from an Obama phonebank in late January urging me to help the campaign "fight the sinister forces within the Democratic Party working to defeat this great man." (I can pretty much recall the words verbatim because I immediately phoned my sister and husband to tell them about the call.) Sinister forces. I asked the caller exactly who they meant and after a lot of hemming and hawing, she indicated Clinton. I don't recall ever using the term Rovian, but okay, this seems just a wee bit Rovian. This call was on behalf of the man who will change the tone of politics as we know it. Since then, I've seen both campaigns engage in this sort of us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-salvation-vs-damnation rhetoric (some more skillfully).

Frankly, I want a president who will turn this economy around, improve our global standing, and help people in need. I realize that this person will make mistakes, say things I don't like at times, and do things differently than I would. (S)he will piss me off. Since I don't think it's possible to run the kind of dream campaign that we'd all like to see, I'm supporting the person who will do the best job in the office. Yes, I continue to support Clinton (sorry, y'all), but I'll HAPPILY vote for whomever our nominee is in the fall because I think either of these candidates would be vastly superior to alternative.

PS: I agree. The gas tax "vacation" is total bullshit, and one of those campaign moments that make me cringe.

Dear Ann,

No need to hold anything back out of respect for me or this blog or anything. This is where we work things through. I would never take offense and anything you wrote. In fact, I want to be challenged on all this.

However, in response:

• The Michelle Obama quote had nothing to do with Bill or Hillary Clinton. Check out the speech in context and you will see it's about children, not Clintons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc&feature=related

So the media using it against Michelle Obama was the nasty twist. Please don't spread this as if it had anything to do with Clinton.

• As for McClurkin, once again, Obama need not be tainted by what his supporters profess. I wish he would choose his associates better. But that's a problem for anyone who works with a broad array of Americans. He is a community activist at heart. So he tolerates the intolerant.

Bill Clinton's affection for racists like William Fulbright fall into the same category. Nothing about Fulbright taints Clinton. I never held Clinton's racist friends against him.

But more to the point, what does traveling with McLurkin have to do with left-baiting Clinton, Edwards, or anyone else? How is that Rovian? It is unsavory, perhaps unwise, perhaps even a good reason to support Clinton over Obama -- but it's not Rovian.

• I don't understand what the problem is with an $80 billion middle-class tax cut. Is this bad? Does it somehow vanish because oil companies pocket the difference, as with the Clinton-McCain gas-tax holiday scam? Does it eschew the judgment of trained economists? What's the problem? The homeowner credit alone is brilliant. It's just what Edwards and Clinton endorsed as well, because all three of them are right on this. So what's the problem. Why is "middle class" in quotes? Isn't $50,000 per year "middle class?" Again, this seems like a strength for BOTH Clinton and Obama.

• On Florida and Michigan, it was a Clinton supporter and appointee, former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman who ran the committee that voted to exclude Michigan and Florida delegates. Plus, Harold Ickes was on that committee and voted to punish Michigan and Florida. Then Clinton herself endorsed the penalty. Then she went back on her word and campaigned in both states, when Obama was not even on the ballot in one of them!

Trying the change the rules with no concern for principles: Karl Rove could not have played it better.

So invoking Florida and Michigan makes Clinton seem MORE craven and unprincipled, not less.

Face it, Clintonites running the committee screwed this up. Now Clinton wants to have it both ways. And because of that, Michigan and Florida are in jeopardy.

Obama had nothing to do with the credentials committee. That vote came down back when Clinton had the nomination wrapped up. So blame her people, not his.

• I never said Clinton was the devil and Obama is a Jesus. I said she was Bush and he was Lincoln. Perhaps that does not seem like too much of a difference. But I think it is.

I argued that Clinton is running a Republican campaign, saying things that she cannot possibly believe herself. And she breaks my heart because I supported her through tough times when she was the victim of the same nasty tactics that she uses now.

That said, I never forgave her for voting for this stupid war. And neither should anyone else. She still refuses to apologize for it and is willing to vote to let W do the same thing against Iran!

I have written that Obama is an honorable and honest candidate who would make an outstanding -- perhaps transformational -- president. That's not deification. It's a politification. I don't consider presidents -- even my favorites -- deities. I am not that dumb or naive.

Obama, like Lincoln and FDR, have the potential to remake this nation and redefine its place in the world. Jesus comes around once every couple thousand years or so. A president like Obama comes around only once per century or so. :)

Most importantly, Obama has never stooped to Karl Rove's level,as Clinton clearly has.

None of these examples hold water, I am afraid -- especially the Michelle Obama one!

I see no evidence above that would refute these contentions. If you have more and better evidence, I am willing to change my mind.

Siva

Oh, I do think that Catherine's phone bank example is pretty deplorable. It might qualify as Rovian.

The only caveat (and it's weak, I admit) I would offer is that phone banks are often run by organizations only tangentially related to campaigns -- unions, churches, etc. Those banks tend not to follow scripts that are vetted by the campaign.

In addition, many Obama phone banks this year are run out of people's homes and coordinated by MoveOn, So there is no one supervising to ensure that volunteers follow scripts.

Mostly, I think Catherine's example shows that there is deplorable demonization of Clinton out there. I just hope my demonization of Clinton is slightly above deplorable.

Oh, and like Catherine and Ann, I would not hesitate to vote for Clinton if she were able to cheat and lie her way to the nomination.

I don't feel like spending much time trashing the candidate I support, so just a few points:

Her words are "If you can't run your own house, how can you run the White House." The campaign passes signs out that says that. The very caption of the clip at the link is: "Michelle Obama takes a shot at Hillary Clinton." How can that possibly not be about the Clintons?

McClurkin is not just an Obama supporter, he was actively part of the official campaign. He was literally on tour with Obama - the "Obama Gospel Tour" in which women were told to be cheerful helpmates to their husbands, and progressive Dems cringed.

The $80 billion tax cut for the middle class proposal is a load of pandering crap. Just like the fuel tax holiday.

Your account of Florida and Michigan is not the only version of the story. I don't know the truth of what happened, but not letting votes count is not democracy. And there will be a backlash, and Obama and Howard Dean will have no one to blame but themselves.

When I signed on with Obama, I vowed to try hard to stay positive. In my opinion, repeating a mantra of "Clinton is worse" will not attract many converts to his candidacy.

From the NYT:
http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/if-you-cant-run-the-white-house/
("If You Can’t Run the White House

By Virginia Heffernan

Oh, come on. This isn’t going too far. Michelle Obama’s supposed low blow, said to be aimed at Hillary Clinton, is absolutely fair — almost elementary campaign talk. It’s just a nice, sisterly insult, that “can’t run your own house.”

Barack Obama should never have shied away from it and said his wife didn’t mean Hillary!")

This was pretty Rovian:
http://www.correntewire.com/surprise_ofb_kantor_clinton_war_room_smear_exposed_as_cheetos_flinging_wankfest_dirty_trick

Paul Krugman on Obama's proposed tax cut:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/gas-tax-hysterics/

"There’s a lot of troubling stuff in both Democrats’ proposals. Mandates aside, Obama is seriously low-balling the cost of health care reform, and promising way too much in middle-class tax cuts. Clinton’s numbers don’t quite add up either, though she’s probably closer to the mark — and both Dems are towering figures of responsibility compared with McCain."

This is kind of Rovian:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/2/9125/69834

Paul Krugman has accused Obama about lying about something he said, here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/is-obama-misrepresenting-what-i-said/

"Is Obama misrepresenting what I said?

I don’t have a link to the ad itself, but apparently there’s an Obama ad citing something I said about McCain’s gas tax holiday as a way to attack Hillary Clinton.

I did not say that the Clinton proposal would increase oil industry profits. If the ad implies that I did, it should be retracted.

The Clinton proposal is financed by an excess profits tax. At worst, it sends money in a circle. In practice, it would probably reduce oil industry profits at least slightly, since the rise in the pre-tax price of gasoline probably wouldn’t wipe out all of the tax cut.

I was very clear when I wrote about the Clinton proposal that while I didn’t think it was good policy, it was not the same as McCain’s, and relatively harmless. If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they’re being deliberately dishonest."

"Oh, and like Catherine and Ann, I would not hesitate to vote for Clinton if she were able to cheat and lie her way to the nomination."

But you are working hard to insure that should she prevail, she will be too damaged to beat McCain.