Letters to the Editor
-
Kos Prefers To Eat His Own
Like many in the netroots, Kos would rather spend his time attacking Democratic Presidential candidates and Blue Dog Dems as opposed to attacking actual Republicans.
The lefty netroots love to eat their own.
-
Yep...
Moulitsas is taking the high road to explain how, looking at the Bush record rationally, the Democrats simply can't lose.
They 'simply couldn't lose' the 2004 election for president, and did. Yes, they 'won' control of Congress but lost the will to stand up and exert their 'power'.
I still feel that the label 'control of congress' is going to cost democrat elections because less is being made of the GOP's use of the 60 vote rule to move things through the process.
I seem to remember a bigger fuss being made whenever democrats tried that tactic...
Listen to Alanis's 'Spineless' sometime...
-
where's the beef?
I've been so disappointed with any number of talented bloggers who serve up plenty of premium grade USDA red meat on their blogs, but as soon as they get a platform somewhere in the mainstream media, their rhetoric is suddenly rendered down to a watery broth.
-
Hillary, Obama and smear tactics
I guess it's all part of the "narrative" thing. You find a weak spot in any candidate, then you exploit it, hammer at it, and twist everything to fit it. You also create a narrative for yourself.
Anti-Hillary narrative: She's a bitch.
Pro-Hillary narrative: She's got experience, is tough, etc.
Anti-Obama narrative: He's inexperienced.
Pro-Obama narrative: He's fresh, he's "politics of hope."
Anti-Edwards narrative: He's prissy, he's a "trial lawyer."
Pro-Edwards narrative: No-BS candidate for the working class.
Karl Rove's strategy consists of nothing more than to hammer away at that stuff from every possible angle. Karl Rove is like Machiavelli on steroids -- you know, the kind of steroids that swell your neck and eventually lead to "roid rage."
I've done a little reading on Machiavelli, and even he repudiated his "Prince" arguments later on, in favor of a more high-minded and ethical approach. Unfortunately his later and more sophisticated, balanced works aren't the ones they teach in college, and seem to have been lost on most people.
Speaking of "narratives" and fighting tactics, the recent spat between Obama and Clinton -- set into motion by Robert "I like to stir shit up" Novak -- has really pissed me off against Hillary. What do you think, Joan?
This apparently played out Saturday. I'll bet it goes on for a while. Here's the rundown:
(1) Novak writes a short, vague column saying that Hillary's people have let it leak that they have some nasty dirt on Obama, but they're being "prudent" and sitting on it instead of using it.
(2) Obama responds by saying, "Ut-uh girlfriend!" Actually he calls on Clinton to repudiate the claim or come out and say what the dirt is. If Clinton won't deny it, he suggests they're playing dirty and using "Swift Boat" tactics.
(3) Clinton responds with, "Oh no you didn't!" Actually it's worse: Clinton's team uses this whole escapade as an opportunity to rail Obama for his lack of experience. They basically say, "A more experienced candidate would not have fallen for this right-wing trick." Then as an afterthought, Clinton says Novak's claim is totally false and they have no idea what the hell he's talking about.
This fucking pisses me off. Even if Clinton wasn't behind the original Novak rumor, I find it offensive that they'd use this as an opportunity to slam Obama.
If anything, Obama was showing some cojones by responding so quickly and calling on Clinton to contradict Novak's statement. He certainly didn't go overboard knocking Clinton; he was responding to Novak. If Obama hadn't said anything, he would have looked like a wuss for not sticking up for himself. Instead, because he did say something, they're trying to paint him as naive and inexperienced. Either way the situation is designed to make Obama look bad -- and play into the "he's inexperienced" narrative.
The funny thing is, the way Clinton exploited this also plays into the "she's a bitch" narrative. Except in this case, the narrative seems to be supported by her real actions, as opposed to Obama's case where the narrative was pushed on him.
Sorry but this is the kind of thing that would make me hate Clinton and vow never to vote for her. I would respect her much more if she showed momentary solidarity with Obama, called Novak for being the weasely little shit that he is, and then got back to fighting with Obama over policy issues.
I also don't undertand why Salon seems to be so gung-ho for Clinton. Other people have brought it up here, and Joan Walsh has never denied it or made any kind of statement about the apparent bias of the site's editorial policy (even though assorted columnists have different views). I'd like it if Salon would declare editorial neutrality on the candidates so that my suspicions (and others') could be laid to rest.
Oh, one more thing -- about Karl Rove. I hope everybody remembers what he did to John McCain in 2000 in South Carolina (I believe). It is fully documented that Rove was directly behind a push-poll campaign in which people were called and asked to take a survey of questions about the candidate. It was presented as if neutral. The big question was, "Would you be less likely to vote for McCain if you knew he had an illegitimate black baby?" Note they didn't directly state McCain had an illegitimate black baby. They just put it into people's minds that he did. McCain then lost the primary and many believe that contributed to it. Some would call Rove's tactic shrewd politics. I call it evil. Some would say a candidate has to know how to play those games in a harsh world. I say bullshit. I don't want somebody like that leading the free world further down the toilet.
It also reminds me of the politician (Goldwater?) who insinuated that his opponent was a child molester or something. Somebody asked why he did it. He said, "I know it's not true. I just wanted to see the son of a bitch deny it."
Making people deny things, even if they're not true, creates an association in the public's mind. The insinuation that there's dirt on Obama makes people think, "I wonder what it is?" Then the imagination starts filling in the answer. Then the candidate has to prove all those imaginary things aren't true.
It's garbage politics. Silly me, I actually believe that Obama sincerely means it when he says he wants to forge a political style that is a few notches above that shit.