I'm bummed about Shaq. He's an old man now. It would have been good to have Phoenix go deeper, IM!HO.

To be fair, I can see how the media might shy away from that one like toxic waste, not wishing to incur the risk of being accused of racism for turning Obama into Shaquille O'Neill.

Maybe you're right. Shaq would be ok, but not Ron Artest or Stephan Marbury.

Still, it's a great missed opportunity. The JFK lawn football footage is still considered one of the great foto ops of the modern era. We view Sports as ritualized combat in many ways (back to my love of violence meme) and the particpants as heroes, and so I can see the advantage in displaying Obama as being component, assertive and aggressive in a ritually acceptable way. The fact that he's still in pretty good shape and not a total wimp is also a plus.

With all this sports as warfare talk, I can't leave without the following:

Violent ground acquisition games such as football are in fact a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war. -- Rodney Dangerfield's Back to School

See, I think her problem, when I refer to the siege mentality, is that she's apt to behave like a wounded animal.

Here's an example.

(I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message): "Farakkhan, Farakkhan, Farakkhan."

Now, this is undeniably a right-wing tactic, right? I mean is there anyone who can seriously argue it's not? We can at least agree on this, right?

Guilt-by-association, racism, diversion, character defamation, etc.

That's an objective analysis, is it not?

Now, had Clinton's plans worked out, and she had cruised to the nomination as the heir-apparent, she would never have needed to resort to these tactics, nor do I believe she would have wanted to.

I don't think she employs these tactics by nature, but I do think that when she goes into survival mode, "all options are on the table."

Frankly, as foreign policy, that alarms me.

Greatly.

It's reckless, bellicose and unprincipled.

It fails to account for "blowback," long-term consequences, etc.

It's purely reactive and the only goal is the immediate one of survival.

She no doubt tells herself that "when she's president" she'll do Good Work and the ends will justify the means. But she displays no awareness that going on television and repeatedly saying, "Farakkhan, Farakkhan, Farakkhan" might have what economists might term "hidden costs."

And voila, ladies and gentlemen, this is the irreducible dilemma of this campaign, and it's a question Democrats, liberals, leftists, radicals, citizens, have to wrestle with.

What are the "hidden costs" of "ends-justify-the-means-ism"?

What do we think?

I suppose I was thinking about "meeting with the enemy" intellectually; to do that, we need to start with the assumption that both candidates have the same agenda. In other words, the recent Iran rattling makes her different than Barack, in terms of issues, but let's say, for the sake of argument--and it's an argument often made--that they are the same on issues. Then isn't it better that she appeared on FOX? If you assume that whatever she ultimately stands for is what *we* want?

As for her jumping on the AIDS thing, well, of course that's one of the particular issues I objected to, but overall she did well (on immigration, health care, etc.) So, while I agree with you that her use of FOX was purely political and resulted in the diminishing of Obama, isn't her very instinct to "speak with those we disagree with" something Barack himself espouses? Of course her particular goals right now are to defeat Obama, and after that (should she succeed), to defeat McCain, but eventually, and assuming her goals are yours/ours, shouldn't we presume that this instance (and the other example of her well-known bipartisanship in the Senate) represents a good trait, that is, the very trait you and I really like about Obama--his willingness to build coalitions with unlikely partners?

It's moot, I guess, if we actually don't want what she wants. For example if she were to push seriously an amendment to ban flag burning (I don't believe she actually wants that, but pretend she does), then the last thing I'd want is for her to actually achieve it by reaching across whatever lines gets that result. Same for war in Iran. But what if it was health care? What if by networking with FOX fans--and they are numerous--she got some kind of grudging acceptance and eventual passage of decent health care?

I'm just musing. It's not just a matter of giving credit where it's due. I think you and I have absolutely no problem doing that. It's trying to sort out whether legitimizing FOX is a good and ethical idea. There really is the notion of legitimizing a network that misinforms Americans and politicizes everything. But I keep going back to the objections of Carter meeting with Hamas and Obama meeting with Iran. Same thing, right?

"We view Sports as ritualized combat in many ways (back to my love of violence meme) and the particpants as heroes, and so I can see the advantage in displaying Obama as being component, assertive and aggressive in a ritually acceptable way. The fact that he's still in pretty good shape and not a total wimp is also a plus."

Indeed.

Politics too.

(My dissertation's on ritual, btw.)

Rodney Dangerfield. :)

THANK YOU! That was the most enlightening read I seen in a long, long, long time. Good enough to quote:

'And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

...Looking back at history, it's hard to find evidence of the same media response to Ronald Reagan's failed 1976 presidential campaign. Taking on President Gerald Ford, Reagan lost more primaries than he won, and Ford won a plurality of the popular vote, but neither man had enough delegates to secure the nomination. So the campaign went to the GOP convention, where Ford prevailed. The bitter battle did nothing to damage Reagan's reputation (in fact, it did quite the opposite), in part because the media did not collectively suggest the candidate was acting selfishly or irrationally. Instead, Reagan walked away with a reputation as a resilient fighter who stood up for his conservative values.

And what about Sen. Ted Kennedy's doomed run in 1980? He trailed President Jimmy Carter by more than 750 delegates at the end of the primary season and insisted on fighting all the way to the convention, where he tried to get committed Carter delegates to switch their allegiance. The press did not spend months during the primary season ridiculing Kennedy, in a deeply personal tone, for remaining in the race.

And what about Gary Hart in 1984? He and Walter Mondale split the season's primaries and caucuses evenly, and neither had the 2,023 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Superdelegates eventually determined the winner. (Sound familiar?) Mondale had many of them locked up even before the campaign season began, so after the final primary between Mondale and Hart was complete, it was obvious that Mondale was going to be the nominee because Hart could not persuade enough superdelegates to change their mind and support him. '

It angers me even more when I read this and the bullshit crap that Clinton has had to face! She has EVERY DAMN right to continue to the convention. To suggest that she is someway damaging the party is pure arrogant bullshit.