We don't need any more lizard brained solutions

no more grenades and gonads

as "intelligent substitutions"

Isn't it ironic that the media and Clinton supporters have stayed away from the racist stereotype that could actually have helped him? And I believe it genuinely would.

My skinny white husband is fabulous at basketball and I swear chose Obama after seeing some TIME/NEWSWEEK pics of him shooting some hoops. I just know this would "normalize" him in a way that would counterbalance that elitist image.

Now being out of the weird closet, I can admit to an inexplicable affection for Mike Huckabee. I say this b/c I remember feeling a bit offended on his behalf when the media kept questioning what his motives could possibly be for staying in the race. There was all manner of speculation.

That's a good point re the "get out" chorus. That stuff is nuts. I don't know if the research would stand up, though. Any second opinions on that?

Ford in '76
Carter in '80
Mondale in '84

We've had this conversation before with DTX. If you notice a pattern where long contentious primaries lead to losing the election, you might want to avoid a long contentious primary. It's that simple.

And thanks for mentioning the call for Huckabee to drop out. Just google 'Huckabee drop out' for lots of hits. It's not just a Hillary is a Woman thing.

"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."

Agreed, if by "agenda" you're referring specifically to the enaction of policy or executive authority.

Yes.

But while Obama's "agenda" includes this element, it's not the sum total of his agenda, as I see it, which includes promoting, among others, "brother's-keeperism" That's about solidarity, which he seems to believe is a necessary condition to both a healthy polis and the enactment of just policies.

"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?"

Yes. If the goal is to publicize concrete issues, yes. But if the goal is to simultaneously work on radical reform of the political process, then not necessarily if in doing so she reinforces the perception that the process is just fine, thanks.

"If you assume that whatever she ultimately stands for is what *we* want?"

Hard to know, but she's violated my trust. I'm not sure she does ultimately stand for what *we* want, as evidenced by the war, the bankruptcy bill, the flag-burning thing, etc. (Also, do you recall something about choice a couple years back? I don't remember specifically, but I remember a lot of my feminist friends were infuriated by an apparent compromise or willingness to compromise on choice. Sorry I can't remember more specifically, maybe someone else does.)

Anyway, I guess in the broadest possible sense she "ultimately stands for what *we* want in that we don't want a president who eats babies and she won't do that. Short of that, though, I really just can't say. She appears unprincipled to me. Honestly, I really try to discern her principles but her pandering makes that impossible for me to do. It's not that I haven't tried.

"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,"

But not just the diminishing of Obama. The diminishing of democracy itself. Of honest (and I mean honest) debate. The marginalizing of dissent.

Bill O'Reilly, fucking Bill O'Reilly! had the fucking balls to call Wright a "wacko" and Clinton sat there, nodding in agreement with BILL FUCKING O'REILLY that this nigra pastor was indeed a wacko.

Do you see the problem?

This is why black people are angry.

"isn't her very instinct to "speak with those we disagree with" something Barack himself espouses?

Of course, but at what cost?

Obama endeavored to speak to those who disagree in Philadelphia. He attempted a fair-minded critique of the fundamental dynamics at work, acknowledged grievances on both sides, offered context, and called upon the nation to acknowledge an entire segment of the polis that is all but excluded from being a legitimate participant in public discourse.

And it's interesting, because it's not just "the black community" that Wright represents, but the political left as well. If Clinton can only win by disavowing not the left's concrete agenda, but the philosophy from which it's sprung, then what's to happen in a generation or two?

"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,"

Yes, provided, as dog-walker so concisely put it, she doesn't sidle up to her enemies at the expense of her friends.

"that is, the very trait you and I really like about Obama--his willingness to build coalitions with unlikely partners?"

Yes, but only so long as they're principled coalitions, not merely expedient ones. The latter is not sustainable. I believe Obama's core message is in part sustainability. He seems to see the big picture, "I don't want to wake up in five years and find out nothing's changed."

His analysis is that a stable coalition can only be founded upon honest pursuit of mutual goals. That demands the development of trust. It appears to me that Clinton's gift for expediency will ultimately do more to erode rather than cultivate the trust of the body politic.

"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),"

Good example. I don't believe she wants this either.

But then why is she pandering? Is that not dishonest to appeal to voters she has no intention of ever serving? Is this any different than Bush's manipulation of the religious right? Either she pisses off her base or she discredits her entire party/liberal values by deceiving people whose trust she sought to earn by whispering sweet nothings in their ears.

"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?"

Exactly. What if?

Personally, that's not a gamble I'm willing to make.

Here's a question, in all honesty: which seems more likely, after one or even two terms of a Clinton administration: A) Clinton takes us to the verge of military conflict with Iran. Or elsewhere?--I just don't know. Before Bush was elected, I had no idea they had plans to go into Iraq. Honestly, I know nothing of Clinton's foreign agenda, but I can easily imagine her being quicker to action than Obama. That doesn't seem much of a stretch to me.

Or B) We get some kind of substantial health-care plan?

While I have no crystal ball, my money would be on A.

"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?"

Sure. But again, at what cost?

"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."

In principle I think it is, but only if you can do so by maintaining your integrity. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think it does more harm, in the long-term, than good.

"There really is the notion of legitimizing a network that misinforms Americans and politicizes everything."

Especially if you yuk it up with Bill O'Reilly about Obama's wacky communist homosexual negro preacherman.

"But I keep going back to the objections of Carter meeting with Hamas and Obama meeting with Iran. Same thing, right?"

Provided Carter can do so while maintaining the integrity of the cause he's championing in doing so.