Letters to the Editor
-
AKA Smith
1. As you can guess, I have a somewhat less charitable intepretation as to why she failed to read the N.I.E. I think she wanted to vote for the war authorization for political reasons and she didn't want to know any inconvenient facts that might intefere with this pre-determined course of action. Even if you don't impute bad faith, though, this was a momentous enough decision that she should have read the full N.I.E. instead of depended on a briefing. Especially since she generally takes the time to learn the picayune details of other policies of much less consequence.
2. Your theory about Bill Clinton is interesting, and something I hadn't thought about before. However, there are other surrogates who have acted in a highly dubious manner, but I'm not going to press the point too much, especially since they seemed to have backed off a bit. (Amazing how these "gaffes" happen alll at once and then just go away. It's almost as if it was, I don't know, orchestrated.)
3. I think I disagree with you about the definition of dirty politicking. For instance, I'm pretty sure under your definition, the Willy Horton ad in 1988 wasn't dirty politicking. I think dirty politicking is like pornography, I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.
4. I'll agree that Hillary's best defense against dirty politicking is that I don't think there's much dirt that hasn't already been thrown at her. Early in the campaign I made the argument was that this, in a perverse way, was an advantage. So I think we partly agree on this.
5. I don't know if I made it clear enough that I was not a fan of the welfare reform bill that was passed. It was actually one of my considerations in not voting for Bill Clinton in 1996 (mind you, if Dole had had the slightest chance of winning, i probably would have pulled the lever for Clinton). This is a good example where Clinton passed a bad piece of legislation to triangulate his way to a second term.
6. Finally, let me note that you repeat the Clinton talking point (or at least imply) that Obama supporters are moved only by some woozy-headed emotional uplift. The idea is that Hillary is the candidate of sober fact and reason, and Obama is the candidate of empty emotionalism. When it is framed that way, you obviously use terms that slant the argument in one direction. I'll admit that Hillary is a wonk's wonk (I've read that she actually out-wonks her husband), but dare I say that Obama is also a candidate of substance? As for trafficking in hope, I seem to recall that this was a big theme in Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Was it so suspect then? I remember after the 2004 election, James Carville made the observation that the Democrats' problem is that they give voters a laundry list while the Republicans give them big themes. In 1992, Bill Clinton gave us both: an inspirational campaign, backed by a laundry list of policy prescriptions. Obviously it worked for him. It remains to be seen whether Hillary is more like her husband or John Kerry.
7. Honestly, I'm waiting for the Clinton people to prove THEIR case. I think it's become an article of faith that Hillary is the candidate of superior knowledge and experience. I've seen it ASSERTED ad nauseum, but I'm not sure I've actually seen it analytically proven.