Letters to the Editor
-
A First For Hillary
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Solving the Hillary Problem
It’s easy. Hillary keeps referencing a bang-up ticket. The first woman, the first black, Hillary is big on firsts. Here is the perfect first, and it fits the profile. Hilary did well with oldster poorly educated white men. She sits on the armed services committee. She keeps saying what a fighter she is...what a wonkish planner. Well, I know of a fixer-upper wide and full enough for her broad bottom. The Pentagon. It’s full of stupid white men. It’s a mess. And it’s a first. Hillary for secretary of defense. She got us into Iraq. Let her fight her way out of there. Close the deal Barack. Close the deal.
-
Margin of Victory
On the other hand... while there's no reason to suppose that Obama couldn't win those states, is it really unreasonable to suppose that the fact Clinton is winning them by noticeable margins suggests that she would do better there? Even if her leads over Obama would only translate to an extra point or half-point in a match-up with McCain, that could end up being quite significant.
That's not to say that that theory is enough to make Clinton the better choice. But their primary performance in those states isn't completely irrelevant.
-
Hold on. . .
What's your point Alex? Should Clinton's main argument for why she should continue be left unexamined just because most reporters don't believe it? Is news only written for the consumption of other reporters?
-
jelly beans
Even simpler:
You love cherry jelly beans; like strawberry ones, and hate licorice ones. You're offered a cherry and a strawberry; you pick cherry, of course. You're offered a strawberry and a licorice; you pick strawberry, of course.
-
Yeah, I know.
It's an unbelievably stupid argument yet I hear clinton making it all the time. As well as the idea that she's winning the popular vote by counting Michigan where she was the only one on the ballot. Who the hell is she talking too? The moron wing of the democratic party?
-
Welcome back Alex...
Great post, good analysis.
I agree that the public doesn't necessarily know what people who obsessively read the blogs know. I think that a lot of people know what Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric and, (sadly but hilariously), Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert tell them. Or maybe they catch a few minutes of Headline News here and there, but for the most part, I think all that most people see is the headline, like "Obama Can't Close the Deal" and "Another Big State for Clinton" and they see the argument, usually presented uncritically because the only primary material we get is from the victory speech where she says she's the only one that can win. Most people don't have the inclination to analyze it any further. That's not a criticism; if I see, for example, someone saying the Lakers can't play defense, I don't wonder if it's borne out by the numbers or if it's a two-week trend based on the fact that they've won a couple of 120-116 games lately. But that's because I don't really care about the Lakers that much. I'm only tangentially interested in the NBA, so if I see something at a high level like that, I'm more likely to accept it uncritically.
I think it's the same reason why Swift-Boating works. Sure, you can spend hours upon hours unpacking every lie, exposing every connection to the Bush campaign (and let's face it, John Kerry could spend hours ordering Chinese food, much less explaining a complex situation), but the people who that sort of tactic is aimed at are the ones who hear "John Kerry-not so much a hero" and just accept it because they're only sort-of paying attention.
Now before the Clinton people show up at my door with torches, I'm by no means equating the "big state" argument with Swift-Boating. It's just smart tactics to boil your argument waayyyy down so that by the time your opponent is done refuting it, nobody is listening anymore. Personally, as an Obama supporter (I'm sorry, I mean cult member) I'd love to see him just start saying "it's over; she can't catch me," and let her start explaining whether or not that's accurate. By the time she gets through the laundry list of FL and MI and the popular vote and the superdelegates, the audience has moved on to the story about the kitten who dialed 911 or whatever.
-
but
Clinton has also shown that she is able to win by quite respectable margins in swing states like Ohio and Florida. And you can't tell me that those states are not important in the general election.
-
Re: Hold on. . .
No, that's the opposite of my point. As I wrote in the post, "sometimes reporters and editors assume the public knows what we know, and I'm one of those people who think we need to get over that and write articles like Healy's."
My point is that what Healy wrote was basically obvious to people involved in the campaigns or reporting on them or following them closely, but that an article stating the obvious in the paper of record will still have some effect on the campaign, and I find that interesting in more than one way.
-
Not such a "duh" moment
If you read the letters for any article even vaguely referencing the Democratic primary, you will see, over and over, people (Clinton supporters) claiming that Obama's failure to beat Clinton in the big states somehow proves that he can't win in November.
I always wonder when I read this what the source is for such clearly illogical thinking.
Is it an utter lack of understanding of the election process?
The results of a general election will perfectly mirror the results of a primary election.
Is it shameless perfidy?
I know this is not true, but it may help my candidate, so I will say it anyway.
Is it denial?
If I repeat this false conclusion, I don't have to admit that my candidate is being beaten.
Whatever the reason, it sure does get old after hundreds of repetitions. Will this article signal the end of this specious argument? I'm not betting on that.