Three take-away points from Bittergate

Here are three lessons derived from this week’s episode of Deconsructing Obama: Class Edition:

Barack Obama sucks at populism. Obama should have spent more time talking to John Edwards, or else paid more attention to Edwards when he addressed the public. Not that the populist theme got Edwards even to within shouting distance of the nomination, but nobody ever accused him of insulting the very people he was trying to reach, either. Way to reach out, Barack. Read more

Today on Denounce and Reject

So much to denounce and reject, so little time. Today’s it’s Obama and his pastor. Tomorrow, Hillary and some inflammatory supporter TBA.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

I don’t have the political memory that others do, but I can’t really remember a campaign season in which there has been so much to disavow, or such a media-driven demand for throwing people over the side.

Update: Rev Wright leaves Obama’s spiritual advisory committee.

Ferraro rejects self, but does not denounce

Geraldine Ferraro resigns from position in Hillary Clinton campaign. Apparently intends to keep on talking, though.

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.

I won’t let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

And this after a very busy day.

Ferraro

In reaction to Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks on how gosh-darned lucky Barack Obama’s non-whiteness has made him in his quest for the White House, the Obama campaign had a choice of Response A…

When life hands you melanin, you make melanade.

…and boring old Response B.

Denounce! Reject!

I guess Response A was never really in the running. Too bad.

The adult analysis, of course, holds that Obama’s “race” - for those who have decided for themselves just what that is, exactly - is indeed an advantage in the eyes of some, and a detriment to others, and in any event just one lonely factor among many that make up the candidate and the campaign. If Rep. Ferraro will think back a few months, she’ll recall that race wasn’t much of an advantage for Obama even among African American voters until they learned more about him.

But that kind of thinking is even more boring than Response B.

Barack Obama, Episode Four?

Oy. I suppose the next installment is Barack Obama: The Empire Strikes Back.

Actually, some would say that movie’s already running.

The one thing that rings true to me is this: The Clinton campaign got rough and nasty over the last week-plus. And they got results. That may disgust you or it may inspire you with confidence in Hillary’s abilities as a fighter. But wherever you come down on that question is secondary to the fact that that’s how campaign’s work. Opponents get nasty. And what we’ve seen over the last week is nothing compared to what Barack Obama would face this fall if he hangs on and wins the nomination.

Sooner or later, Obama will need more than Ewoks to get to the White House.

Last call for Cabinet positions

Dodd paddles to the Good Ship Obama.

“A duty owed to the American people”

Plus one to Scarecrow at Firedoglake for this take on last night’s Democratic “valedictory debate”:

[Hillary Clinton's] final line was one she might have borrowed (with irony) from John Edwards, at an earlier moment in this campaign when the Democratic party essentially recognized that retaking the Presidency and indeed the point of government service was a duty owed to the American people. It is they who have suffered through the dreadful years of the Bush Administration, and it is their economic future and security that are at stake.

…The main message Democrats are delivering is that we have two exceptional candidates who understand what has happened and who are both committed to do something about the mess we’re in, to address the problems with intelligence and compassion and to pursue solutions with energy and determination. We have not had a government like that in nearly at least a decade, and the thunderous applause last night was all in anticipation of its imminent return.

For the greater good

Via Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast, gentle advice from PhysioProf:

Enough Already With The Fucking Superdelegates

Democrats need to sack the fuck up. The Democratic Party is a political party, and it enacts nomination procedures that serve legitimate purposes beyond just simple “majority rules”. This kind of shit has gone on since the beginnings of the party system in this United States. Do we really all need to go immediately for the fainting couch and smelling salts? [...]

The Republican Party over the last 30 years has exhibited vastly better party loyalty than the Democratic Party. It is time for the members of the Democratic Party to exhibit the goddamn loyalty and discipline necessary for a party to take control of the government, like the Republicans have been so good at. Joining a political party means that sometimes you don’t get exactly what the fuck you want, exactly when the fuck you want it, but you accept it like a fucking grown adult because you know that it is for the greater good of the party.

Word.

Jill adds:

PhysioProf makes a good point about living by the rules, and if superdelegates are the rules, well then we have to live with them till we change the way things are done.

Addendum: Let’s say you jump ship, touting the “the will of the Democratic electorate” line as a rationale. What happens if that electorate chooses the candidate you abandoned? If you’re this former Clinton superdelegate, your response is “hammina, hammina, hammina…” This is what happens when you start making stuff up on the fly. This is why we have rules.

Superdelegates (as opposed to delegates) are by definition free to support any candidate for the nomination. There’s nothing in the rules that I can find about apportionment based on the votes of others.

Edwards and endorsement

I donated to John Edwards’ campaign, would have voted for him had he made it as far as Missouri, and was sad to see him go…but this business of “who will Edwards endorse” has always seemed wholly immaterial. This political season has been so dynamic, it seems to me that the ability of the fallen to influence erstwhile supporters has spoiled more quickly than fish left on the counter. By the time Edwards makes a choice of whom to endorse, the number of people who will actually care - not counting reporters and pundits - will fit comfortably in your average living room.

Come to think of it, Edwards’ twenty-six pledged delegates would fit snugly in that living room. Not certain how bound they are/would be to an Edwards endorsement, but this is the only aspect of the story which really means anything.

« Previous Page