From the Gaurdian’s Hillary Clinton campaign retrospective photogallery. Suzanne Goldenberg also writes not the first and certainly not the last autopsy of Clinton’s candidacy. Also, Goldenberg and Ewen MacAskill join most of the American media to declare Obama the Democratic winner.
But I am not so sure. Clinton still claims a popular vote majority – if you count Michigan and Florida, and discount at least four caucuses (but why you would do that, I don’t know) – and her campaign has spent all day fighting against an Associated Press story reporting that she would concede Obama’s win. Sure, she’ll acknowledge he got the necessary delegates, but she won’t actually concede the contest. Does this strategy put pressure on Barack Obama to accept her as a Veep? To risk an already loaded historical analogy, it worked for Kennedy and Johnson. But that only sends chills down my spine.
Man, if I were Hillary Clinton – currently riding high on a 10 point margin of victory in Pennsylvania – I would find a way to remove the tongue from my husband’s mouth. Because I (Hillary Clinton, that is) can’t really enjoy my hard-won win without Mr. Megaphone saying dumb crap like, say, accusing black Democrats of “playing the race card” on him and driving the black vote toward Barack Obama. Ya see, they totally took his comparison of Obama’s victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s the wrong way. He wasn’t making a racially charged, dismissive and douchebaggy comment; he was just answering a question. And, best of all, this was part of the Obama plan aaallll alooonngg!
Hat tip to Aisha Music.
UPDATE: Now The Master Equivocator is refusing to acknowledge he ever said anything about a “race card.” Dude, it’s on audio! WE CAN HEAR YOU! This is why the right wing thinks you’re on drugs, because you refuse to look reality in the face or take any responsibility for your words and actions. Man! That guy is a piece of work.
So the Shiny Librarian gets me hip to infodoodads, which means I learn about all kindsa nifty sites, widgets and whatnot to play with, including silobreaker, a news and information gathering portal that will replace whatever love I have for googlenews, especially because it offers this addictive little toy: News Trends.
News Trends is a search engine that graphs media attention trends on a given subject. For fun, I thought I would compare media coverage for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears, and Lindsay Lohan over the past 12 months. I’m cynical. I think Spears and Lohan will trounce Obama and Clinton. After all, neither Clinton nor Obama have flashed their genitals at paparazzi, at least not in the time period in which this data has been gathered.
I am wrong.
Well, wrong about media attention, not genitalia exposure. It turns out the media finds Obama and Clinton far more interesting than Spears and Lohan. I realize I am setting the bar pretty low, but I am happily surprised.
What’s really cool about silobreaker in general and this graph generating tool in particular is that it offers some handy research tools students can use for class projects. No, the shit ain’t peer-reviewed, and you might want to issue the usual caveats about research methodology (for instance, the developers claim to use “relational analysis” but do not explain how that is actually designed in their search algorithms.) But I think it’s a good introduction to research for beginners, a way to get them thinking about information, how to display it visually, and how to manipulate it. It may also stimulate them to draw unusual connections. Or, as in my case, subvert a priori assumptions.
Click the image to see the full cartoon.
Despite a vow to myself to avoid all articles or blog posts with the words “Hillary” or “Obama” in them, I have failed spectacularly. Shoot, I just posted on Hillary Clinton’s tenacity the other day. It’s what Britney Spears is to most people; I can’t look away.
Maybe it’s because she is so hell-bent on self-aggrandizement. Or because she resorts to the most Right wing methods of attacking a fellow Democrat. For instance, I think this Bok cartoon, bad as it is, gets at what bothers me so much about Clinton’s “not my pastor” opportunism. Like Bok, she is mainlining white fears of The Black Anti-American Other, while adding her own personal dollop of goody two-shoes condescension. “My pastor never said anything controversial, mnyah-mnyah-mnyah.” Or, as I vented at MightyGodKing the other day (see, not avoiding well at all):
Hey, Hillary, ya know why you wouldn’t have belonged to Obama’s church and had Jim Wright as your pastor? Because you’re fucking white! Were you not listening to your rival’s speech last week? About the racism, and the history, and the anger? Hel-looo? You went to a lily-white everybody fold their hands and don’t fart too loud church. You went to a church where people didn’t come in the door completely oppressed and pissed off and wanting to let off steam. You’ve spent the last 35 years in the privileged enclaves of ivy league and political elites. Obama may have been teaching at the UC, but he stayed with the same church for 20 years. That means the community that church belongs to. So shove your opportunistic self-righteousness bullshit!
So, yeah, I need to take a breather from the Democratic in-fighting. This recent Gallup Poll doesn’t help things, either. Seriously? McCain? Granted, in 2000 11% of Democrats went for Bush, including 13% of self-identified liberals, so what do I know?
Every time I think Hillary Clinton or her campaign has done something to destroy her bid for the Democratic nomination, I get surprised by the persistence – stubbornness? – of her supporters. Even if Republican mischief-makers drove Clinton toward a dubious victory in Texas, she still had solid backing from traditional Democratic voters.
So I won’t declare that her recent explanation that she “misspoke” when padding her foreign policy resumé is The End. That’s what I thought about Geraldine Ferraro’s racist comments about Barack Obama, but shortly after Ferraro resigned in a huff, Obama had to contend with controversial statements from his pastor. Granted, the scandal prompted Obama to deliver one of the best speeches delivered by a politician on race relations in America – a definite lemons-into-lemonade trick - so he could count that as a win. But it doesn’t necessarily count as a loss for Clinton; it only makes her struggle more difficult. And for all its transcendent rhetoric, Obama’s speech did not satisfy conservatives, who are sharpening their Anti-American Pastor knives for the Fall, should Obama survive Clinton’s challenge. And she is already using those knives herself.
No, Clinton saying she didn’t inhale sniper fire merely proves that she’s a Clinton. If anything sinks her campaign, it will be the cumulative effect of husband Bill’s bungling in South Carolina; the 3AM red telephone ad; her talking up of John McCain’s foreign policy experience; Ferraro’s cranky self-portrait as a victim of both sexism and reverse-racism; and James Carville’s recent smear of Governor Bill Richardson as a “Judas” for endorsing Obama over Clinton (and refusal to back down.) And the Bosnia thing.
None of these things is the definitive Last Straw, but altogether they will break the camel. I doubt the “Supers” whom Clinton is counting on are going to take kindly to Carville’s trashing of one of the most respected political figures the party has produced in the last twenty years. They may not have nominated Richardson for President, but Democrats across the board value Richardson’s experience as a governor, statesman, and legislator; no one would blink should be become a Veep candidate, or a Secretary of State in a future Democratic administration. Plus, seriously — he’s a nice guy! WTF?
Sure, Carville’s the “Ragin’ Cajun.” Perhaps folks will roll their eyes and move on. But his remarks will be a factor among many that are piling up in Clinton’s deficit column. As many others have noted, Clintons best bet is to utterly destroy Obama’s electability through racist coding, Right wing fear-mongering, and an utter disregard for the rules. Oh, and to destroy the Democratic Party in the process. I’m no Democrat — I tend to view the party as the “good cop” to the Republican “bad cop” of capitalism — but poor folks and historically oppressed groups benefit most from the party’s progressive elements. Another lost election, another four years of McCain-Bushismo, and the party goes the way of the Whigs.
The only upside there is that progressive and centrist parties could arise to fill the void.
Samantha Power has resigned and apologized for remarks about Senator Hillary Clinton, which the LA Times quotes as follows:
“We f—— up in Ohio,” Power said in the interview posted on the newspaper’s website. “In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win.”She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything,” Power said, trying to withdraw her remark.
“You just look at her and think, ‘Ergh.’ But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.”
The “monster” bit goes too far, it is true. But the rest of it? Well, obviously Clinton won more than just Ohio, but that last paragraph and “stooping to anything” sound about right to me.
So is this the part of the media narrative on Obama where the Golden Boy begins to stumble into a relentlessly negative news cycle from which only he can save himself through a possible Comeback in Pennsylvania? Is this where the decision to “go negative” undermines his Lofty Campaign of Hope and Change?
The Clinton team is setting the same trap for Obama my 4-year-old sets for her older brother. She hits him, knowing that he’ll get in trouble for hitting back. Right on cue, Clinton’s senior aide Ann Lewis set it up. “I didn’t realize their version of new politics was to recycle old Republican tactics,” she said. If voters put both campaigns in the corner for a timeout, it may hurt Obama more, because his claim to be a new kind of above-the-fray candidate means he’s held to a higher standard. If Obama pays no penalty for the fracas, the Clinton folks still take him for a roll in the dirt where he can’t offer his appealing message of hope, change, inspiration, and hope. Clinton, by contrast, reinforces her fighter image.
“Old Republican tactics” – like, say, implying that your opponent is a threat to national security and the safety of your children? How about threatening to sue if election results and process rules don’t give you the outcome you desire?
Click the image to see the full cartoon.
If you think you have seen this image before, you are almost correct. The cartoon for January 4, 2008 used a similar image, only to a totally different effect. I hope this doesn’t incur the wrath of the Bad Cartoonist. Although the attention would be nice.
Also, I seem to have drawn Hillary a bit chubbier than I usually render her. I think it’s the bulky effect of the high collar pant suit I put her in (based on what seems a trend in her recent choice of pant suits) and how her neck comes out of the collar. But then Obama’s head is HUGE. It threatens to break that pencil neck I gave him. Well…at least they are recognizable.
Lastly, anyone think I should start coloring this thing? I’ve been toying with the idea. It may mean keeping only a once a week schedule, but it would be a more Web-attractive cartoon. What think ye, O Hive Mind?
CNN just projected Hillary Clinton the winner of the Texas primary, adding to her wins in Ohio and Rhode Island. I guess it pays to swing to the right on national security issues. Thanks for validating fear tactics, Democrats!
Speaking of which, Matt Bors does a hilarious job with the “red phone” thing.
One line that will come to haunt Clinton should she get the nomination:
“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”
So in a toss-up between McCain and Clinton, who will independents go for?
Senator Hillary Clinton scores a point in the LGBT column for her public appearance (albeit via satellite transmission) with openly lesbian icon Ellen Degeneres on the campaign trail. As Scott Shrake reports, the crowd was pretty openly gay, too.
Good for Clinton. Some may scoff that Ellen is the most mainstream-friendly gay icon, not exactly a challenge to hetero-normative ideology, but I think Clinton runs two big risks here. First, Democrats have been pretty quiet about queer issues since conventional wisdom blamed “gay marriage” for motivating Christian Conservatives and other homophobes to tip the balance for George Bush over John Kerry in 2004. So for once Clinton is defying conventional wisdom by bringing Ellen, who made pop culture history by coming out of the closet on her show and attempted to address queer issues in its last season, into her campaign. This is very different from appearing on Ellen’s talk show, where Barack Obama showed up last Fall to show off his dance moves (Ellen and dance are also closely linked concepts these days, for better or worse.) Ellen’s campaign appearance is Clinton’s answer to Oprah’s Obama advocacy.
The second risk is for Clinton, personally. The Right has made no qualms in making lesbian jokes about her, and even contending that she is in fact a closeted lesbian herself. In a sane world, questions about a candidate’s sexuality would be dismissed as irrelevant or idle gossip – or even better, we would happily have an out-and-proud lesbian President. But in this world, photos of Clinton palling with an openly gay public figure run risks of inflaming irrational fears and biases among voters similar to those provoked by, say, a photo of Obama in a turban. (FTR – no, I don’t think the Clinton campaign spread it around, but it’s not like they are above that sort of thing.) In other words, Ellen’s appearance on Clinton’s campaign trail offers the Right wing attack machine plenty of fodder.
Like I said, good for Clinton. She didn’t let that scare her. Perhaps she and her staffers ran a cost-benefit analysis (Shrake thinks Ellen appeals to a youth vote.) But I like to think that maybe, just this once, Clinton threw caution to the wind and said, “Fuck ‘em.”
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for Obama to crawl out of the deficit column where he landed thanks to that whole McClurkin thing.
Senator Joe Lieberman and SCOTUS Judge Antonin Scalia, having watched too many episodes of “24″, want to leave the “torture” option open just in case that “ticking time bomb” scenario ever comes up.
And apparently so does John McCain. Despite his own experiences as a tortured POW, McCain will back a Bush veto of the just-passed legislation banning waterboarding. Well, at least McCain showed up to vote against the bill. His Democratic rivals were too busy campaigning.
Oh, and: While the BushAdmin’s DOJ spokesman declared that waterboarding is indeed currently illegal, the BushAdmin reserves the right to change that in the future. Don’t worry, they’ll notify Congress.