Hillary 1984
Reporter Carla Marinucci writes about a new, unauthorized pro-Obama web video that portrays his run against Hillary Clinton as nothing less than a generational battle against mindless conformity. Spoofing the classic Apple commercial which spoofed Orwell’s 1984, the spot casts Hillary’s followers as robotic followers of Big Sister, much in need of liberation from someone like…. “O.”
I converge with Marinucci in affirming that — with or without Obama’s approval– this is an inspired minute and a half of film-making. And that it’s virally circulating, anonymously, on the web certainly tells us a lot about the near future of political campaigning in this country.
I’m not nearly as certain, however, that it says much that’s very good.
Nor do I have any idea whether this little ditty will have much impact on its targeted youth audience. I conducted my own private focus group and asked my awfully brilliant 22-yr. daughter, Natasha, to give it a viewing. She’s not only in the target demographic, not only averse to Hillary to begin with, but she’s also quite an Orwell aficionado. She ought to be a push-over for the spot.
But, no. Her response, I thought, was…um…brilliant:
“As long as we’re doing Orwell,” she emailed me back, “how about a video based on that final scene from Animal Farm? Y’know, where we see all those piggies (the Democrats) standing up on their hind legs looking just like the humans (the Republicans)?”
Ouch! In other words, Obama, Where’s the Beef?
March 18th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Ah, nice to know mindless Hillary bashing can be a family affair. How about a spoof of Marc Cooper as Jimmy Stewart in “Vertigo”, making Hillary try on different pants suits? Obsession is sick, but we might get a few cheap yucks out of it.
Meanwhile, how are those Republican efforts to end the war, you know, the ones Marc Cooper promised us, getting along? Looks like even a measured effort from the Senate is a no go; as the one Republican not in lock step with their nut case Prez is cancelled out by Holly Joe. Over in Congress, the Republican effort is nearly as party line perfect; but marked by more explicit traitor baiting. But fear not, Marc’s approved Senator, Clinton bashing impeachment pal Lindsey Graham, is once again performing wonderfully, making us THINK he’s for the war. I’m sure the big reversal is due any second…
Given Coop’s corpulent frame you might think this imagery might be avoided; but this is the guy who, in print and more than once, has referred to Micheal Moore as a “fat slob.” Whatever Cooper’s defects, excessive shame is not a failing. So, the Pigs will just have to content themselves with time wasters like holding the White House accountable for it’s actions, something some members of the radical press have never been able to work up much enthusiasm for. The real evil doers being, you know, the pigs. And perhaps the Republicans WILL be the ones to end the war; when four or five of them from the Northeast find the decency to vote with the Democrats…..
March 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
That video clinched it for me. I definitely will not vote for Hillary Rodham-Clinton. How long will it take before someone likens this ad to the “swift-boating” that Kerry received? (Justifiably, I might add.)
My personal opinion is that kids will think that the video is cool and that they will associate HRC with big-brother. (Justifiably, I might add.) Next, the mystery ad source could create a version of those Mac vs. PC ads but have O’Bama be the Mac guy and Hillary be, appropriately, PC.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
K Nardy: That’s pretty senseless and insulting babbling on your part — but I have decided to leave it posted as it does nothing except reveal you to be, um, senseless and babbling.
I’m neither bashing nor defending Hillary here so you’re wrong on that count. And your gross misunderstanding of what I meant when I said Republicans will end the war more or less reveal you to be, indeed, precisely one of those Democratic robots. For the sake of others who might be reading… Quite obviously it’s the GOP that is sustaining this war policy (but Democrats cant agree on how to stem it). When I say that Repubs will end the war, I mean it the same way the Repubs forced Nixon’s impeachment… not out of the goodness of their heart, but out of necessity.
Your implication that because I have said (and would say agin) that I find Lindsay Graham a colorful or quirky or intriguing figure doesnt mean that I support his politics. I would challenge you to find something I have written to the contrary. But geeze, what a hopeless Democratic hack you are. Consider this a warning.
Oh and by the way.. just like thinner sorts, some of us fat people are slobs. And some of us are not.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Is your point that Obama needs to stand deliver? That being a charismatic, yet inchoate, anti Hillary won’t cut it for that much longer, especially with candidates like John Edwards positing substantial policy positions on everything from the war to healthcare to sustainable energy? If that’s what your saying, hear hear.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Marc,
Just so you know, you forgot the “http://” in your link, which makes the URL dead.
Despite being over-the-top, I have to say I like the video. Not necessarily for any political statement it might have, but because campaign videos suck and this one is at the very least entertaining.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Yeah, they’re all the same. Brilliant.
As for Edwards positing substantial policy positions, I defy anyone to explain what’s more “substantial” about Edwards’ campaign rhetoric and “issues” pronouncements than Obama’s. I’ve looked at the articulated positions of both and don’t see it. Where Edwards IS more specific, as in health care, I find his proposal to be badly flawed – essentially the same as Arnold’s health care plan for California. I prefer Obama’s making universal health care a principle and leaving the details for later, rather than commit to the least advantageous, most costly and bureaucratic version while he’s on the campaign trail.
It’s funny that you link to Marinucci – I just exchanged emails with her this morning criticizing another article by her in today’s Chron on the Obama rally yesterday in Oakland. She, inaccurately characterized the crowd as “largely” black – which she copped to as misleading when I called her on it. Even the photos that accompanied the article belied that description. It was a typical Oakland crowd – totally diverse and a cross-section of the city. Plus lots of folks from surrounding urbs and burbs. At least 12,000 strong at a last minute, barely publicized event (a scheduled New Hampshire appearance had been canceled due to weather so he decided to fly to Oakland) – with long lines of folks snaked around six blocks or more in two directions waiting to get in – many gathering hours before the “gates” opened. (The event was “ticketed” via the internet and at BART stations – although tickets were also given to anyone who showed up – as a method to collect email info or paper stubs with names, addresses, etc. for the Obama organization.) I’ve never seen anything quite like it at a political rally.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
eric.. thanks.. link fixed.
reg: use common sense, man. The implication is not that they’re simply the same. you know better than that.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Well what the hell is the implication ?
March 18th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Now that Obama has declared for president, he is acting a lot more like Hillary. The question of whether being gay is immoral, eg. Hillary did what we would expect of her–duck the question, check with her advisors, and then issue a clarification the next day saying she didn’t think gays were immoral. Obama, on the other hand, ducked the question, checked with his advisors, and issued a clarification the next day saying he didn’t think gays were immoral. Nice to know we have a clear choice.
btw, sometimes when someone gets bashed, it’s because they have it coming.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Some people want us to hold our noses and vote for the Democrats. reg wants us to cover our eyes and ears too.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,202 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans last weekend:
ARNOLD, James L., 21, Pfc., Army; Mattawan, Mich.; First Cavalry Division.
BRAND, Emerson N., 29, Sgt., Army; Rigby, Idaho; First Cavalry Division.
BOYD, Joshua M., 30, Specialist, Army; Seattle; 82nd Airborne Division.
HARRIS, Blake M., 27, Staff Sgt., Army; Hampton, Ga.; First Cavalry Division.
HOLZHAUER, Raymond J., 19, Lance Cpl., Marines; Dwight, Ill.; Second Marine Expeditionary Force.
PRATER, Terry W., 25, Staff Sgt., Army; Speedwell, Tenn.; First Cavalry Division.
WATERBURY, Forrest J., 25, Specialist, Army; Richmond, Tex.; Third Infantry Division.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:56 am
This commercial has no more substance than the highly selective (though representative) Hillary natterings it features.
Hillary has staked out more positions than Obama has. To the extent Obama is not a cyhper, he has revealed himself to be a conventional democrat.
Hillary, Obama, Edwards–each is a quantum improvement over the genuinely dim, (dumber than Bush–ask Yale) tone-deaf and pusillanimous John (Reporting for Duty!) Kerry.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Still need to take out the end parentheses) in the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo)
March 19th, 2007 at 4:36 am
The original commercial was a succes d’estime, as I suspect this one will be.
By now everyone who follows this stuff knows Hillary’s stiff and robotic.
This is not a killer like the flower commercial that was so effective for LBJ.
Obama’s still like Chinese food’s said to be–half an hour later, you’re hungry again (although we do know he’s prepared to tell
AIPAC how concerned he is about the Iranian threat, and we don’t of course, want to see hordes of black-turbaned Shi’a landing on the beaches of New Jersey).
March 19th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Marc’s daughter agrees with him. Imagine that. Next time don’t work so hard at the statistical cross sampling. You already had the conclusion you wanted.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:25 am
“reg wants us to cover our eyes and ears too”
Explain that one…
At this point I’d suggest that anyone interested in the 2008 campaign read Obama’s book, dig into his personal history (not the “one-man rainbow” stuff but what he’s done with his life as an adult – see for example Ryan Lizza’s article in the current New Republic which discusses his immersion in Saul Alinsky’s tradition of community organizing.
Parsing campaign rhetoric and responses is a fool’s errand – I’d suggest that people use their eyes and ears to investigate who these people are at their core. Anyone who wants to win the presidency is going to be more measured in their statements than they were prior. I’ve read an account of why John Edwards voted for the 2003 authorization for war and it looks like he did it not because he believed in it but because of electoral considerations. I’d still vote for Edwards for President over a GOP alternative, but it doesn’t add to any profile of the man that suggests he’s a cut above when it comes to political opportunism over core values. Certainly not on a war vote.
I’m not going to argue for “Obama exceptionalism” – in fact, I hope he’s enough of a shark to figure out what games he’s got to play and which one’s he can rise above or leverage creatively to create distinctions in the voters mind. Obama has cast several votes that I consider questionable already in the senate. The difference, IMHO, between Obama and the rest who actually have a shot is that I think his particular experience and the intelligence and sensibilities that he brings to the table are more than “the lesser of two evils” but hold out, yes, more hope for putting the country back on track with some fresh energy and vision. When I think of what kind of President I want to see, frankly I don’t look for a guy who’ll adhere to a checklist that satisfies my most liberal friends in the Bay Area. (Even were it possible, I’d hate to have a guy like Ralph Nader as President. The country would come apart at the seams. Kind of like it is now.) It may seem like a cliche, but the last thing I want in a presidential candidate is an ideologue or a polarizing figure. Oddly, Barack Hussein Obama looks like the the least polarizing figure on the horizon and has demonstrated – on the ground and with real people – leadership qualities that I think are sorely lacking in Hillary – who’s known nothing in her life except corporate lawyering and electoral politics, and that Edwards, with his life spent moslty as a trial lawyer, also can’t match. I like Edwards, but he strikes me as a weak candidate in a general election.
On the gay “immorality” issue, if you look at what was said, Obama’s alleged dodge actually was different than Hillary’s comments. He simply held himself to the policy aspects of gays in the military without delving into the question of morality, while Hillary actually touched on “morality”, stating baldly, “I’ll leave that for others to decide.” At that point, she should have added her own view or the avoidance becomes too obvious and too calculated. But frankly, I’m not particularly offended by either one in this instance. I’ll leave it to Adam Nagourney to police the candidates’ for minor missteps. Also, I could care less whether Generals think homosexuality is immoral. It’s possible although not likely that one or two of them are quaint enough to believe that premaritial sex is immoral, which is perfectly fine as long as they don’t exclude folks from the military who engage in it – thus reducing our force levels to a couple of hundred guys and gals with bad acne and glasses.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Marc-
Why deny bashing Hillary? She deserves bashing. The problem with the video is that Obama may well be simply a pig on his hind legs.
I didn’t know about the hedging on the gay issue, but I’m not surprised. I agree with Reg’s critique of Edwards and Hillary, and there are things about Obama with which I’m impressed…sending out certain hints of a sort, not distancing himself from his activist (and Pro-Palestinian) past. That being said, the entire idea that he is an anti-establishment candidae, I’m sure even he’d disagree. In that excellent cover story in harpers by Ken Silverstien, he basically admits his centrist, business friendly politics to Silverstien. On corporate and economic issues, Edwards is far better. On AIPAC and foreign policy, I can see Obama exerting far more independence.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Some Democratic operative (I didn’t catch his name) suggested on Fox News this morning that this ad is a Republican black op to sow dissension among Democrats. Thoughts?
Whatever it’s source, I think its effective. But I loathe Hillary already.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Also, re: Obama versus the other major Dems, I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again – he appears to be the only candidate who could bring new voters, be they young or “disillusioned”, into play and energize the younger generation to get more involved in politics, issues and their communities. This is really the only hope for any kind of even minor shift in the country’s direction. And, really, I think Obama stands head and shoulders above every other candidate in holding out at least some possibility for bringing a new energy into national discourse. I don’t want a revolution, just for more people – especially younger ones – to shed some of the apathy and cynicism. Every one of the GOP candidates are bound to instill it, Hillary won’t dent it and Edwards would try but I’m not sure he’s up to it. (My wife’s niece – who I’ve never heard discuss anything other than the usual concerns of self-absorbed young women – went to the Obama rally in Oakland on Saturday and left with, yes, a crush and excitement about his candidacy. There was a cadre of young, disciplined volunteers running the thing that, frankly, I was stunned by in their degree of saavy and organization, especially given how early it is in the campaign. I can’t imagine Hillary or any of the rest of them drawing the kind of energy and enthusiasm I saw in both the crowd and the campaign workers. This matters. A lot.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Also, I saw this at least a month ago, or even before. Why is it making news now?
March 19th, 2007 at 8:02 am
“When I think of what kind of President I want to see, frankly I don’t look for a guy who’ll adhere to a checklist that satisfies my most liberal friends in the Bay Area.”–reg
Neither do I. What I look for are clues as to what the candidate would do if he or she were actually president. This is the key thing. This is not a purity test. If a candidate is opportunistic during the campaign, he or she will also be opportunistic as president and cannot be counted on to do the right thing in a particular situation. Eg, Hillary has given us plenty of clues on how even-handed she would be on Israel-Palestine, and Obama has already given us some clues on how commited he may or may not be on gay rights.
So the explanation for what I meant, reg, is that I don’t think you want us to judge candidates in this serious way, because you jump to the defense of any Democrat I or others here happen to criticize. I think you want us to hold our breaths and vote on a wing and a prayer.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:19 am
You know, all of this said – I don’t think this ad is a big deal. And I think Marc’s notion that a rip-off of a Mac ad from, yes, 1984 is going to be a big deal with his daughter’s generation, rather than old geezers such as himself, suggests – well – a time warp. His daughter wasn’t even born when the original ad seemed totally cool and creative. Did Marc have to explain the context ? Maybe not to Natash, but most dads would. This is a neat story in terms of how the internet has dispersed information networks and undercut centralized productiona and distribution, but the ad itself is better as a story than as an ad. It’s timing and target I would judge to be aimed not at young people per se, but at “insiders” and “netroots” types who are still having an “electability”/”inevitability” conversation with themselves. This would be a terrible ad anywhere except on the peculiar, fractious and still “frontier-like” landscape of the internet. Way too “insider” and self-consciously hip in that way that just betrays how over-the-hill “hip” has become.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:34 am
At this point, in the context of the primaries, I’m not defending Hillary at all. I pretty much share your distaste. I don’t find Edwards distasteful, but as I said, his record on the war isn’t great. And, frankly, his disavowal doesn’t strike me as an exercise in gut-check honesty because I don’t believe he was misled. I think he knew it was wrong then and voted for it anyway. That admission would be way too much honesty for anyone in the middle of an election campaign, but it says something about the man. I wouldn’t even defend Obama on the issue of a calculated “centrism”. The difference – and probably the only difference except on the edges of policy – is that I see Obama as more capable of exercising the more intangible aspects of leadership than the other two. And this can be enormously important when it comes to watershed, difficult issues like, say, Israel/Palestine as well as helping inject some renewed energy into “civil society” on the part of the broad citizenry – the “masses” if you will. The reason I think that Obama can do that isn’t because he’s a nice, clean, bright articulate young man with an interesting mixed-ethnicity, but because his initial commitment in public life was as a very pragmatic community organizer in a tough, all-American terrain. I just have a sense that his pragmatism is rooted in some saavy about how to inspire people to care more about the circumstances of their lives. I could be wrong, but I’m not going to wallow in cynicism when I think there’s a chance to get someone elected who’s got some qualities that are rare in people who’ve actually managed to work their way into the White House.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:34 am
That last was to MB…
March 19th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Balter: “If a candidate is opportunistic during the campaign, he or she will also be opportunistic as president and cannot be counted on to do the right thing in a particular situation”
I’m curious to see the long list of former “non-opportunistic” campaigns of past presidents. I’m guessing the number will hover somewhere between zero and zero.
And equally amusing would be a similar list of past presidential candidates (who didn’t necessarily become president). Who would populate this magical arena? Dennis Kucinich would probably fit the bill. Hmm, not Nader, since he sure was an opportunistic sort. But I’m sure we’d find some amazing choices!
Balter, sometimes I think you’re jcummings in disguise. Or at least inhabiting the same loony universe.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Samuel’s post is remarkable both for its cynicism and its resignation. Am I supposed to fantasize about the candidates or am I supposed to try to understand who they really are before making a choice? If there are no non-opportunistic candidates to choose from, that does not mean I should stop hoping that one might emerge one day and that does not mean that I should simply accept that this is the way it is. In fact, it is this kind of cynicism that helps keep the corrupt system going, because voters either have few expectations or they suffer disillusionment if they do. Better to go into an election with eyes open.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Its a sad day when people who ask for real democracy are in what is seen by some to be a “loony universe”.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:26 am
jcummings, Samuel represents what might be called the hipster approach to political analysis, where anyone who thinks that there should be principles and idealism in public life is considered naive, while the hipster revels in his allegedly sophisticated view of things. In the end, people like Samuel are complicit in the current situation, because they don’t insist on anything different.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Love Natasha’s response but I’m not sure she’s got it quite right. The end of Animal Farm is about political revolutionaries slowly coming to resemble their erstwhile oppressors. Fast forward six months or a year and perhaps we’ll note:
“The voters looked from Barack to Hillary, and from Hillary to Barack, and from Barack to Hillary again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
March 19th, 2007 at 10:04 am
This ad is the future of the world!!!!
Nah.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Well, if by “hipster” you mean “pragmatist”, and by “complicit in the current situation” you mean “looking for real solutions instead of mental masturbation”, then, yeah, guilty as charged.
The point of my post was to underscore the absurdity in expecting political campaigning to not include “opportunism” (your statement, as I quoted). What on earth would an “opportunism-free” campaign look like, anyway? Does Disney have the rights to it, and will it be on DVD soon? Anyway, your point about clues is obviously valid, but one you hardly heed with shallow, difference-obliterating equating of Obama with Hillary. By all means, find the similarities and differences, but spare us the breathless “there’s no difference between the candidates!” mantra that worked so well in 2000.
Obama=Hillary!
Dems=Repubs!
USA=Canada=Europe!
All are derived from the same capitalistic machine!
Rage against the machine!
March 19th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Balter -
Sounds like C. Wright Mills on crackpot realism.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Samuel -
I’m sure you’re right…a Lieberman vice presidency would have been dovish.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am
OT – Balter – you have to read Jaqueline Rose’s “the Question of Zion”
March 19th, 2007 at 11:45 am
bob williams shared: Some Democratic operative (I didn’t catch his name) suggested on Fox News this morning that this ad is a Republican black op to sow dissension among Democrats.
Republicans have to be behind this. Democrats could never be mean or misleading. Let’s have some hearings! Let’s get Karl Rove!
March 19th, 2007 at 11:52 am
It could be that the ad appeared by “magic.”
Obama the ‘Magic Negro’
…it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.” …Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Reg I thought the rap on Obama was he didn’t appeal to African-Americans as he wasn’t “Black” enough (see Al Sharpton and Stanley Crouch) so if that rally in Oakland was “largely Black” does that disprove it?
Marc, while your daughter makes oh so clever remarks about the Dems being like the piggies in “Animal Farm” maybe she might like to consider which party has introduced (and passed in the House) legislation to make it easier to organize workers in unions (like SEIU) and which party threatens a veto and a sustaining of that veto.
But she does sound like a chip off the old block (head).
March 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
This is really for another discussion, but I can’t let a misstatement pass.
rlc, “easier to organize workers in unions”?!!!!! More like coercing and threatening them by taking away the secret ballot. It’s one thing to say, “Yeah, I’ll go along and agree to have a vote since you have a gun to my head” but then go vote how you want with a secret ballot and it’s another thing to having some thug watching how you mark the ballot and then taking it from you. Yeah, the Democrats are really for “working Americans.”
March 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Was that an annoying buzz on this thread just now or did my ISP just belch?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
To me, what’s cool about the ad isn’t the 1984/MAC ripoff (I think it’s actually a little dumb and misguided. After what we’re sitting through now, the idea that Hillary represents the terrors of 1984 is a laugh.), but the narrative style of commercial. Politicians are always using codes to present an image of their opponents and themselves. Making your opponent into a character in a story that serves as a metaphor for her flaws, leaves a stronger impression. A step up from the characterless metaphor stuff of the Bush/Cheney Wolves ad.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
RIP Tanya Reinhart
March 19th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
rlc – the rally wasn’t “largely black” – it pretty much reflected the demographics of Oakland. Maybe as much as 50% black at the rally, but it was obvious that his appeal cuts across lots of lines. I think the notion peddled by Sharpton, Crouch or whoever – there’s a really stupid columnist at Salon, Debra Dickerson, who’s got a bug up her butt about Obama’s “blackness” – that Obama isn’t seen by “African-Americans” as one of them is just an intellectual and/or ego trip by random contrarians or jealous hucksters stuck in the past. The people who’ve tried to cycle this bullshit into the echo chamber are mostly on the right. Obama is who he is – and you can bet your ass black people are gonna love him the more they’re exposed.
What kind of disreputable discourse do we have when a prominent, respected black writer dubs Clinton – a charming cracker, god bless him, with reasonably good intentions who to his eternal credit rose from the bottom of the southern barrel – “the first black President”, followed by a gasbag like Stanley Crouch claiming that black people – or “Negroes” as is Mr. Crouch’s wont (and nothing wrong with that IMHO) – don’t consider Obama as one of them because his father was an African immigrant and not a descendant of slaves. For the record, Marcus Garvey, W.E.B.Dubois and Stokely Carmichael were all immigrants or children of immigrants (West Indian), as is Colin Powell. It’s no secret that native born blacks aren’t exactly in love with their West Indian immigrant cousins – who have a markedly different cultural heritage (the middle class are basically Brits) even though there’s a shared history of slavery – so I’m waiting for Debra Fucking Dickerson to write that column about how Stokely Charmichael – himself an immigrant – wasn’t “black” enough or the one writing Colin Powell out of the black community because of his West Indian roots. And “mixed race” pretty much covers, to some degree, everyone in the USofA who’s considered “black” (and of course some who made it over the line into “white”.) As for Sharpton, who takes him seriously ? He doesn’t like the idea of a new generation emerging who aren’t stuck on his treadmill. What morons !!!!
March 19th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I’m going to blogwhore shamelessly and suggest that folks read Richard LC’s excellent dissertation on the looming mortgage crisis at Beautiful Horizons. It’s chock full of “beef”.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Also, I love seeing David Ehrenstein and his fellow “fablogger” from the South in bed together. Reminds me of the good old Clinton-bashing days when certain self-absorbed and/or self-righteous lefty types could be counted on to march lockstep with the neo-fascist pitchfork crowd. Sing Out Louise !!!!
March 19th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Incidentally, I would suggest that anyone “titillated” by the punditry of Ehrenstein go over to his “Erhensteinland Fablog” and tell me that we’re not being treated to the natterings of a useless twit with both feet planted firmly in LalaLand. His middle name might as well be “clueless” when it comes to political commentary. I’ll defer to him in deconstructing Brokeback Mountain, but he can shove it when it comes to half-assed reactionary commentary on Obama that, frankly, might as well be a plea to keep blacks in the ghetto of old-school stereotypes, for all of it’s Hollywood-referential faux-sophistication.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Even putting aside that John Edwards is by far the better choice among Hillary, Barak, and himself; he is also the only one of those three (and among all the Dems running) who can conceivably win the White House.
There seems to be a safe feeling among Democrats, that because of the election results of 2006, that anyone they nominate will beat any Republican nominee (particularly if that person is John McCain).
In order to win the White House back for the first time in years, they will have to do well in states like the one in which I live (Kansas). I have read the recent book WHISTLING PAST DIXIE and I cannot disagree more with the author’s conclusion that every red state can be written off.
As someone who travels periodically throughout the midwest, I can pretty much summarize the views of many midwesterners pertaining to the three candidates. And in the cases of Clinton and Obama, folks, it is not all good, in fact, it is mostly bad.
But in the case of John Edwards, he is someone whom I astonishingly hear more positive things about than whatever negatives might be attached.
And while Edwards would have an uphill battle of carrying my state of Kansas (although in 06 it elected a pro-choice Democrat over an anti-choice Republican for the second straight governors election), he is definitely someone who could possibly carry an Iowa, and a Wisconsin, and perhaps most importantly, Ohio.
The same standards applied to Dennis Kucinich, it seems, aren’t applied to Edwards: being able to win. Is there anyone who honestly, seriously thinks that either Obama or Clinton are electable? If you do, you are most comically mistaken.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I saw it and thought it was hilarious. It’s not a silver bullet to kill off the Hillary machine, but it has kept the discussion for a few more days about Barack Obama, just after his big splash in Oakland.
Personally I am not a huge fan of Hillary, but I also am not sure just what the big deal about Obama is, other than that he’s a nice guy. I don’t mean to say anything BAD about him, I just don’t know him, that’s all.
If nothing else, this shows that nowadays if you’re really intelligent, and can figure out how to work the various OS X or PC programs to do good video editing, compositing, and whatnot, you can make something as good as some bigiwig consultant sucking 15% off the media buy for these folks. And usually, make something a LOT better or more interesting or attuned to pop culture than some piece of crap ad that rattles off a laundry list of political talking points.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
@David: I hear ya, but I don’t think the message of Whistling Past Dixie was to write off the South and the like – more like not going there FIRST for swing votes.
People in the South are not idiots and they are not fooled by some Yankee coming down and pretending to like barbecue and NASCAR when he’d rather be out windsurfing. And let’s face it, Real Honest Good Guy Democrats, like Jim Webb (yeah I know he’s a convert but piss off) and John Tester have shown you can be a good guy, be a Real Democrat, and not suck off the Right to win.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Thanks for the plug Reg but I think you’re too tough on David Ehrenstein who as a black gay Catholic (how about that triple whammy!) makes a good point about Obama as “SuperNegro”. The comparison to the Sidney Potier character in “Guess who’s Coming to Dinner” is particularly apt. Summa Cum Laude, Harvard Law Review and all that. And besides, he clean and articulate!
David I don’t think the author of “Whistling Past Dixie” is advocating writing off the Red States. Quite the contrary. He just thinks that the idea that mainstream Democrats are going to appeal to the white voters in places like Alabama and Mississippi is a mug’s game. Particularly if you decide that all you got to do is appeal to the “Values” voters by becoming anti-choice for example. He thinks, and I agree, that places like Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and, the big enchelada Florida, are quite winnable. And Texas is only a matter of time. But for the near future, South Carolina , Georgia and the two mentioned above are not going to be high on any Dems list.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
David – I’m no seer, but I think it’s entirely concievable that any one of the major Dem candidates could win the White House. I don’t think the Dems are a shoo-in, but the GOP field looks more and more lackluster with every candidate carrying baggage and potential negatives heavier than any Dem – including Hillary. Also, the notion that Obama can’t win midwestern votes across a broad spectrum is counter-factual.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Greg, Jim Webb started off life as a Democrat but became one of those “Reagan Democrats” over issues of National Defense – he also didn’t like Carter’s Amnesty for Vietnam Draft Resisters. He came home not only because of Iraq but, as he said in his reply to the SOTU, because of the growing inequality in America and his populist feelings that something should be done for the working man. Very Old School Democracy and a welcome return in my opinion.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
sorry, rlc, but if I had the opportunity to contribute a piece to the LA Times about Obama and I wrote that piece of recycled shit, I’d feel shame. His piece is noxious – “if he were real” ??? What the hell does that mean ?
Ehrenstein’s hand-me-down snark is being circulated in the right blogosphere as we speak. Ergo Woody’s submission here. His “point” has already been made by the likes of Ann Althouse and LaShawn Barber. It’s another version of the crap being peddled by Crouch and Dickerson – just a bit more “po-mo”. As for his creds as “black, gay, Catholic”, who cares ? Fuck this jerk.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
It means that Ehrenstein is not sold on Obama yet and I don’t believe its because he doesn’t consider him “Black” enough. I like Barack too but I’m still not sure he’s my pick.
(Look I’m holding out for Gore. I like lost causes!)
March 19th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I don’t care whether Ehrenstein is sold on Obama – now or ever – but if you actually consider the “magical negro” characters on whom the notion has been based in film and lit history, to compare Obama to them is some bizarre combination of wildly off-the-mark and totally insulting. It’s generated solely on the basis of Obama’s race, negating the man who is, in fact, “real”. Despite his pretentions, Ehrenstein isn’t a hip observer of contemporary culture – he’s an old fart who, as the years pass, is increasingly out of touch. Like co-detractors Crouch and Sharpton. Come to think of it, these guys could use a little magic to regenerate their tired personas.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Also – I was totally “Gore-Obama” but I don’t think Gore will run. If he does step in, I’d like to see a Gore-Obama alliance. It would be a smart move for both of them. But if Hillary is the nominee, I’d never forgive Barack if he became her Veep. I don’t think she’d ask him, but I’d rather see him serve in the Senate than be subordinate to her and Bill for eight years. Gore and Obama are a perfect match of strengths and weaknesses – and I think Gore would use Obama well as a Veep to promote policy and have a significant portfolio, since he understands the potential of the office and, presumably, respects it.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,206 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
BREVARD, Christopher R., 31, Sgt. First Class, Army; Phoenix; 25th Infantry Division.
KAISER, Anthony A., 27, Pfc., Army; Narrowsburg, N.Y.; 504th Military Police Battalion, 42nd Military Police Brigade.
SEBBAN, Benjamin L., 29, Sgt. First Class, Army; Chattanooga, Tenn.; 82nd Airborne Division.
TIMBERMAN, Harry H., 20, Lance Cpl., Marines; Minong, Wis.; First Marine Division.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Actually I think Hillary and Barack have the same guy in mind for Veep: Bill Richardson.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Is America ready for a Hispanic Veep ?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
@richard: point well taken. the worst thing that happened to the Democratic party was its morphing into a party of “feelings” and a form of liberalism that makes most liberals ill.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
You know the most interesting, potentially catalytic Democratic ticket – and there are probably a dozen reasons why this won’t happen – would be Obama-Webb. My two favorite recent additions to the Democratic horizon right now.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Another 48 Hours – From the Fablogger to the Flablatherer -
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200012
Limbaugh wants to “own” the term Magic Negro for Obama…
March 20th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Well, I hope that you are right about that, Reg, but unfortunately to many midwesterners – and I am not criticizing Obama – he is seen as too closely aligned with Jesse Jackson. The image of him sharing stage after stage with Jackson (and at times with Al Sharpton) is unfortunately something that sticks in a lot of people’s minds here, along with the admittedly phoney “Madrassa” story. Perhaps even worse than that is this feeling among people around here that Obama and Hillary are darlings of Hollywood. I’m sure that their fundraisers in Hollywood have not helped, nor by the the fact that they have received endless publicity (both good and bad) in the national news.
I can’t see Hillary Clinton having any chance of carrying a western or midwestern state at all (to say nothing of the south). The ridicule and disdain for the Clintons here is unbelievable.
Neither of those candidates (Hillary and Obama) have the populist appeal of a Jim Webb, a John Tester, or a John Edwards. They are seen as too close to the beltway, rightly or wrongly.
If the argument against Edwards is that he is at a disadvantage in battleground states because his views are “more liberal” than the others, I can say that that conclusion is wrong. Much like Greg mentioned above, if a candidate can present themselves as genuine, that is more important than being perceived as a “centrist.”
Of course, I am biased somewhat, because even though I in some ways admire Obama (and to some extent Hillary, in a minute way), something about him just doesn’t fill me with as much excitement as it does other people.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Although I had been a little exasperated in the past few weeks that Edwards was not getting the attention of Obama or Clinton, I am now somewhat happy that this is the case. There is a real good chance that there will be a burnout with both of those candidates, in much the same way that the 2003 frontrunner Dean burned out in early 2004 because of the bombardment against him from all directions. Edwards might be able to sneak in under the radar.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Reg: I do believe that America is ready for a hispanic Vice President or President. Richardson is an ideal candidate in some ways (his ideas for renewable energy particularly), and as much as I hate to say it (since his liberalism is quite tepid), is probably more electable than Obama.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I was joking about Ricardoson – I mean Richardson. I think Richardson is probably a decent guy, but do we have to settle for that ? Clinton (Bill) without the charm and political skills ?
I may be nuts, but I’m convinced that Obama is at least as electable as any of the others and has more potential to draw new and disaffected voters back into the process. The only candidate in my lifetime (which has been long) since Bobby K who has a chance to energize the the electorate and change some of the existing parameters. Otherwise, we’re just recycling…
March 20th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
How is Obama “too close to the Beltway” – he’s the only guy running who isn’t mired in “the system” (including Edwards, the dreaded “trial lawyer”). I’d go for a guy like Webb in a minute, but he’s not running. As for Edwards seeming “genuine”, he’s better than Hillary, but I actually fault him more than Hillary for his war vote and a rather disingenuous rejection of it, because I’m convinced he knew it was wrong when he did it. Hillary, I’m not so sure – given the Clintons’ penchant for hawkish pose.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I’m also confused by your definitions of “western” and “midwestern”. Clearly any Dem can snatch California, and Obama could carry states like Illinois and Minnesota. I also think the Dems – any one – will take Ohio. Also, I think Missouri is definitely in play and, with Kansas City and St. Louis growing turnout, Obama might have a better chance than Hillary.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Obama is a natural communicator, reminds me a lot of Clinton but with far more sincerity and far less toxicity. I thought that Obama’s speech in 2004 at the convention was fantastic. A question I have is will he be able to keep his cool during a general election, when the Republican slimeball machine courtesy of Karl Rove will do everything they can to tear him and his good name apart?
March 20th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
By “west” red states (becoming…less blue? purple?)) I guess I meant the following states identified not long after the 2004 election by THE NATION as beginning to lean more in the Democrats column relative to previous years: Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, Colorado (California, Oregon, and Washingon aside, since they have always pretty much been safe for the Dems). Since 1980 those states were reliably Republican in presidential races, but some analysts see them more and more coming into play. By red states in midwest I meant my state of Kansas, along with Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri. Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska are an uphill battle for any Democrat to take in a presidential race, but Iowa is becoming more and more of a toss up state.
In those states, I believe Edwards would have a better chance than the other candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
that first paranthesis should have stated “becoming less red? purple?)
March 20th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
okay, you’re talking about recently “red” states in the midwest and west. The reality seems to be that if a Dem can hold the 2004 states and snag Ohio, he/she is in. I’d like to see a bigger sweep, but I’ll take just winning.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I also differ with you on Ohio. That state has lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs since 1994 when Clinton and much of the Democratic Party abandoned them and pushed through the NAFTA agreement. Hillary Clinton and her husband’s views on free trade will drive many so-called independents to the other side, or they will stay home. Edwards with his populist, fair trade credentials clearly holds the edge in Ohio.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Edwards incidently did some campaigning in Ohio last year for Sharrod Brown, and I heard that the crowds were fairly large. Don’t be surprised to see Brown endorse Edwards sometime this year.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Obama rightly or wrongly is seen as a part of the Washington establishment. I agree, he is no more so than anyone else.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
People running on the Democratic ticket who are perceived here as not being mired in the system would include Gov. Richardson, obviously, and Edwards because he doesn’t currently hold any type of office.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:23 am
Good lord – Richardson was a congressman and a key member of the Clinton administration and chaired the 2004 DNC convention. Edwards has spent nearly his entire life as a trial lawyer. I don’t have any problem with that, but in a compaign these guys are going to be shown as deep in “the system”. Obama, under the spotlight, comes off as the least mired in stuff that turns people off. Also, I hate to sound petty and don’t care personally about this, but what’s up with Edwards building that huge house just when he’s running a populist campaign for President ? How stupid is that ? It’s like Gore’s electricity bill. I don’t much care, but frankily it makes even me wonder just what planet these multi-millionaires live on when they spout their “we care about the little guy” rhetoric and live in circumstances that are exceptional even for relatively wealthy people. Obama has, far and away, the most “midwestern values” image of any of the candidates when you look at his family life. The “scandal” stuff he’s been hit with is remarkably negligible.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I agree with you on Gore, on the grounds that he is somewhat of a hypocrite when he talks about the need for energy conservation and has a house that uses as much energy as some of the entire towns I live near.
But working class people here in the midwest don’t begrudge a little wealth, in fact you are going to find in about every town that lottery ticket winner who’s treating everyone to drinks at the VFW or Eagles Club. And everyone clapping him on the shoulders.
In fact, even as a low earning public school teacher, I don’t have a problem with Edwards wealth; to be honest if I could take care of my family as well as he does I would do it as well. And, most importantly of all, I don’t think it makes Edwards a hypocrite to talk about the little guy and to at the same time have a sizable house (which, from what I’ve seen pictures of, is off of what looks like a highway; definitely not a house in a gated community). Edwards didn’t always live like that, in fact his loving yet working class upbringing is way different than a certain current president who, in the words of the late Molly Ivins, “was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” John Edwards upbringing and background was not as exotic like Obama, Clinton, and Bush’s; and his family (especially his wife, whom I admire a lot) seems very nice and down to earth. Grounded…that is the word I am looking for.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I don’t think working class people begrudge weatlh, but I guarantee that they’re much more admiring of a Warren Buffet, who is wealthy but lives a reasonably down-to-earth lifestyle than a guy who talks endlessly about “the little guy” at the same time he’s building what is truly a huge house. It doesn’t really matter to me, but I think it was ill-timed and will be exploited. Of course, “there’s always something…”
March 21st, 2007 at 8:12 pm
David has fell for the right wing crap that Gore is a “Hypocrite” on energy use. Not true as a visit to any site like TPM will show. Actually his electric bill is about $1000/month for his mansion and two offices (which presumably have staff) . Its crap like this that probably has made Gore reluctant to run and, thus, denied us all the best qualified candidate that the Dems could put up.
What a waste!
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 am
The Hillary 1984 video has caused enough interest to spike viewership of Hillary and Obama’s official videos, which is interesting because the Republicans had been gaining on and even surpassed the Dems in web video views just prior to the release of the 1984 video.
I’ve made a few charts of presidential candidate video groups on TubeMogul and posted them on the blog at http://www.tubemogul.com/blog/ – one comparing the top 3 candidates (by YouTube viewership) for Dems and Republicans, and one showing Barack vs. Hillary.
I’m a graduate student working with some friends who recently developed the site. The url is http://www.tubemogul.com. We’d love to hear what you think.
Mark
January 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Robin…
…Making treadmill weight loss workout a daily habit makes achieving weight loss ambitions more likely……
April 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Cum Asian Cum Ass Cum…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…