Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Good Night Nurse | Breaking A Fine Tradition in W... »

Friday, March 14, 2008

A Sense of Perspective, Please

posted by on March 14 at 13:33 PM

Could everybody who thinks that this Clinton/Obama contest is somehow the deathknell of the Democratic Party please take a very large chill pill? After all, let me remind people that this ad that ran in Iowa in 2004…

…is far worse than anything we’ve seen this year. Some think it tanked Dean in Iowa. And who created it? Why Robert Gibbs, Obama’s current Communications Director.

I say this not to “score points” against Obama—I like him, and if he’s the nominee I will enthusiastically support him—but to point out that every campaign fights tooth and nail to win, and this year’s no different. In either camp.

RSS icon Comments

1

close your bold tags sven

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 14, 2008 1:36 PM
2

Isn't there anything going on today? Any NEWS?

Posted by D | March 14, 2008 1:39 PM
3

Yep, this is JUST like 2004 people and we know what that means; The centerist DLC candidate will get the nomination and lose the election in November.

Posted by Andrew | March 14, 2008 1:40 PM
4


Slogger Big SVEN supports Hillery Clinton and Hillery ClinTon supported teh war in Iraq. Nearly 4,000 troops have died in BIG SVEn’s war. When will big sVen apologui9ze for supporting Hillery cLinton?

Cpl. Thomas L. Hilbert, of Venus, Texas, a small town 30 miles south of Dallas. Hilbert, 20, and two other soldiers serving with the 9th Cavalry Regiment based at Fort Bliss, near El Paso, died after their vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device on Sept. 6. Hilbert's sister, BillieJo Alexander, told the El Paso Times that her brother had already reserved a hotel room in Las Vegas to celebrate his 21st birthday with his family in January.

So why don\\\'t we apportion Big Sven his fair share of the carnage in Iraq? Let\\\'s arbitrarily assign him responsibility for the death of, say, an eight year old Iraqi girl. That sounds about right doesn\\\'t it? That still leaves 649,999 dead Iraqis to be apportioned out to Bush and the neo-cons and other war supporters.

Posted by Big Sven's War | March 14, 2008 1:41 PM
5

Other news? Well, other than the riots against China in Tibet, no, not really.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 14, 2008 1:46 PM
6

Yeah I saw the ad here just now it's a Howard Dean ad....


As a rule I don't like ads on the internet for politics cause it's easy to fake them and we have had enough fake politics to last a lifetime... I think that's the real issue at hand with the political races and the single entity networks choke holds on news and the little bits of time and space that cause computer meltdowns and sattellites to fall from the sky like chicken little fables.... p.s.

tell Kim I miss her and wish her well and If anybody asks me who was behind the set-up I'll guess that it was politics as usual in a Karl Rove Manuver.

Posted by danielbennetkieneker | March 14, 2008 1:47 PM
7

Yeah I saw the ad here just now it's a Howard Dean ad....


As a rule I don't like ads on the internet for politics cause it's easy to fake them and we have had enough fake politics to last a lifetime... I think that's the real issue at hand with the political races and the single entity networks choke holds on news and the little bits of time and space that cause computer meltdowns and sattellites to fall from the sky like chicken little fables.... p.s.

tell Kim I miss her and wish her well and If anybody asks me who was behind the set-up I'll guess that it was politics as usual in a Karl Rove Manuver.

Posted by danielbennetkieneker | March 14, 2008 1:47 PM
8
Posted by chicagogaydude | March 14, 2008 1:49 PM
9

You now. You're right. Campaigns do anything to win. But usually they do anything to win when, you know, they HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN. Hillary no longer has a chance to win. Right now she's just damaging the party and herself.

Cheers.

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Baltimatt) | March 14, 2008 1:50 PM
10

I agree that this seems to be getting a little out of hand.

I lean toward Obama, and have been leaning more heavily in that direction lately because I'm a bit distressed by the way Hillary has attacked him.

Nevertheless, I will happily vote for either of them in November. A McCain win would mean at least 2 more conservative Justices on the Supreme court, a disaster that will have an effect for decades.

I'm a bit alarmed by supporters of both camps (both being Hillary and Obama). Some of the stuff written on Slog and in the comments by fans of one or the other are a just crazy.

Support whoever you want, but don't lose sight of the big picture. Don't lose sight of November.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | March 14, 2008 1:52 PM
11

Sven, I don't always agree with your points, but in general I respect you for trying to keep the discourse civil. It can be pretty hard to set that sort of example on the internet. However, I will point out that your argument on this would have a lot more weight if you had evidence of this sort of mudslinging in a primary where the party in question went on to win the general. We lost to Dubya in 2004. I suppose Dubya's smears on McCain in 2000 are similar, but I'd like to see Democrats hold themselves to a higher standard than their ilk, and besides it's debatable as to whether that should really count as a win for their party given the Florida shenanigans.

Posted by Beguine | March 14, 2008 1:58 PM
12

like it or not big news today is Obama's ministers video and his reply at Huffington.

Posted by McG | March 14, 2008 2:01 PM
13

Hellz yeah, BS. That's all I'm sayin! Either candidate is fine. Let's just pick one and get on with it!

Posted by fluteprof | March 14, 2008 2:02 PM
14

i agree that attacking the opponent based on policy and experience is fair game, but personally i'm a lot more troubled by the subtle yet consistent leveraging of racism and islamophobia from the clinton camp. to me that violates everything the democratic party should stand for.

Posted by brandon | March 14, 2008 2:03 PM
15

What #9 said.

Posted by Willis | March 14, 2008 2:05 PM
16

Beguine-

Johnson and Kennedy loathed each other, didn't they? I don't know how the 1960 convention played out. The combination of a contested nomination and a successful Democratic campaign does not happen often, I will admit...

Posted by Big Sven | March 14, 2008 2:07 PM
17

Thanks @8
that was a very good Obama rejoinder to the whole Wright issue.

Posted by LMSW | March 14, 2008 2:13 PM
18

I understand how it works. When Hillary is stabbing her party in the back to win Ohio, that "just politics." When you try to hold Hillary accountable, then it's "can't we all just get along."

Attack. Appeal for unity. Attack again.

You'll wake up from this some day, Sven.

Posted by elenchos | March 14, 2008 2:18 PM
19

MM neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win on the first ballot. If today's blowup continues, and Obama loses PA 70/30 and falls in the polls should the super delegates still put him in?

This is the kind of issue people that have worried about his lack of being vetted were talking about.

Why did a speeech made in September of 2001 take this long to be brought out by the MSM?

Posted by McG | March 14, 2008 2:19 PM
20

I disagree with this: "every campaign fights tooth and nail to win."

Did Mike Huckabee, hopelessly behind in the R race, attack John McCain? He did not.

Has Barack Obama attacked Hillary Clinton? He has not.

SOME campaigns fight tooth and nail to win. Other campaigns--especially, one would hope, campaigns within one's own party--refrain from directly attacking people they respect.

The fact that this Gibbs guy created that ad and now works for Obama is immaterial...political operatives take orders from their superiors, just like everyone else.

Posted by Seth | March 14, 2008 2:28 PM
21

Oh come on, e@18. I said on the SLOG that I thought Bill's comments in SC, Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comments in NY, Hillary's "experience" interview, and Ferraro's comments were all inappropriate.

If I was wanted to tit-for-tat I'd list a bunch of things Obama or his surrogates said that were below the belt. But I won't.

Both campaigns are doing the same Campaigning 101 stuff. In time you'll realize that. Or not. But we'll get beyond it 15 seconds after a nominee is picked in Denver (well, if it's HRC, I won't lean on you guys for unity until you've had a chance to vent for a week or so.)

Posted by Big Sven | March 14, 2008 2:29 PM
22

@16: It's hard to draw any conclusions from 1960 since most states didn't have primaries then, and Johnson didn't really contest the few primaries that were held. The nomination was fought out by the delegates at the convention.

But note there also aren't that many successful Democratic campaigns without a contested nomination. There just haven't been enough of them, and they're all so dependent on the circumstances at the time (Watergate, Perot, etc). Reagan vs Bush in 1980 was probably the ugliest Rep fight, and that turned out alright for them. And, like O&C, they were fighting so hard because they liked their chances against the party of an unpopular president.

Posted by CG | March 14, 2008 2:34 PM
23

I'm sorry but no, there is no parity between Obama's missteps and Hillary's. Calling Hillary a monster is nothing like saying Obama is lucky to be black. Firing Samantha Power immediately is nothing like trying to blame Obama for what Ferarro said. I would be happy to go down the entire list, because Hillary is in a whole other league.

Every damn time Hillary is being held accountable, the same tired defenses are tried: Aren't we all Democrats? Lets be unified and forget what Hillary did! Obama does it too! It's just politics.

Think about Nancy Pelosi. She has had microphones in front of her for months and months, and hasn't injected herself into this. Why did she suddenly chime in on Hillary's nasty attack that Obama is unqualified? Why?

Because she realized how bad Hillary has hurt the party, that's why.

Posted by elenchos | March 14, 2008 2:40 PM
24

#8 Re: Obama rejoinder. Seems heartfelt, but I dunno. I think if my pastor spouted that kind of crap I would leave, no matter how many kids I had baptized there. Why won't he just leave. It's not like he's at home enough to go to services anymore anyway. And his continued membership just legitimizes this nutjob.

On another note, I luvs me some Obama. But I guess I find it hard to believe that he converted to Christianity just as his political career got started.

Reminds me too much of W. Who was another unvetted cult of personality during his election, btw.

Posted by fluteprof | March 14, 2008 2:42 PM
25

Sven a de la raison.

Callenos las bocas.

I will work for O, a great candidate, or C, a great candidate, whoever's on top.

And JFK our big hero ? He asked LBJ to be VP after LBJ tried to win that convention fight by having John Connolly tell the whole convention that JFK had a terminal disease. You can't get much more low down and personal than that.

Bush hated Reagan, called his plans voodoo economics, then joined the ticket and they got about 4 terms out of it (counting the younger Bush, too).

McG @19: hey what's wrong with a minister saying 9-11 if the fault of the USA? Don't we all know that American policies help create terrorists? So, why don't we just explain it is to the voters? "You know, our policies in bombing Japan, and in supporting Israel, all that violence we send out, it comes right back here to our front yard." What's wrong with that??

Posted by unPC | March 14, 2008 2:49 PM
26

"Obama's doing interviews on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX tonight."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Wright_media_tour.html

Posted by chicagogaydude | March 14, 2008 2:53 PM
27

@19. Hillary says Pennsylvania's the most important. It's not. If he loses Pennsylvania, it will be after having won the vast majority of primaries, caucuses, and the popular vote. Polls out today (granted, they don't take into account this recent kerfuffle) have Obama up to 50% nationally against HRC. That's a first.

Personally I cannot believe that Obama is being called to answer for his minister. That's insane. It's like holding John Kerry accountable for what the Pope says or what his priest has talked about. It's nonsense. Utter, complete nonsense.

Banks are failing. The economy's in shambles. China's influence is growing. The war in Iraq continues to kill innocent Iraqis. Quick, look! Something shiny over there! Drool. Mmmm. Bread.

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Baltimatt) | March 14, 2008 3:26 PM
28

In the real news today, real inflation's up above 4 percent, milk costs twice what it did a year ago, the market's about to collapse, the US dollar's near collapse (true story), and the President has taken up fiddling and showing his appreciation for fires.

Not that you'd know here on SLOG.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 14, 2008 4:12 PM
29

The bottom line is that Hillary is absolutely toxic to downticket candidates.and she will do *nothing* to build the party.

That's what happened during the 90s and that's what will happen again if she's the nominee.

Ultimately that's what is going to seal the deal for Obama with the superdelegates. Hillary has been pissing all over anyone not from a big, blue state and they're going to realize that attitude isn't going to change. We have races in every state, even the ones Hillary thinks are "insignificant" just because she can't win there.

Hillary's pantsuits don't have coattails.

Posted by ru shur | March 14, 2008 4:35 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).