Buck Naked Politics

Polls show Clinton Leading in Ohio & Texas: Will Pundits Spotlight this?

Posted by D. Cupples (photo from Senate.gov ) |  Many pundits treat pre-election polls as though the numbers had come from God's lips to their ears -- at least when they like what the numbers say.  Sometimes polls are right (e.g., those  indicating that Hillary would lose the Potomac primaries).  Sometimes they're wrong (e.g, those indicating that Hillary would lose in New Hampshire and California).

That said, I thought I'd share the most recent Rasmussen poll results regarding the Democratic presidential primaries in Ohio and Texas:                        

                         Ohio               Texas

Clinton             51%                  54%

Obama             37%                  38%

Peggy Noonan Offers Hillary Some "Friendly" "Advice"

by Damozel | Peggy Noonan is one of the many successful middle-aged women who are seemingly obsessed with Hillary Clinton, gloat upon her failures, and triumphantly anticipate her downfall.   Why?  I don't know.  As a middle-aged woman myself, I bear Hill no ill will (okay, sorry).   But perhaps this is because Hillary is too far out of my league to be a threat.

If I had climbed to the top of my---or any---tree, would I view her differently, i.e., in the manner of Noonan and, say, Maureen Dowd?  One's own ascendency might seem a little less unique if, looking up, one saw Hillary climbing away out of sight.  And we all know from high school that the worst rivals are the ones we despise.  So it's no surprise to see Noonan taking immense pleasure in Hillary's setbacks. 

Bush on Darfur & More: The Matt Frei Interview

by Damozel | BBC journalist Matt Frei interviewed George W. Bush, who defends US policy in Darfur and his own "seminal decision"€™ (sic) not to commit troops to Darfur (BBC transcript).  I can'€™t upload the 15 minute video here, but you can see it here or read a summary here. But that didn’t last. Grim as most of the subjects the two of them canvassed were, and are, several of the things he said evoked mocking laughter or incredulous giggling.  But other parts just made me shake my head in disbelief.   Still others made me feel vaguely ill.  Others evoked the usual helpless rage.  The worst part is that I can still see, in a way, why people the people who liked him liked him, and why some might like him still.  It was kind of an emotional roller coaster.

Tweety 'n Hillary

There's lots I didn't know about my beloved Tweety (yes, I know) in today's big write-up in The Washington Post. 

Did you know this?  I didn't know this.  Nothing is ever as it seems, is it?

Among the women with whom Matthews has tangled, Clinton may be the most curious case study. Kathleen Matthews [his wife], now a Marriott executive, has given Hillary Clinton's campaign the maximum allowable donation of $2,300, and one of their three children, Michael, has worked in Africa for Bill Clinton's global initiative.

A Clinton Supporter Asks: If Obama Wins it All, What Then?

Posted by Damozel |

First the Obama campaign successfully shut down any resistance from the Clintons by succeeding in getting them tagged in the Clinton-loathing media as 'racist' or, at least, 'racist-like'.  (i.e., racist if you ignore the actual meaning of the word 'racist,' plus all known facts about Clinton and ignore common sense and the plain meaning of her remark.)

Once the obstreperous pit bull Bill Clinton was muzzled (as I concede he needed to be), Obama's campaign proceeded to---how shall I put this?---creatively reframe Hillary's health care package, his own relationship to corporate money, and Hillary's stance on various issues.  Not only did Obama not step in to prevent his supporters' use of right-wing style slur tactics against Hillary, but his wife went on Good Morning America to say that she just wasn't all that sure that she'd be able to bring herself to support Hillary if Hillary got the nomination.  Yep, that's what she said.  And that's how the 'Clinton rules' work:  one rule for Bill and Hillary, another for whoever is on the opposite side of the fence.  FOR NOW.

An Illinois Progressive's View of Obama

Posted by D. Cupples | I wouldn't be upset if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were to start re-unifying the now-splitting Democratic party -- or if they formed a ticket come November.  I've read about Clinton's baggage for years, so I doubt I'll be surprised by anything her opponent brings up if she wins the nomination.

We might be surprised by Obama if he wins, largely because of the media's worshipful kid-gloving, i.e., their failure to diligently spotlight and analyze allegations that (if Obama wins) his Republican opponent surely will bring up -- and hurl at his heart like a dagger.

In a post titled "He Aint A Saint: a Citizen's Guide to Barack Obama," Illinois progressive Caroline Kay shares a link-filled list of some allegations that Obama will likely face if he makes it to November:

Is MSNBC Biased Toward Barack or Against Hillary?

by D. Cupples (photo from IowaPolitics.com) | Bias is hard to prove without a functional mind-reading machine, but evidence does suggest that some MSNBC personalities have a pro-Obama or anti-Clinton bias. I first noticed it just after the Iowa Caucus, when MSNBC kept hyping the notion that Barack Obama was somehow "the change candidate," essentially helping Obama create a new campaign slogan, despite the fact that all Democratic candidates were pushing for major change: Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel....  TPM also noticed it.

Yesterday, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster made an out-of-left-field comment about Hillary Clinton's daughter Chelsea (an adult who is helping her mother's campaign).  The Washington Post reports:

"She Thicks Men's Blood with Cold" Part 3: The Hillary Derangement Syndrome in Action

posted by Damozel | I like Hillary Clinton. Although my heart belongs to John Edwards, I voted for her as the candidate most likely to succeed, and even succeed superbly, at the thankless damn task that cleaning up after George W. Bush is likely to prove. After all, it’s not a job for someone who can’t deal with being hated. But what a lot of people are saying now is that Hillary is too hated generally to make it to the White House; therefore Dems should get behind Obama. I say that Obama would be much better off if he let Hillary do the cleaning up before he takes the presidency; it’s going to be a nasty, unpalatable job for the most part involving choices between one decision with consequences that are hard to stomach and another that is even worse. But Obama has signified that he would like to be president now. And many of my friends want him simply because they’re sick of the sound of Clinton-bashing. At least with Obama, mused one, we’d hear new, fresh contumely. And we all know it’s true: Hillary is hated by many-many-many. In fact, she routinely gets bashed from right, left, and center.

Ann Coulter: NeoDem?

by Damozel |  Hurray!  Ann Coulter has semi-endorsed Hillary, sort of!  Ed Morissey asks "Has Ann Coulter jumped the shark?"He wonders if this will finish her off with anyone who still takes her seriously, assuming anyone still does.  Is this the greatest campaign season ever or what?

So.  It seems as if Ann is well and truly infected, as the Captain puts it, with McCain Derangement Syndrome.  You might be surprised by her extreme solution to it, but I'm not.  True, from Duncan Hunter to Hillary might strike some as something of a leap, but McCain has the power to drive neocons right over the jagged edge, bless him. 

The New York Post "Endorses" Obama, Disses Hillary

by Damozel | The endorsement, so-called, which you can read here, can be summed up as follows:   If you must vote for a Democrat, vote for Obama!  He's not "Team Clinton!"  I imagine this "endorsement" will be quite welcome to Hillary.  Their approval wouldn't have done her any favors. It's really not fair on Obama, though.

Dismayingly, some of what The New York Post says about Bill Clinton's detrimental effect on Hillary's campaign, though naturally very nastily framed, isn't so different from what I've been saying myself.  Fond as I am of Bill Clinton, his "antics" (their word) certainly tarnished my excitement over the prospect of a woman in charge.  Though I'm relieved that he is now going to back off, he's done plenty of damage.

South Carolina Dem Primary

By D. Cupples |  With 98% of the votes in, Barack Obama won the South Carolina Democratic primary with 55%,  followed by Hillary Clinton with 27%, and John Edwards with 17%. (CSPAN/AP)  More than 2,000 South Carolinians voted for candidates who had already dropped out (e.g., Biden, Dodd, Richardson).

Even some pre-primary polls (sort of) got it right this time -- at least that Obama would win by a solid margin -- which turned out to be larger than pollsters had anticipated.   Results from Zogby (released the day before the primary) put Obama at 38%, Clinton at 25%, Edwards at 21%, Other at 5%, and Undecided at 7%.

The New York Times Endorses....(Can We Have the Envelope Please?)

by Damozel | For Democrats, they pick HILLARY CLINTON.  I wish I could hear the anguished screams of Hillary-hater Maureen Dowd.  Otherwise:  nope, not surprised. 

For Republicans, they pick JOHN MCCAIN.  I wasn't expecting that, but I can't say who I expected instead.  Romney?  I don't know.  As they say, "We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice."  But they found McCain "an easy choice." I doubt this particular endorsement helps him much with the "base." Rather the reverse, I imagine.  But he's my favorite too, naturally.

"The Tweety Effect" Effect (Updated!)

by Damozel | At Media Matters, Eric Boehlert discusses the calling out of Chris Matthews by the liberal blogosphere, giving credit where it is due to: Rachel Maddow of Air America, Josh Marshall of TPM, Jamison Foser of Media Matters; Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake; Jeralyn E. Merritt of Talk Left; Pam Spaulding; and Digby.  They---and everyone who wrote in to protest Matthews' shameless attempt to (I suppose) influence the vote by parading his atavistic fear of Hillary---deserve a big thank you from those who didn't participate.  This is an example of how public action can correct an abuse in the system or the media and there need to be more of it----for the media's own good. The result was an apology from Matthews.

That's good.  Matthews needed to be made to apologize and to back off.   If you haven't been paying attention, the reasons are summed up here:

Bill Clinton, Pit Bull: A Clinton Campaign Strategy

by Damozel | You could argue that perhaps that people's spouses shouldn't be allowed to speak for their campaigns under any circumstances on the same principle on which doctors refrain from operating on family members or lawyers refrain from defending them.   I don't think it's possible to be objective when someone attacks your spouse, even when what they say is true.  If it isn't, or if you believe it isn't, it's doubly hard.  Most people have said that it's about time Bill Clinton shuts up.  Indeed, I've thought so myself, much as I am fond of Bill Clinton.

But as Ben Smith (The Politico) points out, the Bill Clinton-as-campaign-pit-bull doesn't seem to be doing Hillary any harm.

Navy Now Suspects Prankster Threatened Ships, not Iranians

by  D. Cupples (photos from U.S. DoD) |  Last week, Pentagon officials told the U.S. media that small Iranian boats threatened U.S. destroyers. U.S. officials saw it as a "significant, provocative act." (MSNBC)   

Days later, the U.S. Navy released a video of the incident, with audio of someone saying "I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes." Iran released its own video of the incident, which did not include such threats -- to which, a Navy spokesperson responded: "I guess we're not saying that it absolutely came from the [Iranian] boats." (ABC News-1)

Yesterday, the story changed again.  ABC News reported: 

Glenn Greenwald on Yesterday's Major Media Misfire

by Damozel | This needs to be quoted, and so I am quoting it.  Here's Glenn Greenwald on the reaction of certain media pundits---and he's talking about "mainstream" ones, mind you, including specifically Chris Matthews---to Hillary's New Hampshire win. 

The endless attempts to predict the future and thus determine the outcome of the elections -- to the exclusion of anything meaningful -- is a completely inappropriate role for journalists to play, independent of the fact that they are chronically wrong, ill-informed, and humiliated when they do it. It would all be just as inappropriate and corrupt even if they knew what they were talking about, even if they were able to convert their wishes into outcomes.

Maureen Dowd's Vicious Attack on Hillary: Internalized Misogyny or Something Much More Basic?

by Damozel | As blogger Molly Ivors at Whisky Fire suggests, Maureen Dowd must have had a really kickass piece all ready to hand for Hillary's big New Hampshire loss, judging by the viciousness with which she attempts to kick Hillary's win onto the ash-heap.  She's apparently really bitter.  The title  of this journalistic gem is "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?" and the burden of it is that Hillary won in New Hampshire only because she was seen the night before with an unshed tear twinkling in her eye. It's absurd, outrageous, riddled with envy (which other bloggers call "misogyny"), and laced with bile.

As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

The Clintons once more wriggled out of a tight spot at the last minute. (NYT)

Note that.

MSNBC on the Media: Gunning for Hillary, Worshiping Obama

Posted by D. Cupples (photo from Senate.gov ) |  MSNBC's Dan Abrams commented on the frenzy surrounding Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, suggesting that the media is shaping public opinion:

"It's starting to feel as if many in the inside Washington media are spreading the fever, prematurely delivering Clinton's eulogy.  Despite impressive rallies in New Hampshire, they're suddenly savoring Obama's every word... possibly creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.... This is about a candidate who nationally, at worst, is running even with Obama.... It sure feels like a close game being called in the third inning...."

Abrams' guest Pat Buchanan -- certainly no fan of Hillary Clinton -- seems to agree (video on next page):

The Press & Hillary Clinton's So-Called "Meltdown"

by Damozel | Following up on D Cupples' piece on the peril of letting debate sound bites fall too ringingly on your ears, at The American Prospect, Ezra Klein points out the way in which the half-baked opinions of members of the press evolve into media memes which, after sufficient reiteration, achieve the status of "facts." 

It's a bit astonishing to watch the real-time narrative construction that went on at last night's debate. I must have heard the term "meltdown" in reference to Hillary 65 times. And I talked to reporters who would literally say, "I thought she did okay, but I just misjudged it" -- the aggregate conclusion of the corps became some sort of objective, or at least agreed-upon, truth that the outliers measured themselves against. Very, very odd. Particularly because the part that much of the press liked least -- her heated recitation of the programs she's fought for -- came off, to me, as one of her best moments.  (Am. Prospect)

What's even more amazing is how the repetition of such fact-substitutes still persuades us, and when I say "us," I mean "me."   I continually forget about this when I read the news.  Thank God for video clips.

Election Coverage: Beware of Cool but Empty Sound Bytes

Posted by D. Cupples |  The word of the week seems to be "change."  During one minute of the New Hampshire debate, John Edwards used that word eight times. (Transcript)  Before the debate, in an interview with Keith Olbermann after the Iowa Caucus, Edwards labeled Hillary Clinton the "Status Quo" candidate and proclaimed himself and Barack Obama "The change candidates."  So that no one would miss that pithy (albeit banal) phrase, Edwards repeated it three times and separately used the word "change" six times -- inspiring Olbermann to wonder if "change" will become a new theme for the rest of the campaign. (Video). 

Actually, it's an old theme.  During most of 2007, all Democratic presidential candidates (and  Republicans seeking distance from Bush) strongly advocated for big change. Why, all of a sudden, is that six-letter word getting so much media hype?