Jennifer Donahue On GOP's Super Secret Victory Strategy

This woman is a dolt (0.00 / 0)

Why are we wasting her time with her?  I mean, hasn't she already established that her only claim to political knowledge is that she claims political knowledge?

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 05:34:53 AM CDT

What does this even mean? (4.00 / 3)

Just like last decade when the Democrats took time to shake out the short list

"Last decade" was the 1990s. We had two Presidential elections in that decade: 1992 and 1996. In 1996 the "short list" was the incumbent President, Bill Clinton. (We could add 2000, perhaps, but that list started out short with Veep Al Gore and a challenge by Bill Bradley.)

So Perhaps Donahue, when she says "last decade", really means "1992." In 1992 we had a longish list of Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, and Tom Harkin. After New Hampshire it had shaken down to Clinton and Tsongas.

It is very difficult to come up with interpretations in which Jennifer Donahue's writings even make any sense.  

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 05:41:54 AM CDT

I refuse (0.00 / 0)

. . . to listen to "political experts" who have never worked in politics, but rather choose to throw nonsensical bombs at convenient targets.  (And, yes, I'm including Olbermann and Maddow in this group, even though I agree with them and they're obviously well above Donohue in intellect.)

I would much rather hear the views of folks on both sides -- Matthews, Gergen, Buchanan, etc. -- who know what it's like to make difficult judgments in support causes they treasure.

(Ed. note -- I realize that Donohue worked for two years on the Hill as a low-level aide to a retiring Colorado Senator, one who had no plans for future campaigns.  I do not count this as political experience.)

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 06:26:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, dear. (0.00 / 0)

This just cries out for a lengthy takedown.

1. The notion that Buchanan or Matthews or Gergen has special insight into today's political process because of his experience 25-40 years ago, assumes that the rules haven't changed.
2. Maybe you think that is true because you listen to Matthews, Buchanan, and Gergen, who will keep claiming their knowledge is special and relevant.
3. The notion that it takes someone who has worked In Politics to know "what it's like to make difficult judgments in support of causes they treasure," is sublimely ignorant of Life itself. (Having kids is one good way to generate those difficult judgments.)
4. This grading scheme puts Karl Rove, Terry McAuliffe, Joe Scarborough, and Dick Morris WAY ahead of Broder, Mary McGrory, and Alexis DeTocqueville.
5. I like Jerry Remy. But I'll read Roger Angell, thank you.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 19:04:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In Response (4.00 / 1)

(Takedown, my ass, Elwood!)

1. Matthews, Buchanan, Gergen, Mike Murphy, the late Tim Russert, etc., might have been in campaigns a long time ago, but they have respect for political strategy, and they offer a deeper level of analysis founded on legitimate passion.  They know (and love) political history.  They don't treat gossip as a political end in itself, and they generally recognize that there are bigger issues in play.

2. Nice dig.  Doesn't mean shit, though.

3. Out of context, and you know it, Elwood.  To restate my point:  Just as I'd like a cooking correspondent to have some experience slaving away in a kitchen, so do I want political commentators who have, at some time in their lives, devoted themselves to politics -- to an endeavor that pays like shit, has no security, is horrible for your health, but wonderful for your spirit.  If you've never knocked on doors in sub-freezing weather, or trudged after work to a three-hour phone bank, you probably don't know what's in the hearts of people who believe in the process and its ends.  So you shouldn't pretend to be an expert on it.

4. Good point.  This isn't a flawless rule.  I do think, though, that old-school journalists like Broder and Jules Witcover -- who shared the passion of and personal affection for candidates on the campaign trail, if not the advocacy -- do get "it" far more than the Olbermanns and O'Reillys of the world.

5. True, but if I want to know how we should pitch to Teixiera, I'll listen to Remy.  And that's the relevant analogy here.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 20:03:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe 5) is the problem - (4.00 / 1)

If you are talking only about how to "pitch to Teixera" - meaning, what particular VERY TACTICAL move might work short term - your argument holds up better.

But that wasn't what you said.

And by ruling in Broder and Witcover while ruling out Olbermann and Maddow you hint that there is some other dividing line at work.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 20:08:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Odd (4.00 / 1)

Not to pile on Donahue, who I've read only through Blue Hampshire threads, but I read this entire thread thinking it was Jennifer HORN offering partisan analysis. But no, this is supposed to be objective commentary?

Of course, done correctly, partisan analysis can be insightful. :-!

---

by: JimC @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 06:01:11 AM CDT

U forgot teh interwebz (4.00 / 1)

Which is the truly super secret weapon of the GOP.

Side note: I'm not sure why, but Donahue's comment...

Palin gives teeth to being pro-life, having a Downs syndrome child.

Really make me uncomfortable. She makes it seem that the Pro-Choice movement is secretly against children with disabilities or something.

---

by: StevenPlace @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 15:51:40 PM CDT