Shame on who?

this piece of theater (0.00 / 0)

Can't get the link to work. Brightcove being fickle.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 20:12:10 PM CST

Updated the the link (0.00 / 0)

should work now...

Another on Huff Po is calling it her Zidane Moment A soccer reference I was not familiar with.

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 20:24:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A great moment in soccer history (0.00 / 0)

Where do we go from here?

---

by: Gavin @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:53:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The link in your end note doesn't work. (0.00 / 0)

But counting Hillary out before Texas is a mistake.  Particularly because if she manages to squeak out a win there, the tv news people will soil themselves about how she's come back from the politically dead a second time.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 20:12:19 PM CST

Hillary Clinton: (4.00 / 3)

using tactics that are right of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged.

Yes, Senator Clinton, I wasn't exactly outraged - I'd say more depressed:

The Rove Legacy

...Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, seems to agree with that assessment, having effectively vowed to run her operation much as Rove did his two successful national campaigns. "She expresses admiration for the way George W. Bush's campaign team controlled its message, and, given her druthers, would run this race no differently," Michelle Cottle writes this month in New York magazine.

I think the wheels are starting to come off. If near-concession one night, ranting the next, and mocking the following is a strategy, it's new to me.

Plus a new poll in Texas has Obama ahead 57 to 43.

I'm not sure I'd want someone who lost a close and at times bitter contest with the future president as majority leader in charge of pushing through the WH legislative agenda. I know it'd never happen for Dodd, but I think he'd be ideal for that spot both in terms of working with fellow senators of both parties and with a progressive agenda.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 20:17:02 PM CST

Dodd would be good. (0.00 / 0)

Feingold too.  Dodd's more likely than Feingold, though.  Unfortunately, I don't see Harry Reid going anywhere.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 20:20:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good points on Majority Leader... (0.00 / 0)

In the bar as we watched the results come in after the NH primary some of us postulated about HRC as the next Kennedy (e.g. Sen Edward Kennedy). Ran for Pres, becomes permanent fixture in the Senate to anchor a Dem majority.  

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 20:29:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Susan beats the usual drum... (4.00 / 3)

Neither Clinton, nor Obama has given us a plan for Universal Health Care. They've both given us plans for Universal Health Insurance - they're both advocating taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies for those who can't afford to buy insurance.

---

by: susanthe @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 20:42:00 PM CST

You're right. But then I'll repeat my position that it's (0.00 / 0)

not up to the executive to design programs.  If we want a centrally funded health care system, then we have to elect representatives who will enact it into law.  From where I sit, government has four main problems to deal with:

ignorance

injury

illness

insult

Whence these disutilities originate makes no difference.  Dealing with them effectively defines a successful society.
************************************************************

BTW, it might be useful to ask homeowners whether they'd be willing to let their fire insurance agent decide whether the fire in the attic should be put out.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:43:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

k (0.00 / 0)

Farrakhan backs Obama for president at Nation of Islam convention in Chicago

By Margaret Ramirez
Speaking to thousands of members of the Nation of Islam in Chicago at their annual convention, Minister Louis Farrakhan on Sunday praised presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as the only hope for healing America's racial divisions.

Farrakhan spoke about the war in Iraq, the nation's ailing economy and the increase in natural disasters, saying the world was in a perilous state and Obama could help it recover.

"We are witnessing the phenomenal rise of a man of color in a country that has persecuted us because of our color," he said.

"If you look at Barack Obama's [diverse] audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed from what they were," Farrakhan said. "This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be a better place."

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 21:14:44 PM CST

The moment I have been waiting for (0.00 / 0)

Title should have been, but I erred.

Anyways, Farrakhan's endorsement will be a good gauge for who is Rovean and who is not.

We will now get down to brass tacks, my brothers and sisters.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 21:20:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ten foot pole (0.00 / 0)

The Obama campaign shouldn't so much as use Farrakhan's name.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:00:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pray tell n/t (0.00 / 0)

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:28:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You really need me to do this? (0.00 / 0)

Some choice Farrakhan quotes:

Hitler was a very great man.

These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood. It's the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality, [and] Zionists have manipulated Bush and the American government [on the war in Iraq]

White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet

Murder and lying comes easy for white people

When the Jews left, the Palestinian Arabs came, Koreans came, Vietnamese...and we call them bloodsuckers

Had enough yet?

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:54:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Stick and Stones (0.00 / 0)

Look, Doug.

Farrakhan cannot be summed up in 5 quotes. The Nation of Islam is an enigma to many Americans. I personally have no preference for Farrakhan, but I think in a white dominated society that he got short shrifted. There are more putrid leaders of mega-churches, e.g Falwell, that deserve equal, if not more, damnation.

I am interested in group behavior and the "Nation" motif is one that I have had my eye on since I read the Autobiography of Malcolm X, at the age of 12. There is a part of me that despairs over the facets of close mindedness in America. The Nation has been snubbed and I have always found that telling.
____________________________________________________________

Now, let's watch the trademeds to see who parades this around.

The Repugs will bite first, but once the cover is there, this story will grow wings.

I might be wrong.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 23:23:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not talking about the whole Nation of Islam. I'm talking about Louis Farrakhan. (0.00 / 0)

When a person says heinous things like that over and over, it sets a pattern for how they think.  At some point, they have to be held accountable for that.  I'm as anti-Jerry Falwell and anti-Pat Robertson as you are, but Farrakhan is truly an "agent of intolerance", and if you really don't believe that, you're either in denial or not paying attention.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 23:29:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

One more thing. (0.00 / 0)

When a man calls my kind wicked, bloodsuckers, praises the perpetrator of a generally successful genocide against my people, says that I and all others with light skin are unevolved "potential humans" and that murder comes easy to us, don't come back to me with "sticks and stones".  This isn't a playground, and he's not teasing.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 23:39:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Squeeky wheel rhetoric (0.00 / 0)

Fidel Castro, Kim Il Sung, Louis Farrakhan.

Masters of 'squeeky wheel rhetoric.' The grease being news coverage.

Public life isn't mystical. Actually, quite predictable more often then not.

I can't hate on Farrakhan. If he hates me because I'm white, that is sad. I've been hated before for lesser reasons.


www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 00:03:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That horrifyingly nonchalant analysis aside, (0.00 / 0)

Barack Obama is neither hateful enough nor politically stupid enough to associate himself with Louis Farrakhan.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 00:19:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, I was wondering when Farrakhan would speak up. Presumably, if he's got (4.00 / 1)

any smarts, he checked with Obama first, or at least gave him a heads up.

Every once in a while I have to take advantage of the fact that I was not born in this country and was brought here against my will, not just because I was a child and children have no choices, but because I had a parent who up and moved herself and me whenever she encountered something she didn't like.  I mention that because it gives me a somewhat different perspective of my adopted country and some sympathy for other people whose ancestors were deposited here against their will.

As an immigrant who lived in immigrant communities on the west coast and the east, I didn't become aware of segregation until a senior class trip to D.C. when our bus couldn't stop along the way because of the signs that proclaimed no negros would be served.  One of my four classmates bound for college was a black girl and we'd double-dated some Columbia college men, so the signage came as quite a shock.  As seems to be typical when one's innocence is suddenly ripped away, I've been attentive to the American race problem ever since.

Recently it's occurred to me that the reason America can't seem to get over what it actually made an effort to up-root by force is because the fundamental conflict between the commitment to equality and the subordination of some segment or other of the population still hasn't been resolved.  

That's why, for example, we still can't have an equal rights amendment.  The argument that everybody's already equal and there's no need is simply false.  The real reason for the resistance is the conviction that it would be un-natural; that it's a law of nature that some people are better than others.  Which is what accounts for the constant effort to find some group that fits this prejudice.

Most recently, since targeting particular ethic groups for subordination has been declared tabu, there's been an effort to make a distinction on the basis of how long people have been here, along with people who haven't come yet, but might want to (Muslims--we'll fight them there so we won't have to fight them here). Indeed, the radical fundamentalist Muslim terrorists have resonated in the American psyche because, of course, we had those home-grown ones in the sixties.  And the recent proposal to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a clear sign of what Americans are still supposed to be afraid of.

None of this has anything to do with what anyone has actually done.  Rather, for some reason, Americans have this strong need to feel superior and, in order to be superior, somebody's got to be inferior.  But, since this arrangement conflicts with their intellectual commitment to equality, some flaw has to be found in the victims of the subjugation to account for their suppression.  Failing to obey the law (being "illegal") seems sufficient, but is proving really hard to prove.

It's my sense that Obama has the advantage of recognizing that none of this has anything to do with him.  He's quite content to be equal.  If others have a need to be superior, that's their problem.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:41:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Just playing Devil's Advocate (0.00 / 0)

I believe some of those who oppose the ERA do so not because they believe everybody is already equal, but because doing so would mean that those people affected were not already entitled to legal equality.

(and now back to my own viewpoint...)

It was an activist judge who wrote that separate is not equal and ordered that segregated schooling end in this country.  We could use some more of those.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:15:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

More shameless attacks from Clinton camp.... (0.00 / 0)

As if attacking a fellow Dem on straw man issues is not enough, HRC is now attacking Barack because he inspires people and wishes to unify our country.  This is something I would expect from the likes of Mitt Romney.  Perhaps by this weekend, Hillary will refer to Barack as Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Check out this travesty of rally.

---

by: Northwoods @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:39:17 PM CST

Yo, man. (0.00 / 0)

This is in Hoefer's diary.

Tsk, Tsk. Points deducted.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:42:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They'll just call him Hussein Cocaine Obama (4.00 / 1)

My Bad!  I'm afraid I didn't acqueise all the intelligence available before making such a vital decision that will affect so many people...

---

by: Northwoods @ Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:52:58 PM CST

There's a HUGE difference (0.00 / 0)

Clinton attacked Obama from the left on choice. Obama attacked  Clinton on NAFTA from the left.

Well and good. Attacking people from the left, even wen records are distorted, does not confuse people about what the goals of this nation should be.

When Clinton goes after Obama as a middle-class tax hiker that's less than productive.

But the Harry and Louise mailer is in a whole different category. Period.

Not only is Obama attacking Clinton from the hard RIGHT, but he is doing it by ressurecting the same scare tactics that derailed health insurance 15 years ago.

Obama can distort the difference between him and Clinton on NAFTA; Clinton can distort his record on choice: at the end of the day neither has spent hundred of thousands of dollars convincing people that NAFTA is right or choice is wrong.

Obama is mailing around a mailer that implies the government wanting universal coverage is a threat to your family's financial security -- that the government would force people into health care that would bankrupt them.

I'm not sure if that's despicable or just supremely dumb. But breathing life into that golem to win an election does so not just at the expense of Clinton, but at the expense of the progressive movement as a whole. If he continues this, our ability to move ahead ANY type of bold health care reform will be hobbled by the bargain he made to win.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:01:53 AM CST

Like "plagarism" (0.00 / 0)

I would like to narrow my rejection to the imagery on the mailer.

Who says that Obama created a "Harry and Louise" mailer? What? Any picture, in a political ad, of a man and a women sitting at a kitchen table, sifting through bills is, by default, echoing "Harry and Louise?"

Show me other similarities, please.

I dare say that in the loosey goosey world of political punditry that the branding of that mailer was parroted because it escalated the stir around the mailer.

I can fully understand why the Clinton Campaign would go along with this and I can fully understand why the faux news would parrot it.

What confuses me is that you, after weeks of seeing the election unfold, would write this: "he is doing it by ressurecting the same scare tactics that derailed health insurance 15 years ago."

For the sake of this specific arguement, I am not concerned about wether it is appropriate or not to "attack" Clinton from the right. I am not concerned about the merits of your wisedom as an "armchair political strategist."

Please demonstrate, by analysis, how Obama's mailer was intentionally formulated to tap into America's subconscience by specifically echoing the "fear mongering" device that was the "Harry and Louise" commercial.

Mike, I love a juicy chunk of "truthiness" as much as the next blogger, but I ain't buying your shineola.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:40:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As long as you understand that the imagery (4.00 / 1)

Is not my substantive point. Not by a long shot.

The criticism of the "Harry and Louise" campaign of Obama actually goes back to a radio ad Obama ran in Iowa, which said basically the same thing as the more recent mailer.

The ad was branded "Harry and Louise" because of its approach -- two people talking about how the government was going to force them into health care despite the fact it would destroy their happy status quo.

So here we have the rhetorical pickle, even with the ad -- Obama says he wants no mandates because the public support is not there -- then he runs ads to scare the crap out of people about mandates.

Now, some time later (not last week, but after Iowa) after his radio ad he does this mailer. Knowing the route has been dubbed Harry and Louise already. And so the visual imagery is odd -- I can't think of why on earth he would do it.

One reason, I imagine, is because it's just a time tested image. Another might be that by precisely mimicking it it creates the straw man that you are arguing here -- that I am calling this Harry and Louise because it is an obvious attempt of the designer to visually echo it.

But that's the straw man. That's the little joke that the designers were having. It's the insult, not the injury.

The substantive point is this -- If you really believe that universal health care (eventually) is a core progressive value, then the Harry and Louise campaign is the equivalent of Hillary running an ad that says Obama's too-quick withdrawal plan will result in the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers.

Meaning a) it's a lie, b) it's fear driven, c) it's telegraphing to Democrats that the Republican talking points they hear have validity.

That's how Obama can win, but I'm not sure that's how we win.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:49:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

(eventually) (4.00 / 1)

Tone deaf is what Obama is not.

His plan is scheduled to come on line before 2012. It is also promoted at a cost, significantly less then the Clinton Plan. $30-50 Billion less, if October 2007 dollars still apply.
I would be as concerned who the Majority Leader is when this legislation comes up. I doubt Obama will stop an "over reaching" Congress.

On the mailer:
Having seen the NH campaign work, that mailer was "in the bag" conceptually along with the radio spot. So, I doubt they went with it after the branding. Putting it in the mail after the radio ad,yes; but the mailer was most likely 'in motion' before it picked up the "Harry and Louise" tag.

I'll concede that the designers may have opted for the echo in an attempt to pander to the first runs intended demographic. Hmmmmm.

Now I'm an "armchair pop psychologist." Hey! This is fun.

 

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:48:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Harry and Louise (0.00 / 0)

When I watch this, the ad seems geared more towards "choice of provider by mandate" then anything else. I think it is safe to say that most Americans are a bit spoiled and relate their freedom to the ability to choose.


www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:20:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Attacking Hillary on NAFTA is only fair. (0.00 / 0)

If she's going to run on the accomplishments of her husband's administration, she can't pick and choose which ones to be associated with.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

Hillary should not be criticized for NAFTA because it occurred during her husband's administration.  She should be criticized because she repeatedly made statements expressing support for it throughout the '90s.  Big difference.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 16:06:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BECAUSE she's running on the accomplishments of her husband's administration, she should be held accountable for it. (0.00 / 0)

Obviously, her vocal support matters just as much.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 17:58:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good points Mike (0.00 / 0)

(I don't like my odds in a fight with a cognitive linguist!)

I will say that I don't necessarily agree Hillary attacked on choice from the "left".  It's not like she was trying to get him to support family planning in Africa, or a taking him to task for some parental notification law. It was a political stunt to grab his soft support.


Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 18:40:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama is NOT (0.00 / 0)

attacking Clinton from the hard right as you suggest. Clinton's latest "outrage" is his bringing up her earlier support of NAFTA. Her flyer over choice was pure distortion of procedural votes. It wasn't attacking him from the "left" as you write.

Mandates to BUY commercial health insurance are failing in Massachusetts as I write this. This policy was passed when Romney was governor.

I agree with SusanB and others on here that the best solution is universal single payer, but we may have missed that bus because we didn't implement it back in the 40s when the Brits did. Germany has mandated insurance coverage, but the company that everyone uses is very regulated. The costs and benefits are highly controlled, which ours aren't thanks to insistence that health insurance and health care are and should remain commercial enterprises.

When Hillary Clinton tried to "reform" health care back in the 90s she failed, and failed miserably. And it wasn't all due to Harry and Louise. It was her tactics and her policies that favored the HMO system we're all stuck with today.  

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:26:06 AM CST

Legends, Rumors and Innuendo (0.00 / 0)

The scuttle butt that I have heard, before this election cycle, was that Hillary tried to do her healthcare policy, like Cheney did his energy policy; behind closed doors.

How many times do I have to say "Daniel Patrick Moynihan?"

Snub not, lest ye be snubbed. We don't say that in my 'hood.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:46:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Underlying problem. (0.00 / 0)

The underlying problem is the assumption that humans are naturally anti-social and have to be forced or bribed to be co-operative.  Consequently, any social benefit has to be conditioned on some behavioral modification.  That's why Hillary Clinton refers to health care as something that is deserved.  In other words, people aren't entitled to be made well, they have to earn it.

Soon Americans are going to have to decide whether they want to be prosperous or superior.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:53:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hill Shrill (0.00 / 0)

Hillary is sounding a bit desperate to me.  Her voice (in the few sound bites I hear now) is getting shrill.  Not presidential at all.  More like someone who thought she was entitled to something and is being denied.  She should stick to the BH rule of attack the message, not the messenger.  

Every news clip I see of her (again, not many but...) there are new posters with new slogans in the background.  She's changing themes as if they were dirty diapers.  To me, it makes her look as if she is just trying too hard to please everyone and isn't being true to herself.

Meanwhile, Obama's YES WE CAN just seems to rise above it all.  

I heard a piece on NPR (I was in the car a lot this weekend) that featured a researcher on presidential voices.  Hillary is getting dangerously close to sounding like a nagging spouse.  If can find the link, I'll add the link.

Paula M. DiNardo
Dover NH

A Blue Hampster since 2007!

---

by: pdinardo @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:11:21 AM CST

let's avoid that stuff, please (0.00 / 0)

We all know what gender of spouse "nags." Let's work a little harder at avoiding sexist rhetoric. There is plenty to criticize Senator Clinton for, without resorting to that.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:55:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

On the news. (0.00 / 0)

On the early morning news reports which I just hear from upstairs, the Senator sounded just plain rude.

Never mind that someone whose decision has resulted in over a million Iraqi dead really has a nerve trying to shame someone whose literature she doesn't like.

She really seems to have fallen into the Republican habit of equating the intent for the act.  Just think, it was because Saddam Hussein "intended" to have a weapon of mass destruction that it was considered logical to conclude that he as good as had one and move in to take him out!

---

by: hannah @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:31:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Voice (0.00 / 0)

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

The NPR story actually equated Hillary's voice with your nagging mother, not spouse.  Apologies.

I found the clip of her making fun of Obama to be distasteful and unbecoming, and certainly not the class act I used to think she was.

Paula M. DiNardo
Dover NH

A Blue Hampster since 2007!

---

by: pdinardo @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 15:17:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

voices and perceptions (4.00 / 2)

It's true that many voters want to figure out whose voice they can stand to hear for the next 4-8 years. Even if they don't have the brains or the desire to puzzle through the issues, they care about sounds and images. And they will choose their candidates accordingly/

So if Hillary comes across sounding like your Mom telling you to take out the recycling, and then hovering over you to tell you why as you are doing it, that is definitely an issue her campaign should be working on. Similarly, Obama has to watch the preacherly cadences, as they will subliminally define him as the "black" candidate, and no one can afford to spot his opponent 2-3 points in a closely contested election; and McCain has to watch out that he doesn't come across as a psycho Wilford Brimley yelling for kids to get off his yard or he'll bomb their houses.

These are all issues that the campaigns are very definitely working on. They can't afford not to. But that should be left to the professionals, whose job it is to get these folks elected.  We should not get caught up in those conversations ourselves, because they are not about us--they are about "low-information" voters-- and they are not what we should want to talk about.

Personally, I don't care what Hillary's voice sounds like. I care if she or Obama can deliver a progressive agenda.

---

by: michael57 @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 18:22:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]