The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach

Tag: primary

  • Finally, an unvarnished truth from Senator Clinton

    In the Jan 21 debate, on the subject of national security, Senator Clinton said,

    And if it is indeed the classic Republican campaign, I’ve been there. I’ve done that.

    See? She’s confessing that she and Bill really do steal plays from the Karl Rove playbook… she’s “done” a Republican campaign.

    Wait, wait. You say that that’s not what she meant, that “clearly” she was commenting on the kind of campaigns she’s faced, not endorsing those tactics? I don’t know, it sounds a lot like parsing it to have it both ways…

    (Obviously, I hope, I’m trying to draw a comparison to the freak-out that occurred when Sen. Obama noted the historical fact that Ronald Reagan was good at motivating people to vote Republican. Somehow his clear-as-day remark transmogrified into worship at the altar of Reagan. But Clinton’s comment — that her nomination would put us through the same Republican assaults we’ve suffered since, well, 1992 — apparently that’s not worthy of note.)

  • Clinton’s New Hampshire victory: What does it mean?

    Short answer: A whole lot less than the punditocracy would like you to believe.

    Long answer: Oh, my goodness, people. Could we all just stop with the wild oscillations from day to day? No one in their right mind believed the polls showing Obama up by double digits in a single week. Clinton didn’t score a “comeback” because she didn’t go away: She has been strong in NH for the past year. Until a couple of weeks ago, Clinton had a 20 point edge on Obama and yet she won the state by only 2 points. How is that a comeback?

    But what about all those polls showing the “Obama bounce”? They were ludicrous to believe. It takes time for actual views to shift, but polls are sensitive to short-period trends and, especially, news coverage. All of a sudden, after winning Iowoa, Obama was everywhere on the news. Of course his numbers ticked up.

    Did Clinton “save” her candidacy by shedding a tear or by performing well at the debate or by saber-rattling? No, she “saved” it by having a strong organization in a friendly state. For five days, her supporters have been yelling at us that no one should count her out — correctly. But after castigating everyone for misinterpreting Iowa, they are exultantly misinterpreting New Hampshire. Excluding the post-Iowa media insanity, things turned out about as would be expected — indeed, I think Obama did better than anyone would have said just four weeks ago. (I mourn that my guy Edwards did not stage the upset that would truly have been an upset.)

    Anyone with technical experience knows you don’t trust the gauge until it’s had time to settle down. Trying to spin Obama’s bounce into a steamroller mandate was silly. Trying to spin Clinton’s just-barely-held victory in a state she’d expected to win handily into a comeback of epic proportions… well, that’s just mendacious.

  • The Impact of Tears

    OK, so today during a campaign stop Hilary Clinton apparently teared up and allowed emotion into her voice. (See here for more if you need to.) And then John Edwards replied , “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business”. Now the blogosphere is abuzz with how unfair this has been to Senator Clinton and how if anyone else shows emotion, it’s depth but for her, it’s a breakdown and why is Edwards so mean? and…

    Personally, I don’t think Clinton’s teary moment is a big deal. It’s been a long campaign, it hasn’t gone her way lately, and, win or lose, this is the capstone of her career. I think it’s entirely forgivable if she has a vulnerable moment and allows some of that to leak through. Here’s what I don’t get: Edwards has been campaigning just as long and just as hard. It’s pretty much the last act of his career, too. He’s seen Hilary crowned as the inevitable candidate and Barack as the “change” candidate, while the national press has ignored his message and focused on his haircut. Why isn’t it conceivable that his comment also reflects exhaustion and snappishness rather than a deep flaw?

    I admit, I’m an Edwards supporter. But the reaction coverage seems genuinely out of line here. She was weak for a moment and let slip some tears. He was weak for a moment and snarked her. It’s passed, now, people.