Jun 10, 20080

REDSTATE ROUNDTABLE #12: Is It Time To Bring Back Temperamental Conservatism?

Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dan McLaughlin: One of the criticisms being made against the various permutations of a new GOP agenda being circulated these days is that they are too small-bore, too modest and detail-oriented to compete with the broad “Hope and Change” themes of Barack Obama’s campaign. (See Patrick Ruffini’s critique).

At the same time, there’s a school of thought that says that George W. Bush has run into troubles in his presidency precisely when he was too ambitious, whether in his promotion of democracy in Iraq or his unsuccessful attempts to get Congress and the public behind sweeping reforms of Social Security and immigration policy, macro-initiatives that died a death by a thousand cuts from opponents on all sides. Critics have charged that the GOP under Gingrich and under Bush has abandoned Burkean modesty and incrementalism and bought into the rhetoric of revolution, which it then predictably fails to deliver for many of the same reasons why the Democrats have failed over the years to sell things like radical health care reform and gays in the military.

With Republicans likely to be playing defense on domestic policy over the next few years, I’ve been wondering if maybe it’s time, for tactical reasons, to give more weight to what I think of as temperamental conservatism over ideological conservatism - to argue at every turn for smaller, more modest reforms as opposed to sweeping plans to junk the tax code, abolish Cabinet-level departments, etc. On health care, for example, there remains a lot of public desire for change, but huge apprehension about radical change - and we may well be best situated to oppose a massive plan by Obama if we are offering more modest alternatives.

So, I open the floor: should the GOP agenda seek to reclaim the initiative of broad, bold, visionary, “choice not an echo” change of the Goldwater/Reagan/Gingrich variety? Or should we be positioning our party more as the party of sober adult leadership that knows the limitations of our system?

Thomas Crown: How’d that work out for the Party between 1932 and 1980?

Thomas Crown: Let me add something to that:

Much of the answer to your question depends on your goal and your perception. If your desire is to make a run at winning, and if you believe that there’s a potential majority constituency that will vote for conservative governance, then you play long ball. You risk a blowout in either direction — Goldwater ‘64, Reagan ‘80 — so that you have the chance to govern. If you believe that there’s no potential majority constituency for conservative governance (but you believe there’s a strong minority in favor of it, or at least of its leavening effects), then there is no chance to win unless you change your message to what the majority wants. You’re then either stuck with trying to win for winning’s sake (divorcing the GOP from conservatism), or running to hold a strong minority position, but never having the reins of power.

I’m simplifying interesting things like GOTV, donor response, etc., but I’m doing this during part of my nominal lunch break, so there.

The problem with that second state — you assume that there’s no majority market for conservative governance among real, actual voters who actually vote, and don’t just say they will — is that you’re not really going to win either way. I think the Democrats are full of horse-poo on most issues, but they internalized Goldwater’s dictum pretty well, with an unspoken a priori assumption: [If voters want a Democrat for office and] if you give them a watered-down Republican, they will go with the real Republican every time, because they believe that the Republican is at least being straight with them. Or something. Now, of course, if they want a Republican, you’re only going to beat the Republican if you’re prepared to be the Republican he’s not.

I would posit that this is why the GOP got its rear end handed to it in 2006: It’s not about stem cells (an issue that divided the caucus) or spending (something the Democrats do much of, too) or Iraq, or immigration, or any particular issue: It’s because the Democrats went into Republican-leaning districts and found Democrats who sounded, and presumably would act, like Republicans, while Republicans were perceived as not acting like Republicans. But that was a win at the margins. They haven’t won by being lefties across the board, they’ve won by supplementing lefties with a lot of nominal righties. There’s a reason why Kitten is running as a transcendant figure, rather than the anodyne liberal he is: Nationally, the majority market for liberalism still isn’t there. Which in turn means that, for all of the tearful navel-gazing in which the Right has been involved these last two years, the Democrats haven’t won and indeed probably won’t, at least in the only national referendum we have.

And if they don’t win that, as they well realize, they don’t win. We don’t either, but unless they can get past a veto, they’re stuck.

By contrast, the alternative outcome is the Republican situation from 1932 to 1980. Two, count them, two Congresses. Sixteen years of Republican governance at the Presidential level, eight of which were marred by one of the most bizarre, and damaging constitutional events in our history. A casual presumption that the Democrats were the ruling party. The ingrained belief that government was there to solve problems at every level. The New Deal. The Great Society. Irreparable damage to the Federal system, and a judiciary it took two and a half decades to (mostly) clean up. And Republicans ran as mild Democrats to get there. I’m not remotely clear that the loyal opposition either opposed anything, or even slowed anything down.

If the GOP exists merely to advance the GOP, regardless of ideology, the best tack to take is to find what the Democrats are selling, and sell it better. If it exists for some other reason, we do it no service by being Democrats-lite.

Ben Domenech: I think it depends greatly on the definition. If “temperamental conservatism” means Gov. Jindal, then I think it absolutely has a future. But Jindal still packaged his adult leadership, responsible reform message in a way that reached across typical political lines without sacrificing its true conservatism. As the NYTimes points out, this is a reformer who has gone from ethics and governmental reform to anti-stem cell research, pro-voucher, pro-tax cut policies - while hardly a group of issues that avoid headlines, this isn’t revolutionary new ground for conservatism.

The packaging and the product has to correspond, and it has to have an appeal that is far beyond Washington’s normal detail-focus. I think that the long lists of policy proposals designed to satisfy every interest group always lose to a form of political leadership that is simple, appealing, easy to understand, and has a message that cuts across lines of race and class. It comes down to: here are a few ideas. Here is why they will work, and why our opponents’ ideas will not. I tend to think it’s not the necessary “boldness” of these ideas that matter, as much as finding the ones that cut across the widest range of the population. Which is why I laugh a little bit, despite Ruffini’s cogent analysis, that the first issue on his list is earmark reform. Ah, yes, that’s what’s holding us back.

I think the answer to your question may be as simple as this: these days, it’s bold to be an adult.

Thomas Crown: I don’t think we’re disagreeing; perhaps I misunderstood Dan’s question (and if so, I apologize). I understood the question to be whether we should continue, however presented, with swinging for the fences, or whether, to botch the metaphor beyond all reason, we should try to hold the Democrats to a base at a time.

Dan McLaughlin: What I am not suggesting we consider is let’s-propose-a-small-new-entitlement-instead-of-a-big-one thinking. That way definitely leads to Bob Michelsville. What I am suggesting is more in the nature of choosing increments of progress rather than constantly going for the moon… let’s take some examples.

HEALTH CARE: Big proposals: Health savings accounts for all. Eliminate preferential tax treatment for employer-provided care. Radical overhaul of Medicare.

Small proposals: allow insurance to be purchased across state lines.

TAXES: Scrap the tax code, kill the IRS. Abolish corporate taxes.

Small proposals: Create an alternative optional simplified tax system.

Down the line, there are more modest ways to get a foothold for conservative ideas. They may be the way to go right now.

Pejman Yousefzadeh: Part of what makes it difficult to answer this question is the fact that a return to moderate, temperate conservatism of the Burkean variety does indeed involve bold and radical change.

It is difficult–if not impossible–to overstate the effect of the advent of the welfare state and the New Deal coalition. Not only did it bring about a massive increase in the size and scope of government, but it also created expectations for a continued increase in government. I have said it before and will say it again: Much of the appeal of Big Government is the fact that a call for governmental “solutions” constitute a Pavlovian response to a whole host of public policy problems. Is crime rampant? Take guns off the streets! Is there a health care crisis? Make the government give us health care! Is there an education crisis? Spend more money! You actually have to think to get to the small-government/free market solution to these problems but you can just press a button and emit a big government answer with no cogitation whatsoever. The appeal of that is enormous.

The same thing, by the way, applies when it comes to originalist jurisprudence and fights against judicial activism. Originalists denounce judicial activism but are themselves called activists for their desire to see a whole host of “living Constitution” decisions reversed. The originalist response gets lost in the noise; if you are going to return the country to a state where originalism is respected, you are going to have to reverse some decisions. Scalia, of course, tries to avoid this fight–though he gets dragged into it–by leaving a lot of precedent alone. But Thomas gets slammed for his willingness to hold nothing sacred.

Bear in mind as well that the politics of “doing something” go over a lot better with the public than the politics of being the next Calvin Coolidge. That, plus the need to take some actual action to return the country to a Burkean state means that in order to be a Burkean, one must be broad, bold and visionary.

Dan McLaughlin: That last sentence, Pejman, has been at the core of conservative disappointment for the last 27 years. I’m not saying we should surrender the idea of dismantling a lot of the Big Government machinery root and branch, but it is extremely hard work politically and ends up leading us into a lot of losing battles.

The Social Security fight continues to weigh heavily on my mind. I still think it was the right thing to do, and was just abysmally mishandled by the White House in general and the communications shop in particular. But I also recognize that a lot of the electorate just wasn’t prepared for anything that sounded like radical change to Social Security - and if we want real change, we need to be moving in a long series of increments that will build the functional constituency for each successive step.

Pejman Yousefzadeh: Interestingly enough, I think that a lot of the agenda that you laid out in your previous e-mail coincides very nicely with my belief that in order to be a Burkean and to return the country to a Burkean state, one must be broad, bold and visionary. So I think we agree more than we disagree.

As for the Social Security fight, that should not have been undertaken without a crack at tax reform coming first. That would have been an easier–or at least, more electorally appealing–fight and it would have had more of a chance of building up the appearance of greater political capital at the end of it.

Kevin Holtsberry: I fervently believe that a philosophical commitment to small government is a minority position in this country. Conservatives succeed when they convince voters that Big Government hurts them through higher taxes, wasted money, corruption, substandard service, less choice, etc. It is about effectiveness not ideology. Liberal Democrats have succeeded in convincing far too many Americans that they can get government to solve huge problems while Republicans have raised significant doubts about whether they can be trusted in the areas of competence and integrity.

I think one effective way to stop or slow some of these grandiose liberal plans is to remind people just how incompetent government can be. We need to keep pointing out that these programs always cost more, do less, and have nasty unintended consequences. This makes us the party of realism and of prudence. Universal health care may be well intentioned but it is the height of naivete to believe we can simply mandate it without serious problems.

In this vein, it is easy to imagine smaller proposals as a part of this recognition of the limits of government.

Thomas Crown: We have to convince people that incrementalism works, first. I’m not remotely convinced they know it or believe it. You can blame the social conservatives for a lot, but a lack of voter education is not one of them. By contrast, small government and fiscal conservatives have simply presumed, despite all evidence to the contrary, that everyone basically agrees with them, and that there’s no need to teach.

What that leaves us is a polity that believes in big, robust solutions to problems of any kind, and that if we effect a half-measure today, we’ll just have to go all the way later, so why not just speed things up? The enormous, disproportionate cost of these huge responses, and the human misery and cost that we have to endure before, during, and after we fix them, is lost on most. Hence the demand for universal health care (”But it’ll be different from Canada and Britain!”)

The massive, soul-deadening effects of the welfare State, for example, were largely not seen as connected to welfare except at a gut level that most folks won’t voice for fear of being called racist; and any attempt to solve the former by fixing the latter ran into enormous opposition that took thirty years, millions of lives, and God alone knows how much money to overcome. And that’s about the only successful education effort on government largesse I can think of, made possible in large part by middle class reactions to inner city crime, some (good) stinginess, and decades of work by the conservative movement. The lessons from that have not precisely made it into the population at large.

Robert A. Hahn: We can implement a small-government agenda and appeal to the “expectations for government solutions” segment at the same time. We do it by stealing an idea from Bill Clinton, and taking advantage of the fact that the “problems” people want solutions for are always changing.

Bill Clinton had a new government program every week. But they were nits. He’d learned his lesson about big, sweeping reforms with GaysInTheMilitary and LetMyWifeReformHealthCare. He replaced those with symbolism over substance. “Put 100,000 cops on the street.” Sounds good, costs little. And it expired in two years, leaving the cities with the problem of keeping the salaries funded after that. Clinton had lots of programs that were funded to the tune of five or ten million over ten years. “Clinton to spend $10 million on smiles for children.” “Clinton to spend $5 million on happiness for the handicapped.” It was a headline-a-day, on the cheap.

We could do that, while quietly making other things go away. Our problem has been a one-way “cut government” approach. We want to kill Barney and Big Bird. We never have a $5-million-over-5-years program to talk about at the same time. This allows the media to crucify us as a bunch of Meanies. Instead we could be buying 100,000 ballpoint pens for The Chill’run.

Dan McLaughlin: One of the criticisms being made against the various permutations of a new GOP agenda being circulated these days is that they are too small-bore, too modest and detail-oriented to compete with the broad "Hope and Change" themes of Barack Obama's campaign. (See Patrick Ruffini's critique). At the same time, there's a school of thought that says that George W. Bush has run ... Read More

Jun 8, 20080

How to talk to non-supporters about Obama

Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This post is for people planning to volunteer for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign this summer and fall. My goal is to help you be more effective in communicating with voters like me, who don’t care for Obama.

I know that the Obama campaign has scripts and training sessions for its volunteers, and those worked well in the primaries.

Now you have to reach out to Democrats who weren’t buying what Obama was selling in the primaries. It seems to me that many Obama supporters respond in a counter-productive way when they encounter people who are not sold on the candidate.

In this diary, I will offer two basic principles to guide your conversations with non-supporters.

Then I will cover types of comments you may hear from resistant Democrats when you are doing GOTV for Obama. Those are all based on things I have heard people say (not comments I have read on blogs).

I will give examples of what I consider ineffective and constructive responses to those comments.

Follow me after the jump if you care to hear more.

I am not an expert in political communication. However, as a precinct captain for John Kerry in 2003/2004 and for John Edwards in 2007/2008, I talked with hundreds of Democrats in my precinct and around the Des Moines area.

Because of certain features of the Iowa caucus system, it was important for me to remain on good terms with non-supporters, who might be able to help me win my precinct. So I feel my perspective may be useful for Obama volunteers.

Before I get into specific dialogs you may have with non-supporters, I encourage you to embrace two “big picture” principles related to GOTV for the general election.

First: Try to “respect, empower and include” the Democrats who will not be excited about Obama.

To do this, it helps to be a good listener and have some empathy for their point of view, even if you strongly dislike the candidate they preferred. The candidate they supported lost, and now they have to come to terms with that and vote for the man who derailed their dream. Don’t rub it in their faces.

Second: Remember that voter contacts are not about winning an argument. They are about finding ways to get on the same side as the person you are talking to.

If you talk to someone who seems to have a totally irrational dislike for Obama, take a deep breath and remember that your guy won the nomination.

Repeat after me: your guy won the nomination.

You do not need to prove this person wrong. You have nothing to gain from attacking this person’s first choice. Obama needs this person’s support in the general election, and you are Obama’s ambassador.

So resist the temptation to say that Hillary ran a disgraceful, dishonest, race-baiting campaign, or that Edwards is a phony loser.

You will find these conversations easier if you can change the subject from something you disagree about (e.g. Obama’s qualifications or skills) to something you agree on (e.g. how frightening it would be to have more conservatives on the Supreme Court).

As I mentioned above, some Obama supporters tend to respond to critics in a counter-productive way. Here are a couple of real-life examples.

A few months ago I ago I had some e-mail correspondence with an Obama fan who was perplexed by my dislike of his candidate. I sent him a message listing a bunch of things that bug me about Obama and his campaign strategy. Here is part of the reply I got in return:

I actually feel bad for you, I really do, and I do NOT mean to be even the least bit demeaning, or snooty (no matter how it may sound — I really don’t ).

Because I think you are missing out on a unique time in US political history.  Seriously.  Obama is a candidate who, no, is hardly perfect, but has (1) inspired millions of young people, minorities, Indies, etc. to be involved in the political process, when they were not before; (2) been an incredibly inspirational figure and has generated excitement and hope among millions more; and (3) is our best chance in decades — yes, literally decades — to win, and to possibly even win big, and form a working majority for progressive change so issues like health care, energy dependence, ethics reform, etc., etc. will finally be addressed.  For those reasons, he’s very special, a once-in-a-generation candidate.  It’s too bad you are missing out, and not seeing what so many, many, many others are seeing.

Saying you feel sorry for someone because she (unlike millions of more insightful people) cannot recognize Obama’s fantabulous awesomeness is not a good outreach strategy.

I spent a week in the hospital in February, and a close family friend who is a doctor called regularly to check on my progress. It drives this guy crazy that I do not like Obama, even though I’ve assured him that I would vote for Obama in the general. Every time he called me when I was in the hospital, he ended up changing the subject to Obama. Didn’t I understand that Obama is the most gifted politician of our lifetimes? One day he even called back later to apologize.

Once people tell you they will vote for Obama, stop trying to convert them into true believers. Just thank them for their support and let them know how important every vote will be this fall.

Also, be aware that bashing the other candidates is a big turn-off even for some people who voted for Obama and prefer him to Clinton.

Now, I’ve tried to come up with comments you may hear from voters who don’t like Obama, along with some ways you can get on the same side as these voters.

“He’s so inexperienced”; “He doesn’t seem very qualified”; “I wanted to see a woman president”; “Couldn’t he have waited another few years? He’s barely done anything in the Senate yet.”

Get ready to hear this from older voters, especially women over 50 who backed Hillary. If they have worked outside the home, they have seen this movie before: the younger, charismatic man gets the job (or the promotion, or the account), while the older, more qualified woman gets passed over.

These people are just as disappointed by the way things turned out as you would be if the superdelegates had handed the nomination to Clinton after Obama earned it. They liked Bill, they like Hillary, and they thought she would do a great job. They are frustrated that millions of voters picked the hot shot over the smart, hard-working woman. In their minds, Hillary deserved the nomination, but voters picked someone less prepared for the job.

To add insult to injury, many of them now believe that they will not live to see a woman president.

Ineffective responses to these voters: telling them that Hillary isn’t more qualified than Obama, that it would be disastrous to have the Clintons back in the White House, that Hillary’s sense of entitlement is offensive, or that Hillary deserved to lose after running a sleazy, racist, deceitful campaign.

More inclusive and respectful responses:

I understand where you’re coming from–I know I would have been really disappointed if my candidate had lost the primaries. I hope we can count on your vote, because we can’t afford to have any more Republican judges on the Supreme Court.

You know, I’ve been on board with Obama for a long time, but my [mother/neighbor/cousin/colleague] was a huge Hillary supporter. I have a lot of respect for some things she has done in the Senate, and I think she has great work ahead of her after we beat the Republicans this fall.

The first example changes the subject from whether Obama deserved to beat Hillary to something you and this voter can agree on: it would be disastrous to let John McCain appoint Supreme Court judges.

The second example validates this voter’s feelings about Hillary and reminds her that Hillary’s work is not done, even though her presidential aspirations will never be fulfilled.

If you can’t truthfully say that you respect anything Hillary has done in the Senate, I recommend that you read markw’s diary on “Four Reasons I Support Hillary.” A friend of mine who was once a confirmed Hillary-hater changed her views after she learned about Hillary’s work on behalf of children with autism and other special needs.

If you are a woman, you might borrow some ideas from this excellent diary by noweasels. I have reworked the last couple of paragraphs of her diary:

Although Clinton wasn’t my first choice, I hope she knows that a lot of women in my generation were glad to see her run. It made me feel empowered to see that a woman had a real chance of winning the presidency.

That approach validates this voter’s feelings and reminds her that Clinton achieved something by running, even though she didn’t win.

I guarantee it will get you further than saying you’re sick and tired of feminists telling women they should have voted for Hillary.

“I’m worried he’s just too green for the job”; “I wanted someone who wouldn’t need on-the-job training”; “I don’t need a rock star for a president.”

People who preferred one of the second-tier candidates may feel that Obama didn’t deserve to win the nomination. They are frustrated that the media shut out their candidate and reduced the campaign to a two-person celebrity competition. These are the Democrats who laughed when I used to joke that those “HOPE” yard signs with the sunrise “O” logo should have said “HYPE.”

Ineffective response to this kind of voter: saying that Obama is a “once-in-a-lifetime candidate,” who was simply more compelling, exciting, or inspirational than Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson.

Instead, I recommend acknowledging that many people share their doubts:

Well, I like Obama a lot. I know a lot of Democrats [don’t think he’s ready/wanted someone else], but I think if we get him elected, he’s going to surprise a lot of people.

I have a lot of respect for [Biden/Richardson] and would love to see Obama pick him for VP or Secretary of State.

Chris Dodd would be a great Senate majority leader.

Yeah, I know a lot of people feel he ran too soon. He’s got a lot of experienced people around him, though. I think he is smart enough to know where to look for the expertise he doesn’t have.

These comments show empathy and remind voters that their preferred candidate still has a political future under a President Obama.

Another response that might help you connect with this kind of Democrat:

Obama was my first choice, but I think we had a really strong field. [Or: Obama wasn’t my first choice either–we had a really strong field.] I saw some of the debates, and I always felt like everyone on the stage could do a decent job as president, especially compared to the losers on the Republican side.

Now you have changed the subject from whether Obama was the best candidate to something you agree on (the Republican alternatives were horrible).

“What has he ever done besides talk?”; “He’s really good at saying nothing and getting people all charged up about it”; “I know he can deliver a speech, but what’s he actually going to do if he gets in there?”

This may mystify you, but some people who hear Obama speak walk away unimpressed. That would include my friend who was undecided between Obama and Edwards until Tom Harkin’s steak fry in September, which convinced her that Obama had no idea what needs to be done. Or my friend whose reaction to Obama’s “Yes we can” speech (the night of the New Hampshire primary) was, “He said absolutely nothing.”

When I was in the hospital, I had CNN on a lot, which led to some political conversations with the nursing staff. One nurse’s aide said she’d like to know when Obama is ever going to do something besides give speeches.

Ineffective response: remind this person that millions of Americans find Obama’s speeches very inspiring, so inspiring that they have gotten involved in politics for the first time in their lives.

That will work about as well as telling people they should go out and buy every record that tops the charts, or that the Oscar for best picture should go to the movie with the biggest box office. They know Obama has this effect on people, but they listen to him and they just don’t get it.

I couldn’t agree more with a point kid oakland made in a diary a few months ago:

In my view that is a crucial question that every candidate for elected office must be able to answer in clear, simple declarative sentences: what will the voters get when they vote for you?

My honest assessment is that Senator Obama has gone as far as he can with the imagery and demographics associated with his campaign: youthful voters lined up around the block to demand change and express hope.

It’s time to add another approach. Barack Obama needs to practice retail politics. He needs to understand that some of his weakest demographics are those where a message of change will not resonate, will not win votes.

During the last month or so, Obama has been talking a little more about policies in his speeches. Still, his volunteers need to be able to tell skeptical voters what “change we can believe in” means. Be prepared to hand out some position papers or at least talk about some specific policies he would enact:

The media tend to be pretty superficial, but he has done a lot you probably haven’t heard about. Did you know that he has worked on laws to protect children from lead poisoning?

One thing that impressed me was his [energy/education/tax reform] plan. (Then talk about why you support Obama’s specific plans in that area.)

I also thought that newyorknewyork had a great suggestion in a recent diary about phonebanking for Obama:

You can use this with ANY issue that comes up:

Let’s face it, Obama and Clinton’s policies are 95% identical.  So `who has the best policy’ is not really that important.  It’s who is most likely to be able to IMPLEMENT that policy that really matters.

Then you can explain why you think Obama’s approach will help him implement the policies that are pretty much the same as what Hillary was offering.

“Oh yeah, let’s all be friends and play nice with the Republicans–that is really going to work”; “He is going to get eaten alive.”

Obama’s post-partisan rhetoric drives some Democrats crazy. They think that if he’s sincere, he must be incredibly naive to imagine that he can get everyone to coalesce around some kind of common-sense, unity agenda. These are the Democrats who laughed when Hillary mocked Obama’s rhetoric during a rally in Rhode Island. They thought she was using humor to make a valid point.

Many of these people are offended that Obama implies both parties are equally to blame for our political problems. What rock was he living under during the 1990s, when the Republicans played dirty, never sought compromise in good faith and even abused the impeachment process?

Some of Obama’s rhetoric suggests that he thinks reaching out to Republicans is more important than fighting to enact Democratic priorities. That makes some Democrats wary, and it didn’t help that Obama has avoided the spolight during some of the key Senate battles of the past year (such as over Iraq supplemental funding bills and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

Ineffective response: Tell these people that both parties are to blame, no party has a monopoly on good ideas, and/or we’re in a political rut because too many people are cynical.

If you look too young to have been politically active during the 1990s, I would particularly caution against suggesting that hyper-partisan Democrats are just as bad as hyper-partisan Republicans.

You would do better to remind these voters that Obama has been a team player for our side:

Yeah, I’ve heard some people call him Republican-lite, but I just don’t see it. He worked his butt off campaigning for Democrats all over the country two years ago. (If Obama campaigned for any Democrats in your state or region in 2006, be sure to bring that up.)

I get what you’re saying. One thing I do know is that if the Democrats can get some good stuff through Congress, Obama isn’t going to veto it like McSame-as-Bush would.

Well, even if Obama isn’t as liberal as I would like sometimes, I know he would appoint good judges, which is more than I can say for McCain.

It never hurts to remind fire-breathing Democrats that the Supreme Court hangs in the balance right now.

“Screw him. He talks about hope and then turns around and calls the Clintons racists.”

As angry as you may be about Hillary’s campaign tactics, many of her supporters are just as angry at Obama. The way they see it, the Obama campaign set out to brand the Clintons as racists in order to get a political edge among blacks and white liberals. Meanwhile, the media gave Obama a pass on his supporters’ comments that denigrated Hillary, sometimes in sexist terms.

Ineffective response: Taking the bait and telling this person why the racial polarization is all the Clintons’ fault, or nitpicking to say that Obama himself never directly called Hillary a racist.

Don’t waste time arguing with these people. They’ve been watching the same campaign that you have. You will never convince them that Hillary is “deeply, grievously, morally wrong.” I would try something like this:

It’s too bad that our primaries got bogged down in [identity politics/finger-pointing about racism]. I liked it better when they were [hashing out the issues/fighting about their health care plans]. I know it was divisive, but I think Democrats will be able to come together now. At least I hope so, because I don’t want another four years of McSame-as-Bush.

Now you have put yourself on the same side as this voter: you regret the racial polarization that accompanied our primaries.

You may wonder why you should validate the concerns of people who weren’t offended by Hillary’s campaign. Please remember that Obama can’t win the general without the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters voting for him. It doesn’t help your candidate to ascribe the worst possible motives to people who backed Hillary in the primaries. Don’t take my word for it: kid oakland has also made the case for respecting the reasons some people preferred Hillary.

On a related note, if you talk to someone in the LGBT community who is still mad about the Donnie McClurkin debacle, do not try to convince this person that Obama was just pragmatically recognizing the widespread homophobia in the black community. Also, I wouldn’t bother showing them Obama’s open letter to LGBT voters, which he released after winning 10 primaries in a row.

The voter you’re talking to probably believes that Obama threw gays under the bus when he stood to gain politically, then paid lip service to their concerns once he felt confident he was winning the nomination. I suggest showing empathy for this person’s anger:

Truth be told, I wish he’d never scheduled that event. It wasn’t in character for him–he’s got a strong record on equality issues. I hope you’ll vote for him anyway, because all of our civil rights are going to be flushed down the toilet if McCain puts more right-wing judges on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is your trump card. Don’t be afraid to play it.

“He is going to get killed in the general”; “Sorry, America is not ready to elect a black president”; “Yet again the Democrats were too stupid to nominate someone who could actually win the election.”

The dustup over Reverend Wright’s comments and the results of the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries reinforced many Democrats’ belief that Obama is a weak candidate for the general election.

Ineffective responses: Accusing this voter of tolerating racism or making excuses for racists. Also, I wouldn’t start an argument by telling this voter his or her preferred candidate would have done even worse. (Find me one Deaniac who will admit that Kerry won more states than Dean would have.) Bringing up Clinton scandals or the Edwards $400 haircut is not going to inspire this person to help Obama.

Remember: your guy won the nomination. Be gracious toward supporters of other Democrats.

Try something like this instead:

Well, Bill Clinton was behind in the polls in the summer of 1992. I think Obama will make up ground when people get to know him better, but no one’s going to hand it to him. I’m out here [or: I’m calling you today] because we need all hands on deck. Can we count on your vote at least?

Democrats have been so energized this year, with huge turnouts all over the place. I think we will be able to bring this one home. I hope you’ll be able to help us too.

I saw a poll where more people said they wouldn’t vote for someone over 70 than said they wouldn’t vote for a black man. Have you seen McCain lately? He looks really old, and he sounds old too.

I think we can get enough people to vote for Barack. Look how well he’s done in a lot of states that never elected a black man to anything before. Even I was surprised.

Note: When I was a precinct captain for Edwards, it was extremely alienating to hear a few Obama supporters accuse me of favoring Edwards because he was a white male. (I am not talking about bloggers, I am talking about Obama supporters I talked to in the “real world.”) Do not make the same mistake if you are talking with former Edwards supporters. Some of them might be willing to volunteer for Obama themselves, but not if you make them feel like they will be looked upon as racists.

“He is going to sell out progressives”; “He’s just another corporate Democrat”; “What has he actually done to end the war?”

People who backed Edwards or one of the second-tier candidates are most likely to express this kind of sentiment about Obama.

Ineffective responses: Arguing that Obama is much more progressive than the candidate they preferred, bashing Edwards or Dodd for voting for the authorization of the use of military force in Iraq. You gain nothing from fighting this battle.

You might try giving some examples of progressive causes Obama has supported, or of beloved liberals who have endorsed Obama, but I think one of these approaches would make more headway:

I hear what you’re saying. I hope we can count on your vote at least. I think Obama is going to do better than you expect, I really do, but the main thing is to keep John McCain out of the White House. This guy has voted for every Bush judge and is terrible on [choice/the environment/labor issues/whatever].

Well, I believe he is sincerely committed to ending this war. I know what you mean–maybe he could have done more in the Senate. It’s hard when Bush is sitting right there with his veto pen. I guess the bottom line for me is I’ve got young [kids/nephews/grandkids/students], and I would hate to think that we’ll still be in Iraq when they grow up because we elected a guy who wants to keep us there for 100 years.

This diary is getting quite long, so I’ll end with one last piece of advice.

If you are so angry at the Clintons that you cannot have a respectful conversation with Hillary supporters, then I encourage you to volunteer for the Obama campaign in some capacity that does not involve direct voter contact. Not every volunteer has to do phone-banking or canvassing.

I’m talking about those who harbor “a hatred towards [Hillary] that is difficult to imagine let alone describe.”

Bring some home-made meals to your local Obama headquarters. Offer to do data entry, stuff envelopes or sort literature for the door-knockers. If you have a spare bedroom, offer to house an Obama volunteer or field organizer. They will appreciate your efforts, and you can feel morally superior that you did not “debase” yourself by asking a Clinton supporter to vote for our nominee.

As for the majority of you Obama fans, please do your part to help our nominee mend fences with Democrats who don’t like him.

Tags: Barack Obama, GOTV, volunteering, 2008 elections, president (all tags)

This post is for people planning to volunteer for Barack Obama's presidential campaign this summer and fall. My goal is to help you be more effective in communicating with voters like me, who don't care for Obama. I know that the Obama campaign has scripts and training sessions for its volunteers, and those worked well in the primaries. Now you have to reach out to Democrats who weren't buying what Obama was selling in the primaries. It seems to me that ... Read More

Jun 8, 20080

The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review

Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 8, 2008
Image

PREFACE:

On FNS this morning, Time Pawlenty and Tim Kaine were in studio for what host Chris Wallace called an “American Idol audition” for their preferred candidate’s veep slot. (Kaine’s an Obama governor, while Pawlenty favors McCain.)

On TW, Dianne Feinstein, host of last week’s historic, unprecedented, breakthrough, significant, dramatic, and earth-shaking tête-à-tête ‘twixt Obama and Hillary, said that she favors Hillary for veep despite Jimmy Carter’s protest that such a ticket would bring “the worst of both worlds.” (An African American and a woman?)

Next on TW, Lindsey Graham pushed John McCain while John Kerry made mindless pronouncements.

On MTP, journalist Andrea Mitchell offered that prior to yesterday’s Hillary speech, Bill Clinton had been crying. Host Tim Russert argued that John McCain can compete with the Obama juggernaut by convincing the American people that he’s “a comfortable shoe.” He compared Obama and RFK, pointing to RFK’s vision in 1968 that a “negro” could be elected President in forty years, in 2008.

On FTN, Hillary’s former campaign mouthpiece, Howard Wolfson said that Hillary will do “whatever she has to” and “whatever she can” to see that Obama is elected President. Chuck Rangel, on next, said “I would hope so!” when asked if Bill Clinton would be involved in everything during an Obama Administration if Hillary were Barry’s Veep. Jim Webb, on next, compared himself intellectually to Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

On LE, for some reason, host Wolf Blitzer put Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania up against Jon Kyl of Arizona, and it was embarrassing. (To Pennsylvanians, if not to the Democrats.) Kyl hammered Obama for his ever-changing position on meeting with the leaders of rogue and/or terroristic nations, and Casey could only argue that Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush did that.

Some good stuff this week. Read the summary below the fold.

PAWLENTY AND KAINE ON MTP. On FOX News Sunday this AM, host Chris Wallace spent a while speaking with two campaign surrogates: Governor Tims: Pawlenty of Minnesota for McCain and Kaine of Virginia for Obama. Both men could be veep choices, and Wallace joked that they could “consider this something of an American Idol audition” for the jobs.

Kaine argued that Obama won the “white, crossover vote” in the Dem nominating process and he could win Virginia, where the RCP average has him trailing McCain by only 1 percent. The RCP average has Barry up by 11 points in Minnesota, where no Republican has won since Nixon in 1972, and Pawlenty countered that his State is becoming more competitive. He cited some Survey USA poll which has McCain winning Minnesota.

On taxes, Kaine argued that Obama wants to cut taxes on the middle class while McCain would continue the Bush economic policy.

On fuel, Wallace pointed out that Obama wants new, domestic energy yet refuses to consider domestic exploration or production. Kaine countered that Obama wants to tax oil companies to pay for “a robust level of investment and research” into alternative fuels. Wallace pointed out that McCain won’t allow drilling in ANWR and would leave it up to the States regarding offshore drilling. Pawlenty countered that Obama is unwilling to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans.

Both men say they would be delighted to be asked to be veep but are concerned with their own States. Neither said they would absolutely reject the job. As Pawlenty put it, “It would be difficult to say ‘no.’”

FEINSTEIN ON TW. Host George Stephanopoulos of ABC’s This Week had as his first guest California Dem Senator Dianne Feinstein, hostess of last week’s historic, unprecedented, breakthrough, significant, dramatic, and earth-shaking tête-à-tête ‘twixt Obama and Hillary. The meeting was to be held at 8:30p; Hillary arrived early, at 8, while Barry showed up at 9, so Dianne and Hillary chatted for an hour prior to the private meeting. Hillary talked about the historic, unprecedented, breakthrough, significant, dramatic, and earth-shaking nature of her campaign and how kids sold their bicycles and old ladies demanded absentee ballots from their death beds in order to support her candidacy.

When Barry showed up, Dianne simply brought them an estimated three glasses of water each. (She evidently could not entrust the serving girl with such a sensitive task.) The talk was private and neither discussed it when it had ended.

Dianne is a big fan of Hillary for veep. (After their private talk, which no doubt centered on that, it seems obvious what Hillary wants.) Steph brought up the damper the Democrats’ elder statesman threw on that notion last week, when Jimmy Carter called an Obama-Clinton ticket, “the worst of both worlds.” (An African American and a woman?) Dianne countered that Hillary brings a “movement” to the party.

Feinstein complained that she had read “column after column, after column” trashing Hillary. Steph asked about Hillary’s baggage being a hindrance to her veep chances, and Feinstein countered: “Everyone has baggage.” (Not as deleterious as the former President, Dianne.) Feinstein said that Hillary is “so much the apparent choice” that she does not “think of other women” as potential Barry veeps.

GRAHAM AND KERRY ON TW. Next up on ABC were Senators Lindsey Graham for McCain and John Kerry “report-ayng for du-tay” for Obama. Graham argued that Obama was a big government guy while McCain favored cutting taxes and reducing regulation. Kerry countered: “That’s not true on every level.” To support his contention, Kerry said that McCain had voted against taxing big oil companies and in favor of sending jobs overseas.

Graham argued that this was a high tax guy (Obama) versus a tax cut guy (McCain). Kerry argued in response that Obama led the fight in the Senate on ethics reform, and that he takes no money from special interests or lobbyists. McCain’s campaign, Kerry continued, was “run by lobbyists.” Graham mentioned Obama’s friendship with convicted Chicago swindler Tony Rezko.

John Kerry argued that McCain would continue Bush’s policy in the Middle East, which has left Israel “more fragile than ever.” Kerry further argued that we have to talk to Iran and Syria. Graham argued that Obama just talks a lot and votes “present.” He further argued that the Surge was a success, while Mr. Kerry smiled and shook his head.

It’s times like these when you remember just how bad a candidate John Kerry actually was. He seems so certain as he proclaims the inanity within his soul reflecting the vacuity ‘ween ‘is ears.

JOURNALISTS ON MTP. On NBC’s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert had a bunch of NBC reporters who covered the campaign to one extent or the other. Russert called these journalists, “NBC’s political dream team,” bit they were really just a bunch of NBC reporters who covered the campaign to one extent or the other. Russert asked them questions, they answered. What opinions they offered, and there were many, were easily ignored.

David Gregory thinks Hillary did what she had to do. Andrea Mitchell said that it was Chuck Rangel who convinced Hillary to quit when Hillary “thought she could take a week or longer” to quit. Ron Allen said that it took “some time to get from Tuesday to yesterday [Saturday],” and there was a lot of emotion. He said that Hillary still believes she should be the nominee. She still wants to be President.

Kelly O’Donnell explained that John McCain had been preparing for Hillary’s departure for a long time, because they knew that her voters could be his voters.

Chuck Todd admitted that the biggest myth in this process was that “the Clintons somehow controlled the apparatus.” Bingo, bingo, bingo, Chuck-o, and you were one of them. The Clintons, he observed, thought that “with sheer will,” they would get the Superdelegates.

David Gregory said that really, this race was over a long time ago, as the Superdelegates proved unwilling to overturn the popular decision of the Dem voters. Bingo for Davey, hindsight was your wakeup call.

Russert wanted to know if the Clinton organization would admit that they blew it. Ron Allen said that the “floodgates opened” after Iowa, when the African American community realized that “this could happen.”

Andrea Mitchell said that while the Clintons were concentrating on the big States, Obama was devising a plan for Super Tuesday.

David Gregory said that the Clintons were a “force in the party” and “formidable.” He said that Barry had to “walk a difficult path” to appeal to Hillary’s voters.

Chuck Todd said that there was “another secret meeting,” which will be between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Bill Clinton is upset because Obama called him a racist. Andrea Mitchell said that Bill Clinton had been crying yesterday.

Tim Russert posited that John McCain can compete with Obama the Anointed by portraying himself as “a comfortable shoe.” He proceeded to compare Obama to RFK, who predicted in 1968 that a “negro” could be President “in forty years.” 2008.

Lee Cowan, the NBC news guy from Barry’s Chicago, was not allowed to speak.

Russert’s boss, MSNBC sportscaster Keith Olbermann, opted not to appear on the show.

WOLFSON ON FTN. On CBS’ Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer talked with former Hillary campaign mouthpiece Howard Wolfson. Wolfson opined that Hillary “closed extremely well.” He described Hillary’s endorsement of Obama as “full-throated.”

Hillary “will do whatever she has to do” in order to see that Obama is elected President, Wolfson said, adding that she has donated money to him. (When? From where?)

Wolfson said that Hillary is not seeking the veep slot but that “she will do whatever she can” to support Barry.

Wolfson is “optimistic” about “our chances in the fall.” He said that McCain “is running to be the next George Bush.” He said that Barry offers a “fundamental break.”

Yesterday’s news.

RANGEL ON FN. Congressman Chuck Rangel was next on FTN, a former Clinton supporter. Rangel was “more than pleased” with Hillary’s speech on Saturday. He said he thinks it will “go down in history as one of the best political speeches we’ve had.”

He thinks Obama-Clinton would be “an almost-unsinkable ticket” and “great for the country.” Schieffer asked if her negatives outweigh her positives. Rangel said that you have to weigh both. He said that brining Hillary and Barry together brings America together.

Rangel agreed with Schieffer that some won’t vote for Obama because of his skin. Rangel said that such differences were secondary if we want this country to survive. Just as “Hillary overcame the sexism,” Rangel argued, Barry has to overcome the racism.

Rangel said that America is “fed up” with Bush and his “record unemployment.” He said that McCain is a “nice guy,” but we can’t move forward with “an extension of Bush policies.”

Rangel said that if Hillary gets the veep nod, he “would hope” that Bill would be involved in everything so long as he “doesn’t get in the way of the new President.” (When asked about Bill interfering in everything, Rangel exclaimed: “I would hope so!”)

WEBB ON FTN. Jim Webb, the dumb guy from Virginia, told Schieffer that he would leave it up to Obama on whom to choose as veep. He said that Obama would need someone as veep who is comfortable with life inside an Administration, adding that he himself had served in the Reagan Administration. Webb compared himself with Daniel Patrick Moynihan as an intellect.

He said Obama will build a “new coalition” and Barry’s “message will transcend racial divides.” He said there are vast difference between Barry and McCain in intellect and composure. (Translated: McCain is a dumb guy who throws fits.) He argued that Obama has proven himself capable of staying on message while taking cheap shots (from Hillary).

Webb said that the town hall format would “level the rhetorical playing field,” as McCain is an inferior orator. Webb said that Obama would do well in a town hall format.

KYL AND CASEY ON LE. First for host Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Late Edition were Senators Jon Kyl and Bob Casey, for McCain and Obama. Casey said that Hillary’s Saturday speech was a “very strong statement” and showed that she had “leadership skills.” His eyebrow is growing back over his nose. He looked bewildered when asked about those Dems who say they would not vote for Barry. He suggested that “it’s human” and that “we all have to work through this.”

Blitzer quoted Bob Kerrey as saying that Hillary faced a great orator in Obama and was doomed to failure. Jon Kyl countered that William Jennings Bryant never won a Presidential election and that Obama says grand words on things about which he knows very little. Casey countered that Obama brings a wealth of experience to the table and would, as commander in chief, leave all options on the table. He pointed out that the Bush Administration is meeting with Iran. Kyl laughed. He pointed out that there was a big difference between a President meeting with Iran without conditions and having the low-level people laying down the markers. He talked of Obama’s swings of positions.

Casey countered that Bush met with Khadafy. He argued that President Bush has made Iran stronger than ever, and he urged McCain to tell us how he plans to be different from President Bush.

Wolf played a clip of Obama announcing that he would meet with Iran only with his conditions. Kyl said that this was what Bush had been doing, what McCain would do, and it was opposite to what Obama had said he would do at the YouTube debate. Kyl recited what was said, then Wolf mentioned Team Barry’s charges that Kyl got it wrong: Obama has said he’d be “willing to meet” which does not mean that he would meet. Casey countered by comparing Barry to Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush as far as engaging in diplomacy.

After a set of commercials, Blitzer showed a clip of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kyl suggested to that to the Dems, it’s wrong for Iran’s neighbor to meet with Ahmadinejad but it is okay for the U.S. President.

Blitzer began talking of the economy. Casey called the argument that the Democrats favor government as a universal solution is “old.” He said that McCain is out of step with the American people because he voted against government-run health care for children (and adults, etc.). Blitzer played a clip of McCain saying that the “fundamentals of our economy are very strong.” Kyl pointed out that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has said the same thing as McCain, and that we are not now, won’t be, and were never in the recession which the Democrats threatened. Kyl said that prices were rising because of fuel costs, which is a problem but is not the fundamentals of our economy.”

= = = =

Have at it.

Sunday, June 8, 2008 PREFACE: On FNS this morning, Time Pawlenty and Tim Kaine were in studio for what host Chris Wallace called an "American Idol audition" for their preferred candidate's veep slot. (Kaine's an Obama governor, while Pawlenty favors McCain.) On TW, Dianne Feinstein, host of last week's historic, unprecedented, breakthrough, significant, dramatic, and earth-shaking tête-à-tête 'twixt Obama and Hillary, said that she favors Hillary for veep despite ... Read More

Jun 7, 20080

NYT on Hastert’s new lobbying gig: ‘Old incumbents never die; they just backslap away.’

Keywords: , , ,

Former Republican House speaker Dennis Hastert recently joined Dickstein Shapiro, a “powerhouse Washington law and lobbying firm.” He will cash in on his time as a lawmaker and is estimated to make more than $500,000 a year. Today, the New York Times has an editorial on this troubling revolving door:
We never really expected […]

Former Republican House speaker Dennis Hastert recently joined Dickstein Shapiro, a “powerhouse Washington law and lobbying firm.” He will cash in on his time as a lawmaker and is estimated to make more than $500,000 a year. Today, the New York Times has an editorial on this troubling revolving door: We never really expected Mr. Hastert to indulge the Jeffersonian fantasy and humbly return to his old calling as a high school wrestling coach. Still, his new job as access-enabler highlights ... Read More

Jun 6, 20080

ThinkFast: June 6, 2008

Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to Department of Labor data released today, the unemployment rate rose from 5.0 to 5.5 percent in May, which is higher that the expected 0.1 percent jobless rate increase.
In “the most explicit threat yet against Iran” from a member of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government, Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper […]

According to Department of Labor data released today, the unemployment rate rose from 5.0 to 5.5 percent in May, which is higher that the expected 0.1 percent jobless rate increase. In “the most explicit threat yet against Iran” from a member of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government, Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper yesterday that Israel “will attack” Iran if it “continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons.” He added that such an attack would be “unavoidable.” Mofaz’s comments ... Read More

Jun 3, 20080

Swift Boat Vets PR Firm Now Pushing Abstinence-Only Education Campaign

Keywords: , , , ,

On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) is launching a $1 million “Parents for Truth” campaign. Its mission is to enlist 1 million parents to back abstinence-only education by lobbying local schools and working to elect supportive lawmakers. Last week, the NAEA e-mailed “30,000 supporters, practitioners and parents […]

On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) is launching a $1 million “Parents for Truth” campaign. Its mission is to enlist 1 million parents to back abstinence-only education by lobbying local schools and working to elect supportive lawmakers. Last week, the NAEA e-mailed “30,000 supporters, practitioners and parents to try to recruit participants and plans to e-mail 100,000 this week.” There is very little that is truthful about this “Parents for Truth” campaign. Not only is ... Read More

Jun 3, 20080

Veepness Stakes: Please no Webb, DINOs

Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In spite of the fact that sexism has been such a prominent dynamic in this campaign, the thrust of much mainstream public conversation is that Obama should pick a Republican or conservative Democrat to balance the ticket. Even when we’re talking about Democrats, that almost always means someone willing to occasionally defenestrate women’s rights or health. I don’t want to get started on what a slap the anti-choice Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would be, but Jim Webb wouldn’t be much better.

And while all and sundry Obama supporters bask in the joy of his ascendant, dudely vibe, it’s becoming readily apparent that feelings are raw beyond all civility, even if people are probably going to unify. The Democratic Party is very popular right now, yet while the nomination might be in the bag, the general election isn’t, and Democrats should have learned about the consequences of giving the finger to large constituencies during the NAFTA fight. Remember, the clusterfrak that took the wind out of the sails of the other Clinton’s presidency?

Any discussion about the selection of the vice presidency can’t be held in a vacuum as if the primary hadn’t happened, infighting and all. Some caveats, though … There are a lot of legitimate reasons a person might have had to support someone besides Hillary Clinton for the nomination. They were both good candidates, there’s no cause to make assumptions without evidence about why anyone in particular supported one of them.

The only major demographic group still supporting Clinton to the tune of 51% or more is women aged 50 and older. This group’s preferences have changed little during May, at the same time that Clinton’s support among younger men (those 18 to 49) has declined by nearly 10 points. - Gallup

… Pundits debated whether Clinton’s tears were “real” or “manufactured” — that is, whether she was some weak sob sister who couldn’t hack the rough-and-tumble of a man’s world, or just a power-grabbing witch who would do anything to hang on to her broomstick.

A few, such as San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci, offered more cogent appraisals. She pointed out that female voters didn’t seem to be responding to Clinton’s tears so much as to their outrage at men’s reactions to those tears (in particular, men in the media). … - Susan Faludi

Maybe you hated the loathesome Mark Penn, a sentiment shared even by many HRC supporters that include me and, by reports, quite a few of her campaign staff. Maybe you just couldn’t get over her war vote, and I understand that, it was sort of a big deal. I’m not going to talk about those reasons here.

… Hence the appalling preponderance of violent, death-infused imagery in conversations about Clinton, smuggled into otherwise ordinary political discourse like a knife taped on the bottom of a cake plate: On CNN, pundit Alex Castellanos said democrats must realize that “it’s time to take the family dog to the vet.” Matthews’ MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann expressed the hope that “somebody will take her into a room–and only he comes out.” CNN’s Jack Cafferty gleefully floated the specter of Clinton being run over by a flatbed truck. A recent Tribune editorial compared Clinton to a euthanized Kentucky Derby contender. … - Julia Keller (via)

It could be that you decided not to support her because you felt that her campaign and surrogates descended into racist tactics that, whatever the potential intent of various parties might have been, caused people a lot of pain. It’s not my purpose to address that here, either, and I doubt I’m the most qualified person to do so. I want to discuss the sexism that’s been brought to light in this campaign, within the media, within the Democratic Party, and not to put those two dynamics in a face off. As if the horror of the one could change the vileness of the other. Or as if, just because women sometimes join in the misogynist fun, that can make it all right.

… She is, according to author Andrew Sullivan, akin to the zombies in the film “28 Days Later” (2002), as well as that knife-wielding harpy in “Fatal Attraction”–the one with the relentless, rapacious, inhuman will: “It’s alive!” Sullivan wrote, adding, “Whoosh–She’s back at your throat.” The comparison between the Close character and Clinton also seemed apt to U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who wrote, “Glenn Close should’ve stayed in that bathtub.” Translation: Death. Comedian Chris Rock loves the “Fatal Attraction” link as well. Ditto for blogger Wil Wheaton, who played Wesley in the TV series “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” who dubbed Clinton “the psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic party.” … - Julia Keller

Full Firing? Or Just Gelded? … Is Penn really out? Completely, positively out? … - Josh Marshall

Racism and sexism are not like matter and antimatter. They do not cancel each other out (via). Oppressions, by that way of looking at them, invert and then turn into some weird sort of privilege over others, which is ridiculous; observe that lesbians of color do not run the world. Instead, Black women get whipsawed about whether they’re gender traitors or race traitors when these dynamics come into conflict, like they need that crap.

Often, when people bring bigotries up together, they do it as if to say, ‘here, so-and-so is suffering too, so be quiet.’ That’s both unhelpful and inappropriate. Can we skip that part, here, and talk about some things that need to be considered when picking a vice presidential candidate?

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as “partial-birth” abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women’s life is in danger, not for cases where a women’s health is in danger. - Evan Bayh’s abortion issues record.

See here, here and here for what it meant to vote yes on that ban without a health exception.

As a kid, did it ever make you feel better about eating your Brussel sprouts that there were kids going hungry in [insert impoverished region here]? No? Me neither. Acting as though one oppression obviates another is sort of like that, but about a million times more of a non sequitur.

… Just a few years ago, Webb described America’s elites in terms that might be familiar to the fans of Fox News. Liberals were “cultural Marxists,” and “the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood” were a fifth column waging war on American traditions. … - Excerpted from a Rolling Stone article about Sen. Jim Webb, 2007.

… This is the only country in the world where women are being pushed toward the battlefield. The United States also has one of the most alarming rates of male-to-female violence in the world: Rapes increased 230 percent from 1967 to 1977 and the much-publicized wife-beating problem cuts across socioeconomic lines.

These are not separate issues, either politically or philosophically. They are visible peaks in what has become a vast bog. They are telling us something about the price we are paying, in folly on the one hand and in tragedy on the other, for the realignment of sexual roles.

… There is a place for women in our military, but not in combat. And their presence at institutions dedicated to the preparation of men for combat command is poisoning that preparation. By attempting to sexually sterilize the Naval Academy environment in the name of equality, this country has sterilized the whole process of combat leadership training, and our military forces are doomed to suffer the consequences. … - Jim Webb: Women Can’t Fight, 1979, emphasis mine

Consider, for example, that there’s nothing that’s going to make me feel better about the fact that when I inevitably become old, I will become to a lot of people nothing more nor less than a fat, ugly, white bitch who needs to get my arse out of the way. Because about the worst thing a woman can be is unsightly (via). Nothing would make that better besides living in a society in which it becomes untrue.

For women, if we’re not pleasing, it often follows that we’re useless. That’s why strange men so often tell us to smile. They’re just reminding us that our purpose in life is to visually delight them, that we need to be happy, friendly and ready with our laughter, but not our cackling, because no one likes being around those humorless feminists. Aww thanks for the heads up, sweetie, you shouldn’t have. Really.

He said he’d do anything for her, anything. ‘Will you tell me the secret of your strength, my love?’ Then he told her, because he loved her. So Delilah did steal shears into his bedchamber, cut his long hair, and deliver him into the hands of his enemies to be tortured.

Some Obama supporters also seem to want to believe that there hasn’t been much sexism in this campaign. Or that if there was, it didn’t really affect anything. Or if it did, stop crying about it, I’m sick of listening to you whine; god, you’re worse than a child. Maybe they want to think that Obama won this ‘fair and square’, or whatever. That he wasn’t helped by being a man competing with a woman in a sexist society. It must raise disturbing questions about whether or not you, if you’re a guy, benefit from it, too. And men do. Even if they don’t seek any such benefits. Even if they’re feminists. Sorry to break it to you.

If you can’t face that discomfort, you can’t be part of the solution to the problem. If that discomfort prevents you from hearing women point out cases of sexism that you, or people you support, have benefitted from, if you turn every such discussion into how you never meant to do anything wrong, you are part of the problem.

It’s not like you’d ought to mope about it though, either. What good’s that going to do, besides make you sound like a jerk? And don’t get started by asking me how to fix it. First, listen.

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” - Matthew 11:15

And why won’t you calm down, anyway, what are you so angry about? Christ. You never listen. I heard you the first time, and the third; you just don’t know what you’re talking about, so shut up. You’re such a bitch sometimes.

I was at a meeting in [major city] today and bumped into a fellow female [low-level state party official]. She could barely get out how much she hated him … she was so angry … she’s a Dem and eventually she will vote for him … fortunately [state] is so blue it won’t matter how angry woman are. … oh I forgot to mention she’s gay and they are furious as well … But those guys just totally underestimate the female anger out there … [There’s a] difference between hardcore Dem[ocratic women] and the other kind: indies, republicans and women who will only go to the polls for her.

- Private email from an anonymous low-level state party official to me.

he only hit me a couple times. but the yelling, the insults, the fights he would start at all hours, the vicious phone calls while i was at work … it all got to be too much. when he found me that day sitting in the closet with his gun in my mouth, trying to talk myself out of my cowardice and praying to distant gods through my tears, (just pull it, just do it, it can all be over today) i don’t know whether i was more angry, sad or relieved to have been stopped. ‘the safety’s on,’ he said. god. i’m every bit as pathetic and useless as he always says. i love him, i hate him, i hate myself for not leaving. i’ve never had a ‘real’ job, where would i go? sometimes i take my anger out on the cats. sometimes i barely talk for days. please, please, make it stop.

Hillary is “petulant, arrogant, whiny… a spoiled brat.” She’s “insane,” worthy of hate. She’s childish. A desperate, spurned lover. And, as ever, shrill… shrill… shrill… shrill. And, oh yeah, cold. (Brrrrr!) She doesn’t have a heart, and she’s jealous and vindictive (over, uh, boys?)  Any woman who votes for her is voting with her vagina, not her brain. When she “periodically… is feeling down” she goes on the attack! She’s ruthless.She has claws! But dude, there’s nothing sexist about saying that! Especially according to the guys. And, you know, she really ought to just be beaten… to death. I mean, c’mon–don’t you just want to punch her in the face? After all, she’s ambitious, dominant, and controlling. She’s carping, and a liar, and frigid, and when she smiles it’s fake. She’s controlling and humorless. Watch out–she’ll bite you! And watch out for her supporters, too–those ladies, when they don’t get what they want, they tend to go a little crazy! They may even cut your balls off. Ooh, but she has balls of her own–three of them! Arianna Huffington agrees with Maureen Dowd: Hillary’s just a little wittle girl. - Erica Barnett (”claws” link altered from original posting, where it was broken)

Man in -Bros Before Hoes- tshirt. Obama rally, Philadelphia, 4/18/08 - by Natasha ChartWe’re a liberated society, better than all those brown nations. But if a woman is walking alone at night, or out alone with a group of male friends, and ’something’ happens to her, she deserved it. Especially if she wasn’t wearing enough, then she was asking for it, even if she said no. Why wasn’t she taking any precautions? And so what if she said no. You can never trust the word of a woman, anyway; they never say what they mean, such liars. Such monsters. Such whores. Oh wait, it’s the 21st century … I meant to say ‘hoes‘.

… [O]verall women were more likely to be abused by an intimate partner than men, particularly for the more severe kinds of violence. For example, women were seven times as likely to have been threatened with a gun; 14 times as likely to report having been “beat up” by a partner; and twenty-six times as likely to have been raped. … - Ampersand, 2004

… Homicide is the fourth leading cause of death among all American women of childbearing age; and one-third of all female murder victims each year are killed by an intimate partner. As pioneering medical researchers reexamine death reports of murdered women, looking for signs that the victim was pregnant, they are concluding that often, the killer of a pregnant woman is the partner or spouse of the mother-to-be. … - Mary Papenfuss, Salon, 2003

… Nationally, homicide is a leading killer of young women–pregnant or not. In 1999, homicide was the second-leading cause of death among women ages 20 to 24. It was fifth among women ages 25-34. Accidents are the top cause of death in both age groups.

The Maryland study reinforced at least two earlier studies that found homicide to be the top killer of pregnant women.

… Police records show that homicidal violence cuts across all races and classes.

“There is no profile of what these men look like,” Sharps said. “Many are educated, upstanding citizens.” - Kim Curtis, AP, 2003

Well, what do we do now? Hmmm. Good question.

I always hate it when people assume that I’m telepathic, so I almost (via) want to help the confused on this one out of reciprocal empathy. But also, I can’t sit on your shoulder all the time. Consider the discomfort; I dislike heights and prefer latitude to pace. This could leave us at an impasse.

Though I can tell you, once again, that this is much bigger than the Democratic nomination. That’s been decided. Now everyone wants to know how to heal the party and what I’m saying is that it isn’t going to happen if the same disregard for women’s issues prevails in the vice presidential candidate selection process as it has done in the tenor of commentary coming from the media, and sadly, too many Democratic Obama supporters.

… Linda Hirshman to Andrew Golis of TPM Café: “So why did I not make the cut? Is writing for the times and the Post not good enough for TPM?”

Andrew: “It’s not a matter of prestigious clippings, Linda. We’re trying to both keep long-standing contributers [sic] around and flesh out the discussion by involving people who are covering things we’re not yet addressing.”

Linda: “And do you have a lot of contributors covering the female voters, who are likely to determine the outcome of the election of the President of the United States? I am assuming it’s not that you don’t want anyone who’s not already in the tank for Obama. I am serious, here, Andrew. I think this is a real mistake; I have a point of view you don’t have much of, I am getting increasingly prestigious opportunities to write and opine, and this is the moment you should capitalize on your relationship with me, not drop me.”

Andrew: “I’m not sure the accusation of bias is particularly helpful. For now, like I said, we’re focusing on getting our long-standing regulars and folks covering things we don’t on the blog. I recognize that you think female voters should be one of those things, we disagree.”

Take health care. Puberty usually signals for guys in this country the advent of some 30+ years of relatively good health, while it gives women the need for yearly medical exams and the potential for some very expensive and potentially dangerous medical conditions. STDs that might not even cause symptoms for a man can give women cancer or render us sterile. Women still do the bulk of both child and elder care, which means regular contact with two other subsets of the population that have even more routine health problems. And women still make less money, and are less likely to have health insurance, in a system where health care has become prohibitively expensive.

Getting a VP pick who’s bad on this issue just isn’t going to go over well. Obama has essentially got the version of the Democratic standard health care plan that runs its appeal on allowing young dudely types to bail out of the whole thing, and you know, any woman who makes it to a certain age has heard that story a few too many times.

… But the real objection is probably more deep-seated: homosexuality is threatening because it seems to challenge the conventional rules governing a person’s sex, their sexual preferences and the general female and male roles in society.

… As Freud understood, most societies are based on relationships between men - most powerful institutions like parliaments or business corporations are male-dominated. And this ‘male-bonding’ demands a certain degree of sexual sublimation.

… In many societies the links between men are much stronger than the relations which link them to women. But these bonds are social rather than individual, and for this reason need to be restricted. … Thus the most extreme homophobia is often found among tightly-knit groups of men, who need both to deny any sexual component to their bonding and who can increase their solidarity by turning violently on ‘fags’ or ‘queers’ who are defined as completely alien.

… Those societies which are best able to accept homosexuals are also societies which are able to accept assertive women and gentle men, and they tend to be less prone to the violence produced by hypermasculinity. - Dennis Altman

It doesn’t escape women’s notice that the worst thing you can call a man in most circumstances is a word that implies he’s a woman. Or that he’s spent too much time around a strong woman and has become castrated by contagion.

No one can possibly have missed that this mocking feminization, based on exaggerated and demeaning stereotypes of women’s standard gender roles, is the most common way to smear gay men. Sissy. Mary. Sweetheart. That it’s a form of social enforcement that sometimes (or often) prevents straight men from being comfortable expressing emotion, being helpful to their partners, being close to their families, or simply expressing disinterest in stereotypically male activities that they just don’t care for.

Lesbians are held up as almost ungendered bogeymen, monstrously masculinized beings that straight women have to fear being mistaken for. Because in a patriarchal authoritarian [1] system, strength is inherently male and women who have it end up dancing on a knife’s edge of having to perform enough femininity to try and escape mockery.

While it might take a professor to highlight it authoritatively, most women know it. Know that the authoritarian wellspring of homophobia is the same thing that poisons gender relations.

Getting a VP candidate that’s poor on LGBT issues, another of the easy ways for a Democrat to garner ‘conservative’ or ‘moderate’ credentials, bad plan. Do we need to have the McClurkin conversation again? Good. Because I don’t want to have any of those conversations over. Not ever.

There are other issues that it would be relevant to bring up, but I expect that I don’t need to spell them all out from this point.

Anyway, please stop worrying so very much about winning Appalachia, which someone like Webb won’t necessarily help anyway (via). Start worrying about keeping the base of the Democratic Party intact. There isn’t any non-White-dude sector of the party coalition that isn’t sick to the damn teeth of the ‘where else are you going to go’ schtick, so how about we actually do try something different this time around and spend less time pissing in each other’s corn flakes? The unity candidate won, after all, that shouldn’t in theory be so radical a proposal.

This year, many female voters have just had it, really had it.  

And then when we bring this up, a common response is ’stop acting like a victim.’ I realize that being a victim is a terrible insult in patriarchal cosmology, and no dude ever wants to admit to it, nor any woman aspiring to dudely approval. (Especially not the women, because making dudes feel bad when they’ve been sexist is totally unappealing in a chick.) Being a victim isn’t about having someone do something wrong to you, it’s admitting that someone bested you in a contest of strength, punked you, p0wned you, and that makes you, like, a woman.

Ahem.

So don’t even go there. But hey, let’s talk vice presidents.

-------------------

Adapted from previous essays

[1] - And by patriarchal authoritarianism, I mean a system of power-seeking based on strongly hierarchical social and gender [2] relationships, self-denial [3], complicated codes of personal behavior that keep people focused on personal instead of public morality and sharply restrict/pathologize sexuality, particularly that of women, that idolize and idealize power as something to be held by someone who embodies a stern and unyielding archetype of male dominance.

As Robert Heinlein (he had some funny ideas, but also, a lot of keen insight) said in “Revolt in 2100″:

Take sex away from people. Make it forbidden, evil. Limit it to ritualistic breeding. Force it to back up into suppressed sadism. Then hand the people a scapegoat to hate. Let them kill a scapegoat occasionally for cathartic release. The mechanism is ages old. Tyrants used it centuries before the word ‘psychology’ was ever invented. It works, too.

Though there also seem to be a lot of people who are comforted by membership in authoritarian structures (which might not say anything essentialist about their personalities, they might even be non-ideological types plugging in for the sake of gaining power in a climb to the top of some bodies,) and seem to enjoy insisting that everyone else join up, and I think they can fairly be called carriers. Whether they believe or not is almost irrelevant to their function as enforcers or recruiters.

[2] I’d argue that authoritarianism holds women (and people impressed by popular sentiment with feminine traits, which may include entire races or nations) to be its first icon of a category of adult that, child-like, can’t manage their own affairs, be trusted to be rational, or allowed any position of power from which they could seek retribution for their treatment.

This last is at the heart of authoritarian cruelty, because the enforcer knows simultaneously at some level that a) if they were treated similarly they’d become vindictive, b) continuing physical/psychic brutality will break the target’s spirit so that they’re less likely to come to be in such a position of power and must be c) used as a twisted justification for keeping the (add target)s down because they’d just act out ‘irrationally’, ie, exactly as the offender is acting. But maybe worse.

A sexist society is by definition authoritarian, though degrees of repression can vary significantly from manifestation to manifestation. Authoritarianism requires, as a foundation stone, distrust between men and women and stunted, crippled sexual love impulses whose full energies can then be harnessed for other ends. You can see its full flower in religious fundamentalism (h/t Mary @ PacificViews) of just about every kind, as religion is the usual enforcement mechanism. Though it is not an essentially religious philosophy; in describing the masses as feminine, this is exactly what was meant by the ultimate authoritarian, Hitler.

Misogyny is the usual first step towards creating people who can look at another human being and see an animal or a thing instead of a person.

[3] You saw “Dead Poets’ Society”, right? Consider that Neil’s father was the ultimate authoritarian ‘hard worker,’ and all he was trying to do for his son was to teach him a particular type of work: self denial. Self negation, really.

The person is never to be themselves, they are to be a role. This is properly considered to be work [4], because no matter the position achieved thereby, it is forever difficult, brutal, dirty and unpleasant.

The true sin of the Dirty eFfing Hippie is that they are attempting to be happy, instead of diligently working to be a machine part. No one incapable of doing this unstated, and transcendently moral (in the authoritarian system of morality,) work of a true ‘adult’ will be given respect in an authoritarian environment.

[4] Specifically, it’s mainly male work. Self negation involves a lot of negation of humanity, the senses of empathy and connection to others are expressly to be sacrificed, put to fire and the sword. This is painful.

As has been noted by others, women do less of this type of work because the separation of the female and male spheres of influence (private vs. public) is done to preserve a space in society where empathy and connection can be expressed such that people don’t completely lose their shit, what with all the emotional repression.

… If the fathers of capitalist theory (Hobbes, Smith, Locke) had chosen a mother instead of a single bourgeois male as the smallest economic unit for their theoretical constructions they would not have been able to formulate the axiom of the selfish nature of human beings the way they did. They would have realized that human beings can be both selfish and altruistic, both aggressive and caring. They would have seen that human life is not just ’solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’ and that the law of history is not only the ‘war … of every man against every man (Hobbes); they would have been able to observe that people cooperate with each other, live in communities, can be peaceful and merciful and, in spite of hardships, enjoy and celebrate life.

Lieselotte Steinbrügge has shown that the Enlightenment philosophers of the eighteenth century were clearly aware of the difficulty the capitalist philosophy of the self-interested, competitive, rationally calculating, individualistic homo oeconomicus would create for society. What would happen, they asked, to mercy, peace, love, generosity etcetera?

They solved this difficulty by separating the public from the private spere and creating two different kinds of ethics, one for the private, the other for the public sphere. The responsibility for ‘private’ values was then relegated to women, while men could pursue their ‘war of all against all’ in the public sphere of politics, militarism and economics (Steinbrügge 1987).

The anthropology of the lonely, egotistic, male human warrior fits well into the cosmology based on a concept of nature as principally poor, stingy, with permanently scarce resources. As Carolyn Merchant has plausibly demonstrated, before the Renaissance nature was conceptualized as generous Mother Nature, a female organism with inexhaustible wealth and resources (Merchant 1980). But the theoreticians of capitalist patriarchy, above all Bacon, turned her into a stingy witch from whom ‘rational man’ has to extract her treasures by coercion and torture. …

- From “The Subsistence Perspective”, by Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen & Maria Mies, 1988

Women are the safety valve for an emotionally crippled society, but … it means they explicitly don’t do the work of self negation — so just like rebellious children, people of allegedly lesser classes or races, etc., they don’t do the full work of adults and are by definition incapable of self-governance. Not least because, see above, the ‘natural’ vindictive tendencies of someone targeted for repressive abuse would in theory not be tempered by any kind of self-restraint, making them doubly unfit for holding power over others.

Tags: 2008 presidential, female voters, sexism, feminism, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh (all tags)