Friday, April 25, 2008

I'm ambivalent, but leaning toward saying that the long primary is not good

Well, I'm inclined to skepticism on whether the long primary is helping Democrats. On one hand, it is increasing voter registration and capturing the public imagination, and choking John McCain by sucking all the air out of the room. On the other hand, it is wasting precious time that could better be spent taking on McCain directly. On the first hand, McCain seems unable to capitalize on the expanded primary season and has been totally unable to increase his standing against Obama and Clinton in head-to-head matchups. On the other hand, the ceaseless attacks (mostly by Clinton) serve to give McCain's team pre-made attacks for the Fall with a bit of proof of effectiveness behind them. But, then again, the general election opponent using attacks from his opponents' primary challenger scenario rarely happens, and couldn't Obama now sluff off questions about Bill Ayres in the fall as old news instead of being Willie Horton-ed by them? Would they have happened in the general had the primary campaign not taken forever?

So I don't know. Plenty of grist for both mills. I do know that this campaign has lasted, well, forever, and tired people make more mistakes--mistakes that would otherwise not have happened. I'm pretty sure that's what the "bitter" comments were. And I don't really see the point of keeping the campaign going, since Obama has already won and the Clintons aren't being constructive by holding Obama's feet to the fire on issues, or just hanging around like Mike Huckabee. They're actively trying to undermine Obama's candidacy, which would be acceptable if he weren't overwhelmingly favored to be the nominee, largely because they think he's too liberal. The Clintons came of age politically in a time where liberalism couldn't win, and they don't realize that the country has changed a little bit. They still think you need to do things like Sister Souljah and gay-baiting that are ugly but necessary to show that you're not one of those liberals. In essence, the Clintons still believe that this is Reagan's America. Obama has no such baggage. So they solipsistically assume that Obama cannot win.

If they were actually trying to keep Obama honest (oh, the irony!) I'd fully support their continued presence in the process. But they aren't. They're just hitting Obama with any right-wing meme they can get their hands on, and the distinction between the "vast right wing conspiracy" and the Clinton campaign is rapidly losing any sort of meaningful difference. When you have Clinton surrogates like Ed Rendell and Terry McAuliffe praising Fox News for their balanced coverage, there's a problem there. When you're cozying up to Dick Scaife, there's a problem there. When your supporters circulate "Obama is a Muslim" emails, there's a problem there. Thankfully, most voters have realized these tactics and give Clinton low marks for honesty and character, which is as it should be. But having the right's attacks validated by Clinton gives them added credibility. Will it matter? I don't know, but imagine if Mitt Romney had, after Florida, started critiquing John McCain ferociously from the left, jumping on the bandwagon of that story about the potential affair McCain might have had with a lobbyist? He would have been a laughingstock. Yet evidently we Democrats (the party of the left, I was led to believe) don't really have much of a problem with one of our leaders cozying up not just with conservatives but right-wing extremists whose only goal is to tear down the Democratic Party. Either the Clintons are stupider than we think, or they think they can use the right wing as useful idiots, and vice versa. Can they both be right? We'll see.

The Man, The Myth, The Bio

East Bay, California, United States
Problem: I have lots of opinions on politics and culture that I need to vent. If I do not do this I will wind up muttering to myself, and that's only like one or two steps away from being a hobo. Solution: I write two blogs. A political blog that has some evident sympathies (pro-Obama, mostly liberal though I dissent on some issues, like guns and trade) and a culture blog that does, well, cultural essays in a more long-form manner. My particular thing is taking overrated things (movies, mostly, but other things too) down a peg and putting underrated things up a peg. I'm sort of the court of last resort, and I tend to focus on more obscure cultural phenomena.