Who's more of an Elitist?

jeffrey wrote: But again, we're debating specifics here because that's the party nomination process, but zooming out to the bigger picture, I would hope that all folks here consider the vast difference between either of these two and 4 more years of current administration policy and "priorities."

oh hell yeah. I've said a zillion times that I'll vote for obama - I'm not a hater. I have my issues (that are thankfully shared by many, whether in secret or not) with him, but no fuckin' way am I voting mccain or not voting at all. would I prefer clinton? yes! but whatever, that's not up to me.

(is anyone else as annoyed as me that the process of acquiring a candidate is even less democratic than acquiring a president? this whole "repubs take all but dems take percentages" thing and that "half is decided by vote and the other half is decided by these super-smarmdelegatethingys" makes me wonder if we (dems) are trying to fuck ourselves or what. it's fuckin' annoying to say the least)

jeffrey wrote: This may be a completely unsubstantiated point, but the fact that Hillary has drawn so many of her advisors from her husband's team has me wondering if there will be any inertia issues, where people tend to stick to prior positions for personal reasons, perhaps at the silent expense of consideration of radically new approaches that may be warranted by recent development. This concern of mine goes for public policy as well as foreign policy. But, as I said, perhaps there is less to be concerned of there, certainly when the context of Republicans' positions are thrown in.

Clinton’s advisors may be propelled by inertia and have similar positions and recommendations as what they had in the past, but do you think Obama’s advisors do not? It’s human nature to go with what you think, believe, and feel is right and will be effective. Do you think Obama’s advisors have radically new approaches? If so, why? Do you think Clinton’s advisors would act for “personal reasons” any more than Obama’s advisors would? I’m just asking, I don’t know anything about Obama’s advisors. Or Clinton’s for that matter.

It’s a subtle distinction, but it bothers me that you wrote “from her husband’s team” instead of “from President Clinton’s team?” Of course they are married, but I don’t think the marriage is the most relevant relationship in this context. We’re talking political advisors, right? It also bothers me how people refer to Clinton by her first name, but to Obama by his last name. It’s a question of respect. Just ask Duchess LuAnn!

ev965 wrote: Clinton’s advisors may be propelled by inertia and have similar positions and recommendations as what they had in the past, but do you think Obama’s advisors do not? It’s human nature to go with what you think, believe, and feel is right and will be effective. Do you think Obama’s advisors have radically new approaches? If so, why? Do you think Clinton’s advisors would act for “personal reasons” any more than Obama’s advisors would? I’m just asking, I don’t know anything about Obama’s advisors. Or Clinton’s for that matter.

As I mentioned in my post, I am still wrestling with whether or not inertia will be more an issue for Clinton, but the following items provide the context for this discussion:

On overall matters of economic, public and foreign policy:
The Audacity of Data
Barack Obama's surprisingly non-ideological policy shop
by Noam Scheiber
THE NEW REPUBLIC
Post Date Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Excerpt:

Noam Scheiber in THE NEW REPUBLIC wrote: The real difference between the Obama campaign and, say, Hillary Clinton's, is twofold. First, while many of the Obamanauts had previously served in the Clinton administration, they tended to be younger or less influential than the officials who signed on with Hillary. Clinton advisers like former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke tend to be "more invested in justifying or glorifying" the Clinton record, says one Obama foreign policy hand, whereas the Obamanauts don't have the same "permanent need to fight for the legacy of your time in government."

The second difference is that the Obama hands tend to feel less hemmed in by establishment opinion. As one Obama adviser puts it, "Democrats want to be just a little bit different from Republicans, but not so different that they get attacked for being weak." Like Hamilton, the Obamanauts generally reject this calculus--not because they favor some radical alternative, but because clinging to received foreign policy wisdom can preclude highly practical courses of action.

On matters of foreign policy:
See discussion of "The Obama Doctrine" article posted here by Boygabriel
Direct link to article HERE

On overall philosophical approach and perspective, on various subjects:
Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters
The Atlantic, December 2007 issue

ev965 wrote: It’s a subtle distinction, but it bothers me that you wrote “from her husband’s team” instead of “from President Clinton’s team?” Of course they are married, but I don’t think the marriage is the most relevant relationship in this context. We’re talking political advisors, right? It also bothers me how people refer to Clinton by her first name, but to Obama by his last name. It’s a question of respect. Just ask Duchess LuAnn!

Hah, point well taken, meant no such inferences and will be careful to avoid from here forward. Didn't occur to me to address them more as strangers, but I do see your point that otherwise might tempt some into other issues, and this is indeed all about the business.

But now that you mention it I have to say, I would probably still say that George Bush inherited many of his staff from his father (and not name them 100% separately), if only because I have a hard time viewing the current Bush as anything other than a child that somehow stumbled into something well beyond his depth, and I think that many of that staff worked to pull things on the current Bush (and country) that they could never have gotten away with with his father. (see, there I go again)

I hope you don't mind that indulgence.

queencallipygos wrote: I've actually been chalking that up to the fact that there's already been one notable politician in this country named Clinton, and the press is trying to be clear which one they're referring to.

Well, what other possible reason could there be?!

jeffrey wrote:

[quote=alafairnadia]
exactly. the issue isn't that clinton is running a smear campaign and that obama misspoke, the issue is that he misspoke and said something that I really think is disgusting. if clinton is forced to woman-up to all the b.s. she's said, which she does regularly, he should own up to the fact that he's dumbing down middle america. and if middle america is willing to put up with it, that's a whole other issue.

Also wanted to respond to the above.

I can understand that this whole enchilada can be very frustrating, and can definitely acknowledge that it brings out emotional frustrations etc, being such an important subject…

Did you seriously just write that, in response to a woman’s well thought out and not particularly emotional opinion? Generally I (intellectually, as well as intuitively) think that Clinton is forced to own up to all the B.S. she’s said while Obama really isn’t, and his B.S. is, to many of us, just as offensive as hers. If he's called on it (and he rarely is) he just waves criticism away by saying that he refuses to go negative or respond to negative attacks. And no one questions this (criticism is the same as negative attacks?), for fear of being painted as having gone negative themselves. Honestly, this tactic of his reminds me of how some conservatives re-framed patriotism, especially after September 11th, to exclude liberals (or anyone who questioned them).

Jeffrey, I’ve read Sullivan’s article (and seen him talking about it on TV), and I just now skimmed the American Prospect one. And I read what you quoted from The New Republic. So I get that Sullivan thinks that putting a new face on an energized America will help us, PR-wise. And I get that advisors to Obama have opinions. And I get that Obama advisors think Obama is different.

I’m still waiting to hear, with independent opinions maybe, but nothing too dense and without the self-congratulatory “Obama supporter tells this Obama-supporting reporter that Obamanauts don’t have the same (bad) issues that Clinton supporters have” bits, what Obama’s policy plans are. I care less about who’s advising him during the Democratic primary, or what their opinions are.

For example, the economist Paul Krugman (not a Clinton advisor) said in February in the New York Times,

there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage - a key progressive goal - and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s - at only slightly higher cost.

and then he goes on to explain why, as he sees it (here is the whole op-ed
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html).

Obama is a good speaker. I didn’t vote for him in the primary, but I do feel it when he talks. I don’t understand how that feeling translates to my vote. At the same time, I’m generally not impressed by Clinton when she speaks, though I do respect some of her policy issues (and I respect some of Obama's too). I didn’t vote for her in the primary either. I like thinking about and talking about politics, but the direction that the discourse has gone these past months has actually radicalized me against Obama. At this point I’m trying to figure out how I can rationalize, for the first time, not voting at all in the presidential election.

It’s weird - this race reminds me of the fact that while I’ve attended anti-war and civil-rights and pro-gay-rights marches, I know precious few men who’ve attended feminist rallies.

Again from the Times (though I read Harper's and The Atlantic much more):

...researchers put blacks and whites in sports jerseys as if they belonged to two basketball teams. People looking at the photos logged the players in their memories more by team than by race, recalling a player’s jersey color but not necessarily his or her race. But only very rarely did people forget whether a player was male or female.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/opinion/06kristof.html?em&ex=1207800000&en=558f8ec768ff90cb&ei=5087%0A

ev965 wrote: [quote=jeffrey]
[quote=Noam Scheiber in THE NEW REPUBLIC]The real difference between the Obama campaign and, say, Hillary Clinton's, is twofold. First, while many of the Obamanauts had previously served in the Clinton administration, they tended to be younger or less influential than the officials who signed on with Hillary. Clinton advisers like former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke tend to be "more invested in justifying or glorifying" the Clinton record, says one Obama foreign policy hand, whereas the Obamanauts don't have the same "permanent need to fight for the legacy of your time in government."

I don’t think youth make people less conservative or less concerned about appearances. After college, at least. The source of the quotes (opinions presented implicitly as facts) might have something invested there. I’m not sure he or she is entirely impartial.

jeffrey wrote:
[quote=Noam Scheiber in THE NEW REPUBLIC]The second difference is that the Obama hands tend to feel less hemmed in by establishment opinion. As one Obama adviser puts it, "Democrats want to be just a little bit different from Republicans, but not so different that they get attacked for being weak." Like Hamilton, the Obamanauts generally reject this calculus--not because they favor some radical alternative, but because clinging to received foreign policy wisdom can preclude highly practical courses of action.

Again, the source is an Obama supporter. How do we know Obama’s advisers are “less hemmed in by establishment opinion?” Because one of them says so?

At the same time Obama seems to put himself forward as more able to compromise and bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans. That could be a good thing, but if Obama’s people think they can make those compromises without moving a little bit to the right, they are not being realistic. (Yet you criticize Clinton’s healthcare plan for being too radical, impractical given “irrational externalities,” etc.)

I don’t like that they usually don’t say outright, “Clinton clings to received foreign policy wisdom that precludes practical courses of action,” but instead imply it in this passive-aggressive game that the media present as being the high road.

ev965, I think I love you.

I had a lot of the same reactions reading these quotes. I was especially reacting to "well, that's OBVIOUSLY what an obamanaut [not nut?] would say - can we please get an objective opinion in here, or at least a clintonian side?"

also, the issue of calling the candidate hillary rather than clinton, or referring to her sources of staffing as those of her husband rather than president clinton all smack of the institutionalized sexism and misogyny that is becoming so so so apparent in this dialogue. I'm not saying that all people who support obama are misogynists or sexist. I just think that misogyny and sexism is insidious and can bleed in to so many contexts without conscious thought.

jeffrey wrote: (response to alaf)

And yet my mention of the public opinion all the large 3rd party independent polls is somehow dismissed as Obamania kool-aid on my part?

At the heart of the claim being made is that this is a huge disconnect and offense toward the broad public.

f someone mentions that all major polls of broad public opinion happen to indicate otherwise, and that person is dismissed as some sort of candidate-partisan zealot, isn't the reverse the case? That anyone with a valid argument that favors Obama, and is critical of Clinton, is dismissed as either anti-feminist or utterly, mindlessly and unreasonably drunk on the bromide of the opposing candidate?

So...with the other article entering the conversation here, I see two issues, which appear to be the:

1) Can a person refer to actual 3rd-part independent sources of what the broad public is really thinking...

and

2) Can a person honestly express distrust of Clinton and the Clinton campaign due to actual statements and actions...

...without being immediately dismissed and/or attacked as either against women in general or a mindless candidate-obsessed zealot?

At what point are actual statements, issues, policy and research allowed in to the discussion for the merits of actual substantive conversation, without regard for whether some element or another is inconvenient for some?

This.

I’m sorry this is so long, but I’ve been given a lot to think about, and it is an interesting discussion. Jeffrey, I don’t know who your last post was directed towards, so I’m going to assume it was to all who agree with ev965, which I do for the most part. You said,

jeffrey wrote: Thanks for providing me the opportunity to clear up what I am sure are probably just simple misunderstandings.

For starters, folks (other than alafairnadia, with whom I've had several constructive exchanges in other related threads regardless and especially respective of individual differences) may be unaware that I am the first to call b*llshit on Obama's antics, the first to point out and/or agree when and where he's weak, being a dumb*ss, etc.

I’m a little confused about what has been supposedly simply misunderstood. I actually believe that I understand your position (less so when you backtrack than when you initially comment), and mine does not agree. My not agreeing does not necessarily mean that I have misunderstood you. I hope you are not suggesting that we who disagree do so because we’ve all simply misunderstood what you’ve said. We actually have pretty solid reasons for thinking the way that we think, and that’s okay. Better than okay, in fact. I’m curious, though; which parts of what you’ve written do you feel misunderstood about?

I have followed previous exchanges, and I’m sorry that I didn’t speak up sooner. I’m also sorry that you don’t feel that this exchange has been constructive (implied when you said that I haven’t followed previous exchanges that were). Or am I misunderstanding what you meant? I have learned a lot in this exchange (as in others, where I didn’t speak up) and think that is constructive.

Anyway, on to the discussion! I am not so much concerned with your calling b*llsh*t on Obama. I’m more concerned with the media and pundits whose pro-Obama bias is pretty evident to many of us, and who do shape public perception. And I'm more concerned, too, with Obama’s campaign which uses this bias and looks very hypocritical to my eyes.

jeffrey wrote: Others here that jumped in with flash judgments and projections and assumptions of hostility here (again, these simple mistakes happen, no worries) may not have been present in other threads where I have been clear to extend respect and whatever openness possible for folks from all sorts of different views, mindful of the fact that the process of determining one's political views and support is a very personal process, one that is unique to each person's experiences, hopefully full of great meaning and importance to all involved.

I don’t know about others, but I have felt very little hostility in this thread. I think it’s been pretty respectful. I do think it’s a tad condescending to say that my interpretations of your comments are simple mistakes (and I am actually not worried, so no worries ). Which exchanges do you feel have been seen as particularly hostile, and which interpretations do you think are simple mistakes? I feel that you’ve been as respectful as in other threads. I simply do not feel the same way you do. I hear that you understand and respect that determining political views (you said “one’s” in a passive tone, but I assume you’re talking about your own and others who you know?) and support is a very personal process (for some, for others it’s social), certainly unique to a person’s experiences, full of meaning and importance. I may, though, be more cynical than you are (I did take the “great” out of “full of great meaning and importance”). But, once again, it’s okay that not everyone thinks alike. The way you view the evolution of your beliefs and feelings about the political process are valid, though different from mine, which are also valid. It’s all good.

jeffrey wrote: As I have said in past threads, for this reason, I know that the worst thing a person can do to insult and cause divisions and rifts with others is to tell them what they should believe, and who they should support.

I actually disagree with you here. I think that the worst thing a person can do to insult and cause divisions and rifts with other people is to discount what others believe, to attack in an intellectually dishonest way, or to be dismissive and condescending. I don’t mind you or anyone else expressing an opinion, suggesting who they feel I should support. That is honestly not the insulting part of discussions like this one (and again, this discussion has not insulted me at all). I actually really respect others opinions, and I want to hear why they think and feel the way they do, and am open to changing my mind after being informed by others. That doesn’t mean I will agree with them, or that I will necessarily change my mind. And that’s fine!

jeffrey wrote: One to a few (hopefully brief) inline comments...

[quote=ev965][quote=jeffrey]
[quote=Noam Scheiber in THE NEW REPUBLIC]The real difference between the Obama campaign and, say, Hillary Clinton's, is twofold. First, while many of the Obamanauts had previously served in the Clinton administration, they tended to be younger or less influential than the officials who signed on with Hillary. Clinton advisers like former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke tend to be "more invested in justifying or glorifying" the Clinton record, says one Obama foreign policy hand, whereas the Obamanauts don't have the same "permanent need to fight for the legacy of your time in government."

I don’t think youth make people less conservative or less concerned about appearances. After college, at least. The source of the quotes (opinions presented implicitly as facts) might have something invested there. I’m not sure he or she is entirely impartial.

This has nothing to do with youth, college kids, ageism or anything like that, so I am really at a loss as to what's being described above.

They are talking about the senior staff that worked actively on formulating policy decisions right under the heads of government and Presidential Cabinet Secretaries, as opposed to the actual heads of government themselves (that Hillary Clinton hired, many from Bill Clinton's administration). The "younger" persons were still high-level policy positions, akin to being a Under-Secretary or Senior Aide as opposed to being the Secretary him/herself (whose name and reputation rises and falls with the accomplishments they directed)

This is not at all the sort of "young, cool kids -vs- old farts" bias you imply.

I may have read the excerpt differently. What I interpreted was that the reporter in the New Republic was saying (and I quote), “many of the Obamanauts … tended to be younger or less influential than the officials who signed on with Hillary” and therefore “Obamanauts don't have the same ‘permanent need to fight for the legacy of your time in government.’ " I don’t think college kids or ageism is mentioned anywhere (I do see plenty of troubling ageism in coverage of McCain, though). I also didn’t read any "young, cool kids -vs- old farts" bias, neither in the New Republic nor in ev965’s comment. I’m not sure where you got that from. Do you feel that people who don’t support Obama are primarily concerned with a bias like that, with being widely perceived as "old farts"? My experience has been very different… Radically different. Could you please explain?

I honestly thought that the article (really it’s more of an opinion piece, since it seems to have gotten opinions about Clinton advisors having a “permanent need to fight for the legacy of (their) time in government” from everyone except the advisors whose needs were being judged) was saying that Clinton advisors are as interested in making themselves look good as in good policy. I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is I am sure that it is just as true for Obama advisors, though for different reasons. There, perhaps, a discussion of the motivations of younger people versus the motivations of more experienced people (if we can generalize) would be useful, no?

jeffrey wrote: [quote=ev965][quote=jeffrey]
[quote=Noam Scheiber in THE NEW REPUBLIC]The second difference is that the Obama hands tend to feel less hemmed in by establishment opinion. As one Obama adviser puts it, "Democrats want to be just a little bit different from Republicans, but not so different that they get attacked for being weak." Like Hamilton, the Obamanauts generally reject this calculus--not because they favor some radical alternative, but because clinging to received foreign policy wisdom can preclude highly practical courses of action.

Again, the source is an Obama supporter. How do we know Obama’s advisers are “less hemmed in by establishment opinion?” Because one of them says so?

On the surface, from this summary excerpt alone, I can see where your question comes up. But an excerpt is just that, no more.

Your question merely points to a need to read the article, examine each specific advisor's independent accomplishments, and the completely different logical approaches they use relative to the other campaigns (of Hillary Clinton and of Bill Clinton).

Most if not all of these advisors are published, so information as to the methods of each (and those in similar schools of thought do indeed tend to group together) is well-documented and available for discussion quite easily.

These are not subjective measures. One camp uses deductive reasoning, for policy formulation, the other uses inductive reasoning. There is no gray area. If you use one approach, you are not using the other. For the purpose of argument here to answer your question, it matters little which camp uses what, just know that each method has its own discrete process and has known advantages and disadvantages, regardless of who reports the matter (Obama staffer or otherwise).

Similarly, we all agree that a rectangle has four sides, and a triangle has three sides. All other things being equal, no amount of fudging on the part of an Obama staffer or mistrust on your part will make you believe that a triangle is actually a square.

Again, it's all in the article.

Myself, I did skim through the article. It seemed to be about Obama supporters and advisors, and what they think and feel, their collective philosophy, how they approach the campaign, what their goals are... Is that right? I’m not sure that I actually do feel the need to examine each specific advisor’s independent accomplishments, though the different logical approaches that they use relative to Hillary Clinton’s campaign are interesting. (The different logical approaches they use relative to Bill Clinton’s, much less so, for what must be obvious reasons. I assume that despite some shared advisors Clinton will act of her own mind, not her husband's.) Most of Clinton’s advisors are also published, and I’m sorry that I don’t have time to read much of what either set of advisors has written. Also, knowing what I know about the publishing and media industries, I’m not sure how relevant it will all be in January of 2009… I also like to hear that Clinton has learned the wisdom of some flexibility (as mentioned in the article that daver shared). I think that is good for anyone.

The article says that the Obama camp uses inductive reasoning while Bill Clinton’s used deductive reasoning for policy formulation. Is that how you understand it? Why do you think which uses which is not an important question?! I understand that “for the sake of argument” it may not be, but we are not arguing just to argue, right? We’re having discourse about candidates and their positions and policy proposals and even their campaign advisors, and conversations like this can help lead to understanding. Do you think that one style (inductive or deductive) is better than the other? I would be interested in evidence that one camp primarily uses one, the other the other, aside from a couple of Bill Clinton’s policies, or Obama’s 401k proposal. (But I don’t have time to read long, opinion pieces and links that circle ‘round the question. I would be really grateful if you could just lay out a few facts on this issue. Or, better, just explain your good opinions.)

I do happen to disagree that if you are using one reasoning approach then you are not using the other. I understand that you feel this is an obvious fact, black and white, but I guess I actually like my world to include gray, and flexibility. At different times different ways of thinking and reasoning are useful and true. This is why I think that probably both camps use both methods of reasoning, to one degree or another. And that is why it’s important to know which you think uses which exclusively (since you’ve stated it as fact, after reading the article). By the way, I personally don’t emotionally “mistrust” any Obama staffer. Why would I? I just think that while a rectangle has four sides, so does a parallelogram. So does a square. And there are shades of gray.

jeffrey wrote: [quote=ev965]At the same time Obama seems to put himself forward as more able to compromise and bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans. That could be a good thing, but if Obama’s people think they can make those compromises without moving a little bit to the right, they are not being realistic. (Yet you criticize Clinton’s healthcare plan for being too radical, impractical given “irrational externalities,” etc.)

I did absolutely nothing of the sort. I described without a shred of bias that the sole difference between their health plans is in the way each has different projections for structural imperfections of the system itself.

Sure.

jeffrey wrote: Regarding the differing health plans of the two candidates, on a certain level it all comes down to differing sets of projections for how reality and externalities factor in, and therefore which plan provides the greatest opportunity for greatest success along several criteria. On that level, it all comes down to whose projections you trust more (for it is relative and an art in the end, as the science can only take you so far into navigating irrational externalities), and this seems to be where the chips fall to one side or the other. Again, wholly a personal thing, given that it hinges on different views of predicting irrational behavior.

Projections are just tools used to pin down externalities, and “success” along any number of criteria is defined differently, obviously, by Clinton and by Obama. You may well trust Obama’s relative projections in regard to health care, for example, more. It sounds like you do. Is that right? Meanwhile, I may agree with Clinton’s definition of success more (which I think makes me look like less of a cynic – who knew?! ) and her relative projections more. Neither plan is going to be implimented unchanged, and neither is perfect. It really is an opinion, and I find Clinton supporters’ opinions to be as well thought out and informed and rational as Obama supporters’.

jeffrey wrote: The irrational externalities are those structural imperfections...the irrational behaviors of the humans themselves, at the end of the healthcare process. For example, not everyone offered the healthcare actually signs up for and uses it. Please reread what I wrote above.

There it is, what you wrote, above my last comment. For myself, I’ve read it. I don’t necessarily come to the same conclusions as you, even if I accept as fact some of your opinions. That’s okay. I do know that not everyone offered healthcare signs up for and uses it, though “offered healthcare” isn’t specific enough about the type and cost and reliability of what is offered to really know why someone would not sign up, and that would be a very important question to think about. I wonder, though, does that statement (that some people offered healthcare might not sign up for or use it) point to a conclusion about Obama’s plan versus Clinton’s in some way? Or it is just an extemporaneous comment on your views of human nature? I’m not clear on what it is an example of in relation to the discussion.

jeffrey wrote: The original post of this has absolutely nothing to do with bias. It was specifically worded to pay equal respect to both differing approaches, which has been my point all along...

Well, first, I have an issue with a discussion where one participant claims not to have a point of view, and words their comments specifically to appear balanced. I think the passion of your points, jeffrey, is more biased towards Obama. And I like that because it makes you more interesting than someone who has no opinions. But if you don’t like the word “biased” I have a thesaurus… I really do think that your point of view is partial to Obama, inclined towards him, even favors him. I honestly don’t favor Clinton, myself. But like I’ve said before, the way this campaign has all worked out makes me, unfortunately, despite his charm and hopeful surface message and fine policy positions, biased against Obama. It makes me sad. I feel the misogyny and sexism that has circled around the campaign pretty deeply, and because I’m aware of it that informs my thinking.

jeffrey wrote: [quote=ev965]I don’t like that they usually don’t say outright, “Clinton clings to received foreign policy wisdom that precludes practical courses of action,” but instead imply it in this passive-aggressive game that the media present as being the high road.

But hang on a sec...she is using these very folks (former cabinet types from past administrations etc), who she portrays as strong contacts and qualified advisors, as the underpinnings of her credentials of experience.

With her putting them out there as some of her key assets that serve as an experience advantage over Obama, is it not fair for Obama to staff his camp with fresh, accomplished, innovative luminaries as per his message of change and then offer that as an alternative?

Clinton is 100% welcome to recruit and hire and tout proven, experienced luminaries that she wanted for her camp to convey the "experience" message, and Obama is 100% welcome to recruit and hire and tout proven innovative luminaries that he wanted for his camp to convey the innovation/ "change" message as an alternative.

It is entirely inconsistent and hopelessly biased to allow one to do this, and criticize the other for doing the same.

I read ev965’s comment differently, and less critically of Obama, than it sounds like you did. I thought ev965 was saying that in the New Republic article (or opinion piece, if you will), where the author says that Obama’s advisors do not cling to foreign policy wisdom that precludes practical courses of action, the implication is that Clinton’s advisors do. That sort of subtle (not so subtle to some of us) bias in media (and in writing generally) that aspires to be unbiased is frustrating and intellectually dishonest. If an article about Clinton and Obama states that one camp is different from the other for (insert reason), then the rather passive-aggressive implication is that the other camp falls a very different way on the issue. No need to bother and actually state the other camp’s opinion, right? Why come right out and say it? This technique is pervasive and it is one of the reasons why I do not support Obama.

Obama's candidacy is smooth and clean on the surface, but looking from where I’m looking from, the filth and rot that holds it up - that holds all of it up - is terrifying. Neither candidate escapes it, but only one benefits from it. I think that to deny that while espousing transcendent values is just hypocrisy.

First off, I agree that nothing's personal here. Hopefully we can weed out where folks read meanings into things that simply aren't there.

On that note..

Violet wrote: [quote=queencallipygos]I've actually been chalking that up to the fact that there's already been one notable politician in this country named Clinton, and the press is trying to be clear which one they're referring to.

Well, what other possible reason could there be?!

Why assume the worst, and not consider that your neighbors here (hi! ) may find sexism as repulsive and unnaceptable as you do?

Violet wrote: [quote=jeffrey]

[quote=alafairnadia]
exactly. the issue isn't that clinton is running a smear campaign and that obama misspoke, the issue is that he misspoke and said something that I really think is disgusting. if clinton is forced to woman-up to all the b.s. she's said, which she does regularly, he should own up to the fact that he's dumbing down middle america. and if middle america is willing to put up with it, that's a whole other issue.

Also wanted to respond to the above.

I can understand that this whole enchilada can be very frustrating, and can definitely acknowledge that it brings out emotional frustrations etc, being such an important subject…

Did you seriously just write that, in response to a woman’s well thought out and not particularly emotional opinion?

I would echo your question right back to you. Someone I happen to respect here wrote what was on their mind, and it had definite barbs in the language and very words selected. What compels you to project and frame this into something about women? Why even divert this in that direction?

I saw language in there like "disgusting," b.s." and claims of someone "dumbing down america." A person could interpret these words a million ways, but I am familiar with and respect this person's overall views so I elected to de-escalate and find common ground, as we have done in the past, as there is a certain point where polemics fail and one's personal beliefs and experiences dictate, same for everyone.

The term "learning to pick one's battles" comes to mind, instead of nitpicking every little thing (I now apply the floparazzi comment here) , and injecting what are in many cases frivolous and distracting canards like racism or sexism (accounting for all sides) left and right among neighbors here that, for all intents and purposes, may share many of your beliefs and deserve nonesuch offensive labels.

Institutional racism and sexism exist, to be sure. ev pointed out something that she considered in a friendly manner (and alaf has mentioned various unintentional widespread cases of it), and I've always been open to and careful to take that advice given.

But some here and out there would pick apart everything said or done out there regardless of context or the person saying it, and use it as a gotcha. This cheapens the cause, to say the very least.

So instead of nitpicking every little thing in the words above, I opted to take a step back to find common ground and referred to myself, the only person I can actually vouch for and acknowledge the real emotions and frustrations of here, being frank and up-front that yeah, upon seeing sharp language here, this does get me worked up on occasion.

Despite the point you seek to make elsewhere, one need only read through this thread to notice a general sense of frustrations with this an that, often expressed in the form of insinuations and very specific language and words that would cause uproar by many of the very same people if the candidate names were changed.

Or, one can deny that such language and word choices exist, I s'pose. Or examine them, and consider detente.

Regardless, my comment above was meant to defuse matters, to reach out to find some common ground regardless of and actually respectful of differences with others, offering an olive branch to others that clearly care a great deal for all of this as well.

I have to admit that it came out of left field to me that someone conversely projected a sexist attack into that, toward someone whose presence here I happen to enjoy and respect, and I found the willingness to apply sexist labels here (for why else frame it as an unfair claim of emotion levelled at a woman...?) a bit disturbing and a cheapening of the overall cause.

But then again, flash judgments have been the bane of message boards, email, newsgroups etc. since forever, so I suppose I am hardly shocked that something came up. Sh*t happens, we move on.

To all:

Let's just try to spare all the frivolous, pedantic and merely argumentative -ism schism stuff from here forward.

Let's preserve those very serious concerns for where there are such offenses out there, and consider a benefit of the doubt for our fellow neighbors here, shall we?

Because all conversation falls apart when folks fail to honor best intentions and insist on the contrary.

And the only thing that would seem to benefit in these forums would be page views (short term).

Violet wrote: Generally I (intellectually, as well as intuitively) think that Clinton is forced to own up to all the B.S. she’s said while Obama really isn’t, and his B.S. is, to many of us, just as offensive as hers. If he's called on it (and he rarely is) he just waves criticism away by saying that he refuses to go negative or respond to negative attacks. And no one questions this (criticism is the same as negative attacks?), for fear of being painted as having gone negative themselves. Honestly, this tactic of his reminds me of how some conservatives re-framed patriotism, especially after September 11th, to exclude liberals (or anyone who questioned them).

I can see where you are going there, and I also found that post-911 fear-mongering and disinformation pretty disgusting and shameful, but I believe the power dynamic is different here.

I confess that it would take me way too long to go into here, and it'd be a far better topic to cover whenever folks get together for beers next.

I would definitely prefer to butcher the subject over a beer than over a keyboard.

Violet wrote: Jeffrey, I’ve read Sullivan’s article (and seen him talking about it on TV), and I just now skimmed the American Prospect one. And I read what you quoted from The New Republic. So I get that Sullivan thinks that putting a new face on an energized America will help us, PR-wise. And I get that advisors to Obama have opinions. And I get that Obama advisors think Obama is different.

I’m still waiting to hear, with independent opinions maybe, but nothing too dense and without the self-congratulatory “Obama supporter tells this Obama-supporting reporter that Obamanauts don’t have the same (bad) issues that Clinton supporters have” bits, what Obama’s policy plans are. I care less about who’s advising him during the Democratic primary, or what their opinions are.

For example, the economist Paul Krugman (not a Clinton advisor) said in February in the New York Times,

there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage - a key progressive goal - and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s - at only slightly higher cost.

and then he goes on to explain why, as he sees it (here is the whole op-ed
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html).

Fair enough. As I posted initially regarding the health plans, there are some experts whose behavioral projections of the irrational human element cause them to side with one candidate, and other experts whose projections cause them to side with the other candidate.

The differences in plans are not as evil and nefarious as some have claimed (hah, he is a criminal that eats babies!). The program would be an utter success if it operated in reality as per Krugman's model, and Hillary Clinton would indeed be absolutely right and vindicated.

On the other hand, as the Scheiber article suggests that behavioral studies are more central to Obama camp's take on the realities of public policy, if the irrational human element involved does have a significant percentage and more volatile effect as people intended for the program make irrational choices (as humans do, all the time, even when things are offered for free), the efficiencies suggested in the Clinton plan as described by Krugman would not fare wellm, and it would be Obama's plan that thrives.

I will see if I can find more independent comparative discussion along these exact lines. Krugman has definitely had his say here, but he is but one mind out there, and Krugman's methods themselves over the years (selective/omissive statistics to prove points as pointed out by his own editors) have certainly not been without criticism.

Although I did think it was a real beaut that he pulled his punch (of an article) until the days just immediately before Super Tuesday, not that it helped.

So, as in my initial post on the subject, one camp has one set of projections for how reality factors in, and the other camp has another set of projections for how reality will factor in.

I was careful to not say "his plan sucks" or the reverse, and instead kept the language more about "here's where their numbers differ, you decide"

But I suppose that's just harshly critical.

Violet wrote: Obama is a good speaker. I didn’t vote for him in the primary, but I do feel it when he talks. I don’t understand how that feeling translates to my vote.

canard.

Violet wrote: At the same time, I’m generally not impressed by Clinton when she speaks, though I do respect some of her policy issues (and I respect some of Obama's too). I didn’t vote for her in the primary either. I like thinking about and talking about politics, but the direction that the discourse has gone these past months has actually radicalized me against Obama.

I hardly fault you or anyone for that, so I'm not sure what that has to do with my comments.

Violet wrote: At this point I’m trying to figure out how I can rationalize, for the first time, not voting at all in the presidential election.

That would be a major bummer, to put it lightly. For me, if for nothing else and the country goes up in a poof of smoke, it is the Supreme Court that is in dire need of protection given recent attempts to rewrite or override constitution (1st and 4th Amendments) and other key issues (Roe v. Wade etc).

Even if the choice of the nominee seems unpalatable, in the end, these two candidates are truly not that far apart, and so I think that even those who can't meet back up in the middle can perhaps at least hold their nose and pull the lever, for the bigger fights.(alaf and I and others here have always found agreement on this)

Violet wrote: It’s weird - this race reminds me of the fact that while I’ve attended anti-war and civil-rights and pro-gay-rights marches, I know precious few men who’ve attended feminist rallies.

And I have yet to see women come out in any significant national numbers to fight prostate cancer. (So what, there isn't the same sort of movement as other cancers).

Yet the fight against breast cancer, and all of its parades, run/walks, other events, care groups and medical teams are FULL of men, and obviously, women.

And the pro-choice movement has huge numbers of men involved, and even more staggering numbers of me who support it politically and with donations.

I think you might want to meet some more people out there, as I think you sell your neighbors extremely short with such comments.

Violet wrote: Again from the Times (though I read Harper's and The Atlantic much more):

...researchers put blacks and whites in sports jerseys as if they belonged to two basketball teams. People looking at the photos logged the players in their memories more by team than by race, recalling a player’s jersey color but not necessarily his or her race. But only very rarely did people forget whether a player was male or female.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/opinion/06kristof.html?em&ex=1207800000&en=558f8ec768ff90cb&ei=5087%0A

These two last two subject...sexism and racism...everyone agrees that they run deep, and are a huge, complex challenge on national, regional and individual levels.

Some in the world could care less to confront and deal with them.

Others make it their life's struggle to overcome in whatever manner they can, and take great care in their everyday life.

Why is it that some persons in the latter group out there (and perhaps in here) insist on treating everyone as the former camp, damning and discounting all as active offenders?

Institutional sexism and racism do exist.

People's words are being parsed and discredited in this very forum and elsewhere for "gotchas" and meanings that are not at all present in many cases.

Do people really like where this leads?

Thought police?

C'mon. Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.

jeffrey wrote: Violet, I have to run out for another 3:30p, but let me relay a few things in response to what you have posted about my comments.

Have a good meeting!

jeffrey wrote: You are responding to several things I clearly quoted from ev, claiming that I was saying things that you did not say. Guess what, your right! (hah)

That is not so. I specifically said that I was responding to the comments you made in regards to things that ev965 said which I agreed with. I thought that the conversation was not personal, but open to all. I honestly don't know what "claiming that I was saying things that you did not say" means. I do know that you were not responding to me when you responded to ev965, and I never said differently. But one generally responds in PM if one only wants a select person or group to respond. I thought the conversation was open to all. I hope you are not annoyed by my voicing my opinions about your responses to someone else (someone who I happen to agree with)? That would seem to me to be outside of the spirit of a community board like this...

jeffrey wrote: And you are faulting a person for things like trying to step back and say that something may just be an honest, simple mistake, nothing personal...taking offense that suddenly someone is calling you "simple."

I am sorry if you feel that I've taken offense to anything you've written. I'm honestly not that personally invested. I understand debates like this, when healthy, are not personal. I did not think that you were calling me "simple". Believe me: I am not offended. I am a little confused about what you think I'm "faulting a person for". Do you mean you? What is being faulted?

In any case, I did not simply misunderstand what you said. I disagree with some of the opinions being expressed while fully understanding them. If one consistantly feels misunderstood, the problem may not sit with those listening. If one disregards any dissenting opinion from his or her own as being simply misunderstanding of his or her own opinions, that is a sophisticated but ultimately ineffective dismissal of the dissenting opinions. I think you're too smart for that, jeffrey.

jeffrey wrote: People asked me for specific items, so I posted links. Links to articles, for people to read, as requested. Just like the other article links posted by others here.

I've asked you for your opinions. I respect them and am genuinely interested. In this context the opinions of my neighbors (Hi, neighbor! ) are more interesting and important to me than the opinions of media, proclaimed experts, pundits, and analysts. What do you think, jeffrey? I would love to read what you think with a lot of "I" and "Me" sentences, rather than the "One" which is useful to deflect real discussion of opinions. It is pretty obvious that you have opinions, strong, passionate, well thought out ones. C'mon. Be a neighbor and share!

jeffrey wrote: You fault me for providing links to these articles and going into length to respond to things (quoting people), but you are taking these and parsing them to produce even longer flow of misdirections and diversions, and dismissing attempts to be courteous as "backtracking."

I didn't intend to fault you for providing links, or for quoting people. I didn't feel that way, I don't feel that way, and honestly that doesn't even sound like anything I'd say. Can you explain what you felt was faulting? I have admitted that I do have trouble with some of the passive, noncommital language that is being used... Is that what you're talking about? The "backtracking" comment was not meant to find fault with you (honest. I don't even know you!) but to explain why it's hard to have a two (or more!) sided debate with someone who goes back and negates any interpretation of a noncommital opinion he or she gave if he or she doesn't like the interpretation. It might be helpful to go and read what ev965 said about the language that is tripping some up.

jeffrey wrote: You fault me as muddled or hard to follow for lengthy responses that are merely following the lengthy canards and wild goose chase diversions you churn out by parsing my posts line by line for any ad hominem discrediting gotchas.

Again, I do not fault you at all. (I think my responses rival yours in length, actually! ) Are you defining "canard" as a false story or rumor? Can you point to some canards in the previous posts? You used that word before (I'll have to reply to your earlier post about what I posted yesterday later - I may only be able to get to it next week, but I'll do my best to respond before then, gods of the internet willing) but I do not think that word means what you think it means... (That was a joke, jeffrey. Princess Bride fans will understand. ) If one's opinion doesn't agree with someone else's, that doesn't make the first one's opinion a false story, does it? What do you think? If one sees in the use of language something offensive, he or she would be wise to point it out, so that the offending party does not repeat the mistake. That doesn't mean that the act of pointing out an offensive (though artful) turn of phrase is telling a false story.

When something important to me (for example, the use of language in diminishing women) is called a "wild goose chase" it's a little hurtful. Luckily I don't take comments like these personally, as I'm sure you did not intend them that way.

jeffrey wrote: For example, where did I say that I put any stock in calling anyone "old farts?" Why would you attribute that sort of language to be something that defines my particular views? (as opposed to mere mention that these terms are out there)

I'd have to respond to that by asking, where did I say that you said that you put any stock in calling anyone "old farts"? I did not attribute that language to be something that defines your views. I specifically asked if what you meant when you said that ev965 was implying a cool-young-un versus old-fart (old fart being your words) bias (which I did not read that ev965 wrote at all). To be fair, you were the first to use "old farts" in referring to a bias in how some might see Clinton supporters or advisors, but you attributed the bias to someone else. Maybe you just made a mistake?

jeffrey wrote: Hey, no worries, it's been a real pleasure. :roll:

No worries at all, jeffrey.
Again, have a good meeting and I will try to respond to your other comments within the next few days (earlier if my internet at home is finally up again), if you like. If we don't "talk" before next week, I hope you have a good weekend.

P.S. I can hardly wait until we get back to talking about our own opinions about Clinton, Obama, McCain, politics, etc. without all of the semantic back and forth, hurt feelings over perceived fault-finding, etc. It really is more interesting... :roll:

Carnivore wrote: Would any of the people who think there's a pro-Obama bias in the media care to comment on this week's debate? Personally, I think there's a pro-underdog bias in the media, because it makes a better story, and the lack of resolution of the contest means they have a continuing source of material to report on. In the lead-up to Iowa and immediately thereafter, there was definitely a pro-Obama bias.

I did not see the debate (I'm still kicking myself for missing it - I really enjoy watching them ) but I have read read a few opinion pieces (I think from Slate, the Times) that said that Clinton edged out Obama. I don't know what my opinion is since I didn't see it, and who "wins" is so hard to say. But what I've read would seem to uphold your rooting-for-the-underdog theory. Interesting... Who do you think "won"? Have you noticed a general media opinion about who took the night?

Carnivore wrote: I think in the latter part of this contest (since it became clear that it will be almost impossible for Clinton to win the nomination without some extraordinary circumstance), the media has been a lot harder on Obama.

I don't think they've been harder on Obama than on Clinton, but do think that they've been harder on him than they had been in the past.

Carnivore wrote: Of course, all of this back-and-forth between the Democrats is really benefiting McCain more than anyone, so maybe it all really reflects a very devious and underhanded pro-McCain bias.

I know you're teasing, but all of the "old" jokes speak against a pro-McCain bias. I think that they're just replacing all that is wrong with George W. Bush that McCain also agrees with, with "he's sooo old". Much the way they went on and on about Bill Clinton's weight. Anyway, the Democrats don't need a media bias to help lift up the Republicans. They do it all on their own.

I'm looking forward to the McCain versus Democratic-nominee debates. (I think a great fantasy debate would be Obama versus George W. Bush. Pop me some popcorn for that one! )

in the coverage I saw this morning, it looked to me like a total b.s. debate - nothing substantive even really questioned and very little obtaining of two opinions on something critical to the nation (hello! we have an economic collapse of proportions we haven't seen since the 1920s, what's your take?). then again, I was watching fox news to see if they were more or less assholes than the other channels.

for the record, they are worse on all levels. mccain can do no wrong.

(back to a 'puter now, whee)

The aforementioned Krugman rips Obama a new one:

Clinging to a Stereotype

Also, Gallup's national measure shows Clinton sharply closed the aforementioned gap today:


Haven't been plugged in to news in the last day...any ideas what came up or changed in the last 24 hrs?

Post-debate effect, given the nature of that particular debate?

Also, re: McCain, just saw that he has come out of his corner alleging that Obama is tied to Hamas.

This should be interesting.

Also, beer meetup offer stands. All welcome. Might be meetin' with alaf later tonight or tomorrow eve (playing by ear due to finishing work stuff)

***edited to add: beers gathering update - alaf mentions that it looks like folks will be gathering tomorrow eve at Franklin Park, for the beer garden. More details to follow.

what's wrong with elitism?

A Bill Maher show reporter opts to cover the separate (but perhaps somewhat overlapping) small-town Pennsylvania strip-club, Harley-ridin' and gun-club constituencies, regarding who they support and their thoughts about this whole bitterness and clinging statements issue:



Obvious Caveat: totally anecdotal, obviously not a broad measure

***edited to add: And yes, the institutionalized, blatantly sexist biker term for the rear seat (which happened to be uttered by a lady biker to the reporter in this case, ironically enough) was not lost on anyone, least of all the reporter (for he, too, cringed and was careful to include it) , myself, or anyone else viewing, I hope.

To follow up a previous point here (that was somehow woefully misinterpreted as representing all sexism), this is the perfect example of an actual, clear case of the institutionalized sexism folks already agree is unfortunately out there and need of remedy...as opposed to other, more frivolous side that I referred to as "a wild goose chase," where people are projecting this very valid issue to extremes and seeking to discredit virtually everything out of other peoples' mouths as somehow merely sexist-motivated. (same goes for frivolous, merely baiting claims of racism vs. clear cases of it, either conscious or institutionalized)

No one's causes are being criticized here. In fact, many of us here share them, and just want to avoid less productive extremes (meaning...rejecting all discussions and speakers as having ulterior motives, even those on our own side).

LTT, I can see it now...the next charismatic Repub/gs campaign:

"Yes, McCain"

(oy)