Democratic Primary 2008

PUMAs Are Dead

Salon, reviewing the media’s greatest mistakes of 2008: “Guess what? For all the PUMA nonsense that filled the airwaves over the summer… Obama is beating McCain by a 91-to-5-percent margin among self-identified Democrats.” Nate Silver concurs: the PUMAs never mattered, but they made a good story for CNN & Fox, so they were happy to pretend they mattered. Meanwhile, “Hillary’s” PUMAs have shed their disguises and come out as McCain-iacs.

TexasDarlin & PUMAs: Still Alive & Lyin’

Back when the Democratic National Convention began, “TexasDarlin” of the newly restyled (and now ghastlier) “tdblog” promised that the site would change drastically depending on the outcome of the DNC. The implicit assertion was that, if Obama was still the nominee after a while, she’d continue lying for Hillary, despite Bill & Hillary’s explicit request that she and all those like her STOP. If, however, she grew satisfied with Obama or saw Hillary take the ticket, she’d lay down her arms.

Well, good news everyone! TD elected for a happy middle. She continued rolling out ridiculous screeds against Obama, but her traffic dropped noticeably. We appreciate her embrace of mediocrity & descent into the same. However, she is still taking crazy rants from make-believe lawyer Judah Benjamin, who continues to insist that Barack Obama is incapable of becoming president on account of his alleged dual citizenship. When this ridiculous argument was first made, I took the time to rebut it; accordingly, for old time’s sake, I feel compelled to do it again.

Two initial points. First, Benjamin has truly gone off the deep end this time, going so far as to engage in a little nostalgia for antebellum racism.  I quote: “By the way, under US Law of another time the Senator would not have been a US Citizen at all, and he knows that.”

That’s right. Dred Scott & slavery. He went there. Yearning for a return to bondage: those PUMAs are a classy bunch.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, even assuming that Obama was constitutionally ineligible for the office of President, it’s not clear who would be able to sue to kick him off the ballot. One thing’s for sure: it sure as hell isn’t a private citizen (you listening, Berg?). Benjamin, here’s a case for you to read, buddy. Call me if you need help with the… you know… law. See, e.g., Hollander v. McCain, 2008 WL 2853250, at *7 (D. N.H. 2008) (holding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge to Sen. John S. McCain’s eligibility to run for President). The FEC could take up the challenge, but I’ll bet you my cat that they won’t.

Now on to the meat. The only new information Benjamin provides us with is this: at birth, Obama admits that he was a dual citizen, ergo he has a “split allegiance at birth,” rendering him, in Benjamin’s mind, constitutionally ineligible. Of course, this information is only disqualifying if Obama’s split allegiance at birth means that he wasn’t a “natural born Citizen.” But – as I have pointed out – Benjamin can cite neither case law nor persuasive secondary authority for that crucial proposition. So all he can do is dredge up new, irrelevant facts to support an incorrect assertion of law.

Wow. That was easier than I thought.

With apologies to XKCD.

Secondment (Yes to Democracy)

Thanks to Christina of “Yes to Democracy” for inviting me to be a guest contributor (an offer which I’ve happily accepted).  I’ve written my first post over there, on the impact John McCain would have on the U.S. Supreme Court, and why feminist PUMAs’ opposition to Obama makes so little sense.  Please read the rest of the post over there, and never fear, loyal reader(s): my responsibilities over there will not dilute the quality of content over here.

Hillary PUMAs – Handmaidens of John McCain, or Weaponized Disappointment?

I confess that I’m continually baffled by the popularity of “Hillary PUMAs” – those (alleged) Hillary partisans who value her victory even over the victory of Democrats, both at the presidential level, and downticket. I’ve asked myself time and time again, what makes them tick? Why potentially sacrifice a Democratic presidency just to make a point? In the following post, I assume that the PUMAs have a rational goal, which they’re pursuing rationally, attempt to pinpoint that goal, and in the end abandon the presumption to arrive at their true motivation: anger, weaponized & exploited by the McCain camp. While it’s not fair to characterize PUMAs as puppets or affiliates of John McCain, one can at least perceive his barely-visible hand.

Make no mistake, PUMAs – you’re being exploited, albeit indirectly, and coerced into undermining your own dearly held beliefs.

Continue reading »

John Edwards: Hero No Longer

John Edwards, disgraced: the former Senator & presidential candidate just now admitted to having had an affair with a campaign staffer, while his wife was at death’s door no less.  A sickening betrayal of family and country.  Imagine the arrogance of running for President while knowing this was out there.  Ugh.

Hillary PUMAs: What’s the Point?

Talk is growing on the question of whether Hillary Clinton’s name will be on the ballots at the Democratic Convention in Denver. There’re a lot of reasons to think that, just for the sake of catharsis, it should be: as one die-hard Hillary supporter put it (see below), it needn’t be about disrespect to “Future President Obama”. It’s just a way of getting long-simmering emotions out of the way, and letting the party coalesce once everything’s in the open. This is the positive case for Hillary’s continued relevance, and I have to say I support it:

And then there’s the negative case, ably presented, as always, by “The Confluence”: to get Hillary on the ballot, and smear Obama at any cost. While the rest of the world wonders aloud what Hillary Clinton wants, I’m stuck still wondering what die-hard Hillary Democrats (a.k.a., “PUMAS” – Party Unity My Ass) want. From a recent post, it looks that, if they can’t have Hillary Clinton, they want John McCain:

Our problems with Obama are based on the issues. We are not Republicans who go crazy because we are afraid Obama is not Christian enough to keep all the little zygotes from being murdered in their wombs. We don’t care if his middle name is “Hussein” and we don’t think he is a secret Muslim being brainwashed by Angela Lansbury to murder all the white people in their sleep. For Jeebus’ sake, WAKE UP! We don’t think Obama will be a good President because he is a liar, a total opportunist who will betray anyone and everyone in order to gain power and prestige. He has no beliefs. He has no principles. He loves himself more than should be humanly possible. And, he’s being financed by huge corporate interests who have no desire to rock their financial boats.

In short, he reminds us of George W. Bush.

All I can say is, if you think this Convention is going without a hitch… you are out of your freaking mind. And if you do manage to nominate Oba-moi, please know that he will never, EVER be President of the United States. You and your pathetic, elitist comrades-in-Unity(TM) will be going down in flames

To this issue, I have to ask: really? If your problem with Obama is that he reminds you too much of Bush, what exactly is the point of torpedoing his campaign, other than helping get Bush’s lapdog elected? People like “RiverDaughter” and her co-bloggers need to start to look at the endgame, see the forest through the trees, and other salient metaphors. The *realistic* logical conclusion (electing Hillary is unrealistic) of the anti-Obama, pro-Hillary hysteria these people are kicking up is chaos, disunity, and four (maybe eight) years of Republican rule.

I’m all for the continued relevance of Hillary Clinton, and all for keeping her name on the ballot at the DNC. But I cannot stand to watch Democrats advocate tearing themselves apart while Enemy #1 waltzes to victory: it’s like fighting a civil war over how to handle a foreign war.

My question is, what to do with these people? They’re too big to ignore: they hit the WordPress mainpage daily (although Obama happily brushes them off, as the fanatics that they are). What to do? Post and yell at them? Comment and yell at them? Let them fizzle out after the stated goal of getting Hillary nominated fails? I’m not convinced they will fizzle out.

Blunting the Edge of McCain’s Experience Advantage

Obama’s challenge, it seems, is to beat Hillary. Again.

Experience & elitism: the same themes that powered Hillary’s campaign to near-victory continue to animate the corpse of the McCain campaign. Time & again, we’re seeing that these two talking points are the only things McCain has on his opponent. But their forceful and shockingly negative recent presentation may turn what appear to be the McCain campaign’s violent death throes into a second wind.   Obama should act now to blunt the edge of this attack.

For the sake of this post, I assume that Obama can properly dispose of the “elitism” label.  He’s doing a fine job on that already, mostly because all he needs to do is avoid making a mistake that plays into that label, cancel any windsurfing or skiing plans he had, and stage a few more “basketball with the troops” photo-ops.

The “experience” issue is a problem, but not one that can’t be handled.  Taking a page from the Rove/Republican play book, Obama need not “win” the issue: he need not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt his capability to lead.  All he needs to do is muddy the issue enough to make his case “survive summary judgment” – i.e., enough to prevent either issue from turning into a resounding defeat, and call into question McCain’s attacks.

Creationists use this tactic with evolution – they can’t ever “win” on the science, but they can raise enough scurrilous issues, and manufacture enough controversies, that high school teachers are chilled from teaching science.  Just so, if Obama can inject doubt into McCain’s “experience” talking point, he can prevent himself from having to “write off” key blocs of voters.

Luckily, Obama has a head start: there are already enough facts and footage about him to create reasonable doubt about McCain’s accusations.  Obama just needs to deploy these facts, effectively.  Here’s how.

Obama should attempt – preferably through third-party actors, like MoveOn.org – to reframe McCain’s experience advantage as a negative.  In redefining McCain’s history, his affiliations with George W. Bush are obviously fair game: it’s no secret that America is fed up with Bush, and McCain’s “experience” means he ought to have known better than to be Bush’s lapdog for the past eight years. What is experience, after all, if McCain lacks the willpower to use it when it counts?

Obama should also play up his foreign policy successes, and juxtapose them with McCain’s failures.  While McCain has yet to articulate a clear vision for solving the Iraq debacle, Obama’s Iraq proposals have met with foreign approval and even forced McCain to change his tune.  Obama recognizes the real front of the war on terror – Afghanistan – which, despite his “experience,” McCain has ignored.  Obama talks tough about America’s need to wipe Al Qaeda off the map, even if that requires military action in allied Pakistan, a policy supported even by Obama’s detractors. In this context, McCain’s “experience” seems positively an empty promise, or a promise to continue policies that have already failed America: we deserve better than “experience without intuiton.”  We deserve someone with the ability to learn from his mistakes.

This is a harsh but effective line to take.  If MoveOn.org could take this message and articulate it in an appealing manner – without the organization’s characteristic tactlessness, preferably – Obama could stay above the fray, half-heartedly condemn the ad, and watch as the media snaps up and replays the controversial message time and time.

Whither “The Confluence”?

I’m continually flabbergasted by the popularity of “The Confluence,” a site haunted by ex-Kos bloggers and Hillary supporters who long outlived their welcome. For one, the site seems to be fast approaching its inevitable end in disappointment, as more and more “shadow campaign” groups give up the ghost.  Most of the posts lately, like the one linked above, are geared towards staging a “netroots” upset at the Democratic convention, to force a fast-fading Senator Hillary Clinton to the nomination.  Once this goal fails in disappointment and anger, the site’s raison d’etre seems likely to vanish.

A more important question, though, is what if it doesn’t?  When Hillary doesn’t receive the nomination, what if groups like this attempt to fight on, to the general election, sowing discontent and anger in a party that desperately needs unity?  There’s every indication that “Confluence” bloggers will never be happy – they demand that the convention be “fair, open and transparent with an authentic nomination for Hillary and arguments for her, and yes, maybe even some disunity before the final vote,” or they’ll “walk.”  But there are enough soft factors in that demand to guarantee that there’ll always be standing to object, and always reason for Hillary Democrats to “walk.”  But why?  After the inevitable failure, what’s the point?

Although Obama remains ahead in the polls, it’s not by a comfortable margin.  A continuance of party disunity, after the Convention, risks a McCain Presidency, which is likely to be even less to the liking of Hillary Democrats than Obama.  If Hillary stood for feminism, McCain stands for gutting women’s rights.  If Hillary stood for a fighting chance for middle America, McCain stands for more of the past eight years.  Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees.

Electoral-Vote.com and Our Hilarious Preconceptions

During the primary season, the popular website “Electoral-Vote.com” kept a running account of which Democratic candidate polled best against John McCain.  In what is now a moot (but nonetheless interesting) point, take a look at the picture below, from May 27th.  States where Barack Obama polled better against McCain are colored brown; where Hillary Clinton did better, they’re pink (see the legend below):

Do you notice something about the chosen colors?  Yes, that’s it: the black man is brown, and the woman is pink (friend’s reaction: “brown and pink? I don’t… ooooooh”). Maybe it was subconscious, but the esteemed votemaster’s choices of color seem to have stereotypically highlighted each candidates’ unique deviations from the white-male-politician norm.

I can’t decide if it’s tacky or funny.  I guess, just like so many plays on gender or race, it depends upon context, and upon who’s doing the playing.  I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.  We report; you decide.

Full disclosure: I didn’t pick up on this point, but my friend Natalie, who’s written for this site before, did… and because she’s otherwise occupied now, I get to post on it.

Join or Die: Hillary Democrats for McCain on WordPress

One of my regular commenters recently noted the upswing in pro-Hillary, anti-Obama rhetoric among WordPress’ politics blogs (thanks for the tip!). That’s a disappointing trend, but the actual sites he pointed to are even more disappointing, ranging from the racist to the delusional. I’ve noted before – just click that little “previous post” button above you – that it’s partly worrying, but mostly confusing, to see so many people turn from the Democrats upon Obama’s nomination. It suggests to me that the Clinton supporters who cling to her candidacy were never really about the issues in the first place. America is at a crossroads, and to let anger and resentment at Hillary’s loss defeat us in our last best chance to undo the damage of the Bush years borders on the absurd. It’s cutting off the nose to spite the face, it’s throwing a temper tantrum, it’s..

Irresponsible.

More on the worst offenders, below the line. Continue reading »