Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Harrogate's Thoughts on the 2/26 Demo Debate, Unfiltered (Except by way of Solon)

Solon has written pretty thorough analyses of the show from last night. Harrogate wants to add a few thoughts of his own. He has, so far, resisted visiting any websites or television segments analyzing what happened.

.5)Harrogate was very, very pleased by Obama's repudiation of his own inaction with respect to Congress & Shiavo. Because what Congress did there, was not only unconstitutional. It was just plain demagoguery at its worst, and the American people saw it for what it was, and it didn't work.

1)The most enduring memory might well be, for Harrogate, Russert's hypothetical sequence, where he spun an elaborate set of what-ifs. Here was the scenario he posed: What if you pull out of Iraq in a year, like you both say you're going to, leaving only a residual, smaller force to protect the Giant Embassy. And then, the Iraqi government says hey, if you're not going to protect us any better than that, then get the hell out altogether. What will you do?

Answer (both candidates, actually): They're a sovereign government. If they insist we get out, that's what we've gotta do. Back to Russert's hypothetical: Well, let's say then that you draw everything out, and then the ter'ists regroup and set up shop in Iraq, will you reserve the right to reinvade?

Hillary Clinton attempts to remind Russert, rather kindly Harrogate thought, that he's painting a rather simplistic picture. She then tries to engage the Iraq Tar Baby in a Reasonable Manner. Russert interrupts: But this is Reality! Then Clinton nailed him. No, Tim, this Isn't Reality, its a series of hypotheticals.

And then she went ahead and said that it was she wanted to say about our great misadventure in Iraq. Harrogate cheered. Sayeth Harrogate, screw you, Tim Russert, and your willingness to invoke, and legitimize, neocon framing.

2)Unlike Solon, Harrogate actually thought the Farrakhan question pefectly legitimate. As was the follow up about Obama's church, which is going to become a bigger deal the longer he chooses to ignore it. Yea, if there is a "hate whitey" element to Obama's church, then Houston, we've got a seruous freakin' problem. That is, if you care about actually winning the election. Obama needs to address this issue, repudiate any connection his church may have to that mentality. Period. He is not "above this." We are not "above this." Kerry tried that with the swiftboaters, it's lily-livered and doesn't work.

These issues infest the subsurface of Obama discourse. Neither Obama nor the rest of us Democrats get to act like it isn't there. The impulse to cry out, but we shouldn't Even Be Having to Deal With This, will not cut it. And Harrogate thought Obama made one of his biggest Rhetorical Blunders of the entire campaign during this sequence, in that he ignored Audience, instead talking down both to Clinton and the moderators, deigning to explain to them that there is no difference between denouncing Farrakhan and Rejecting his support outright. It made matters worse that Obama tried to play cute, saying that the minister "thinks I'm a good guy." No, Senator. Clinton was right, you've got to address this head on, reject the endorsement, don't rely on your supporters to convince their family members and underinformed friends that you are not in league with Radical Islam.

3)Has everyone else noticed that with the exception of Ron Paul, every other candidate for President glazes over when the subject of Israel comes up, and defaults to Talking Points? You know you're in Talking Points land, when you hear stupid-ass phrases like "we have a special relationship," "their security is sacrosanct," Etc.

Now, Harrogate is no Ron Paul suppoter, as faithful Readers know. Because Libertarians tend to think in crayon. But at least Paul has the guts to point out that Israel is fair game for debate, and that in fact, it is a central issue if you want to understand what is happening in the Middle East. And at the end of the day, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bush, and everyone else needs to have the guts to come out and say, in direct language, if they believe it, that if you don't support our military alliance with Israel, that you re an anti-Semite. That if you don't believe we should be wagering the lives of our young men and women on Israel's behalf, then you are an anti-Semite.


4)Like solon, Harrogate hopes there are no more debates. He thought Clinton was excellent last night, and he wishes her well in the primaries/caucuses to come, and he pledges his own vote to that end. He also thought that while Obama was considerably weaker (Obama's much better at stump speeches than at debating), the Illinois Senator didn't do himself any real harm and will win this nomination.

5 comments:

solon said...

As for point two, I reject guilt by association questions.

Senator Obama denounced him. Senator Clinton should not have attacked Obama; she should have denounced the question.

No one wins on these questions. Every politicians has supporters that you do not want. But even the undesirable people in society have freedom of choice and freedom of association.

By the way, if you argue that this question is legitimate, then you walk down the slippery slope which won't let you have a balanced treatment between Israel and Palestine.

M said...

You may reject guilt by association questions, but the a lot of other voters don't. Harrogate is right; if Obama gets the nomination and wants to will he will have to distance himself from Farrakhan's endorsement in a much more stringent manner than he has done thus far--at the very least to disprove those who are already questioning what they see as his Muslim heritage.

And to the point that "Every politician has supporters that you do not want" I would say that if these are vocal supporters that the vast majority of your other supporters hate then you do need to address such issues. If, for example (and this is Harrogate's example, not mine) the KKK came out in support of John McCain, you can bet he would be saying more than "it isn't my fault the Grand Dragon of the KKK thinks I'm a good guy." He would have to reject this endorsement because if he didn't a lot of Americans would wonder what is it about John McCain that makes the Grand Dragon of the KKK openly endorse him?

Anonymous said...

I agree with the overwhelming majority of your response, Harrogate, with one exception: "And Harrogate thought Obama made one of his biggest Rhetorical Blunders of the entire campaign during this sequence, in that he ignored Audience, instead talking down both to Clinton and the moderators, deigning to explain to them that there is no difference between denouncing Farrakhan and Rejecting his support outright."

I think Obama showed how ridiculous it is to tediously argue over words, especially if you're running a campaign, as Clinton has, that calls for solutions rather than speeches. But I didn't think Obama talked down to Russert, Clinton, or the audience. I think he repudiated her claim and maintained a sense of humor. Yes, he poked fun at her, but he wasn't patronizing. And, ultimately, he conceded the point. Clinton, for her part, was gracious and likable when she cried, "Good!"

This may be simply an issue of, "When my candidate makes a joke, it's funny and when yours does, it's not." I admit I didn't think Clinton's comments about the sky opening were in good humor or good taste, even though I can logically see why one might think it was funny, so we can probably call it a draw.

And, by the way, I admit being a political Pollyanna at times, but I still don't see why anyone (and I'm referring to the public at large here and not you, Harrogate) can love one candidate and hate the other. Their policies are SO similar. It really does seem a question of personality at this point. I prefer Obama's-- it takes a crazy optimist to love one, I guess!--but I'll be thrilled to vote for Hillary and get her policies, as well.

harrogate said...

Oooo, ye broke out "Pollyanna."

Channeling the Count:

Harrogate nominates "Pollyanna" as the WORD OF THE DAY. Everyone use "Pollyanna" constructively in all posts the remainder of the day.

Ah---ah----ah!!!!

And yes, it is bizarre that so many seem to Love one of these candidates and yet Loathe the other, similar as their proposals are. We can only hope that sanity will prevail when all the smoke clears, and all Demos will come home to the winner.

solon said...

Oh Pollyanna, Pollyanna...

Why would the Count have any thing to do with the words of the day?

Number of the day maybe... word...