What Experience is Necessary?

Hillary Clinton states she has 35 years of experience? A post at Talk Left states that "Experience" may be a political weapon if the campaign were to feature Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. Fox Business reports that only one president in the 20th century possessed business experience: Herbert Hoover-- the same Hoover that presided over the Great Depression.

To what degree is experience necessary for a candidate or is just one characteristic necessary?

How do you define experience? What is included?

Here is a description of the executive experience of each president.This list is somewhat misleading as it focuses on the executive experience, mentioning some elected experience, and ignoring other types of experience e.g. Cabinet positions. Here is another list, but the credibility seems lower. Some thoughts:

Six have no elected experience:
George Washington, Zachery Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower (Everyone except Hoover possessed military experience)
William Howard Taft (Solicitor General of the U.S., Secretary of War, Governor General of the Philippines)

One Term of Service:
Thomas Jefferson (Governor, not reelected)
Theodore Roosevelt (2 years as Governor of New York before being VP to William McKinley before becoming president)
Abraham Lincoln (2 years in Congress)
Woodrow Wilson (Governor for two year, also President of Princeton)

A Somber Clinton?

From Politico: It seems that Senator Clinton did not receive the memo that her campaign is demoralized.

When asked by a reporter about the Times report describing her as “wistful,” Clinton chuckled and said, “I don’t think I look very wistful.”

Women in Texas

From The New York Times: Women determining for whom to vote in TX.

The article is somewhat interesting, though it seems that this article is more like a travel article that introduces the people of the Northeast to Texas. Or maybe it is from the perspective of an art gallery tour guide: "And on your left women vote because of their feminist ideas; on the right, those were pioneers in the feminist movement; in front of us we have a portrait of those that dislike Hillary because.... In the next room, we will talk about Kay Bailey Hutchinson's aspiration to be the first woman VP... Isn't interesting how the people of Texas are actually like the people of new York... Well, maybe Pennsylvania."

From the article, [after discussing Ma "Two for the price of one" Ferguson]: "Texas politics has sobered up some over the years..."

Asks Huckabee: What does "Mathematical Impossibility" Mean, Anyway?

Speaking of SNL, Mike Huckabee also made an appearance last night. Still the only candidate in the race who has shown even the slightest capacity for self-parody. Something to recommend that, sayeth Harrogate.

If your candidate does not win

win the Democratic Primary, you can always vote Nader, as he announced his presidential bid an an Independent. I hate that Meet the Press is on at 10:30 here in NYC but 9:00am almost everywhere else.

The Eyes of Texas are upon...

Obama, of course. Here is the intro from SNL. It covers the media scrutinty of Obama and mentions Clinton...

Even Obama Girl makes an appearance.

Bitch is the New Black

On SNL, Tina Fey delivered "the most important women's news item there is" and asked Ohio and Texas to vote for Clinton.

Here is the clip:

Somber Clinton?

In today's New York Times, the article "Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Darkens" is either an attempt to (really) lower expectations a week before a primary or the sign of troubled times for the Clinton campaign.

It is an odd article, especially in terms of the language and anecdotes by the Clinton campaign.

Frank Rich is also brutal against the Clinton campaign this morning, though the details are very important. From Rich

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

I would love to know why the campaign took this direction. It cannot just be hubris. They campaign could not have believed in the "inevitable argument" it tried to run on.

Random Sign on the F Train

This is an advertisement for Homeboy Sandman, which was placed over other ads on the F Train:

I got more bars than granola promoters
I caught Ebola and didn't notice

Homeboy Sandman (www.HomeboySandman.com)

Is it Gossip or is it Politics?

I've recently been turned on to The Reliable Source, the Washington Post's gossip column written by Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts. While there is a smattering of Britney news, the majority of the gossip is what's going on behind the scenes within the beltway. Pretty fun stuff and no paparrazi photos to speak of, so I feel pretty good about reading it.

It's not half as fun and scandalous, though, as TMZ.

A Fun Headline

Perhaps megsg-h will be willing to lift her self-imposed moratorium on gawking at the gliteratti, given the looseness with which "gliteratti" designates the players at stake. Indeed, given all the Rhetorical absurdities evoked by this Headline: Pauly Shore Countersues Wes Craven.

A Word on Last Night's Debate: And the Rhetorical Swipe at JFK That Harrogate Always Wanted to Take

Harrogate does disagree with solon's suggestion that the final moments were unimportant. That handshake between the two of them may have seemed cheesy to some, but for Harrogate it was a Great moment. Perhaps they didn't mean it when each of them said they were honored to share the stage and the Primary race with the Other. But Harrogate would like to believe that they did mean it, because they should.

And, Clinton's final speech was very effective on an Epideictic level. It was likely by no means enough to get her any votes she wasn't going to get by now--in fact, it's pretty clear that no debate between the two of them is going to effect that, at this point. She is going to lose this Primary, it seems clear to Harrogate now.

But her closing words were effective, as was the standing ovation that they elicited. Effective because they expressed a very true thing: she made a clarion call for Perspective--something very much needed in the face of the Hyperbole being thrown around. She reminded voters of the ridiculousness of lamenting what these very privileged Politicos "go through" at the highest level of politics.

She reminded everyone, without saying it, likely without even thinking it, that the sainted JFK was in fact wrong. To wit: it isn't about what average citizens can do for those in power. It is what those in power can do for the average citizens, that will determine the government's Decency Barometer.

Political Markets...Why vote when you can bet...

I have been following the political markets. Here is an updated list on the presidential race.

Can you say, snow day?

Universal Health Care

During last night's debate, one of Senator Clinton's strengths was a discussion of Health Care in Act III, as well as her passion and knowledge through Act I on a variety of issues. Yet, what this suggests is the need for Senator Clinton in the Senate and not the Presidency.

Universal Health Care would be a task for the legislative, not executive branch. If the President were to submit a plan, it would go to Congress where the Democrats would need to develop the plan. Once the Democrats discern what will pass, it will go to committee, where most legislation goes to die. At this point, a strong Senator will need to get the plan through committee (and make compromises, which is why I think the mandates won't stand unless there are overwhelming majorities in the House to make them stand). If it passes in committee, then a Senator will need to get it to pass in the House, which would most likely be assured.

The President's role in this would be to speak to the people and to persuade the people that Universal Health Care needs support, which is not Senator Clinton's strong suit (this is not a pant suit reference either. The President will need to use bully pulpit to engage the people to act and force the other party to concede.

A strong Senator would be better on this task in Congress. A rhetorically aware president will help move the people.

****By the way, I have a snow day.

A Theory of Composition

Here it is, maybe: a theory of composition from Senators Clinton and Obama. From The New Republic.

This is the most I have found on the subject.

Also, for my Texas friends, while you may be enjoying your temperate weather right now, I am enjoying my first snow day in over 15 years.

RNC attacks Obama

According to Chuck Todd at MSNBC, the Republican National Committee is attack Senator Obama and only Senator Obama.

Democratic Debate: Act III & IV

Act III: The Return of Iraq

Senator Clinton attacked Senator Obama that he would not be ready on Day One to be Commander-In-Chief; Senator Obama countered id he didn't think that was true, he would not have run.

Senator Obama attacked Senator Clinton about having poor political judgment on Iraq. She cannot respond to this...

This whole section focused on Iraq, which may be unfair to Senator Clinton because I do not think she can win this conversation. Health Care maybe; Iraq no.

Act IV: Please, let this be over... and cancel the next one too!

After Act II, they should have canceled this. They have a moment of unity at the end, the crowd cheers when then shake hands... both look good... and the Texas Democrats are happy...

Texas is a statistical tie right now between the candidates...

Thoughts on Debate 19

I guess this is debate 19, not 20. Oh Well. Twenty will be next weak in Cleveland.

Act One: The Passion of Senator Clinton
Hillary did an excellent job in the first part, (before the first commercial). The first part exemplified her knowledge on and passion for policy, as well as her desire to be a fighter and continue partisanship.

Obama, while providing good answers, did not provide inspiring answers. He displayed his knowledge but seemed flat.

The difference between the candidates: style. Their plans are very similar, with only small differences that most people do not care about. But, what matters is how it will be done and what type of presidential style you desire: partisanship or consensus.

Act Two: The Problems for Senator Clinton
The second part of the debate focused on the criticism they had of each other: style v. substance, words v. actions, partisanship v. consensus. Did Obama plagiarize... etc. Senator Clinton mentioned Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, who could not name a legislative achievement.

Senator Obama did very well, much better than Senator Clinton. Obams mentioned that the attacks against him occurred during the "silly season of politics" when we needed to stand above the small differences to get people involved. Senator Obama attacked Senator Clinton on her "Get Real Remarks" that she used today (over ten times) in one speech. His remarks (from Politico):

"The implication has been that the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional," he says, as Clinton laughs, and he cites the voters who support him and the editorial boards — including, he says, all the major ones in Texas — that have endorsed him.

"The thinking is that somehow they're being duped, ... and that eventually they're going to see the reality of things," he says. "I think they perceive the reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly."

At one point, when she attempted to achieve a zinger on Obama about plagiarism, saying "It's not change you can believe in, it's change you can xerox," the audience slightly booed her, the first time this occurred for either candidate.

Two important things to take away: First, at one point, Hillary agreed on the substance of Obama. All of her recent criticisms are now off the table... If she uses these arguments again, this will be a problem for her credibility. With her criticisms no longer available and her attacks not working, how will she gain an advantage?

Second, many commentators, some of this site, state the Obama is not a fighter. Again, its the style. He has been fighting Senator Clinton quite well since the second part of the debate. Yet, most of the time when he attacks, it is subtle. Reread his South Carolina speech for an argument against Senator Clinton and the Clinton style.

I originally titled Act II: The Demise of Senator Clinton. As her attacks failed, her grin concealed considerable pain. At this point, I thought that she knew she would not be able to gain on Senator Obama enough to reach a decided win in Texas to claim over 65% of the delegates she needs to catch up. The advantage she gained in the ACT I part disappeared in the second because her arguments are no longer usable. Of course, she does better on Health Care but this advantage falls when they discuss Iraq. While there is another debate in Cleveland next Thursday, I do not think she can go negative again. Hence, the demise. It is certainly premature though and that is why I changed the title.

This quote by Senator Obama summarizes their campaigns: partisanship v. consensus:

"We can have great plans but if we do not change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen and four years from now we will be debating, once again, how we will bring universal health care to Washington."

The Need for Transformational Politics

From The Nation, who has ads running on its site for Senator Obama, on the need that Progressives adopt Transformational Politics:

Transformational politics is the work we do today to ensure that the deal we can get on gun control or immigration reform in a year--or five years, or twenty years--will be better than the deal we can get today. Transformational politics requires us to challenge the way people think about issues, opening their minds to better possibilities. It requires us to root out the assumptions about politics or economics or human nature that prevent us from embracing policies that will make our lives better. Transformational politics has been a critical element of American political life since Lincoln was advocating his "oft expressed belief that a leader should endeavor to transform, yet heed, public opinion."

The need for a renewed focus on transformational politics is obvious when we compare the success of the conservative movement over the past thirty years with the collapse of the American progressive coalition. The important thing about contemporary conservatives is not just that they won elections--it's how they won. They didn't win by changing their positions or rhetoric to move toward the voters--or where polls told them the voters were. They won by moving the voters closer to them, paving the way for the last decade of conservative hegemony.

Hillary Speaks for Me

From Hillary Speaks for Me: A pro-Hillary Website from younger people who want to attempt to attack the notion that (1) Obama is inevitable and (2) only Obama speaks for the young (well, Duh!).

It is an interesting site though. It may be effective for her as she tries to reach out to a younger audience.

It does nothing to combat my idea that one of the problem's with the Clinton campaign is that it seeks to take away voice, not give it back to the undefined people. But I do not think her campaign is trying to refute my posts.

From Politico.

Boxing versus Chess

From Politico: an analysis of the Clinton (Boxing) and Obama (Chess) campaigns.

Bill Clinton and Straight Talk

Hat tip to the bloggers over at Feministing.



Harrogate also follows Feministing's Lead in pasting the comments, as they make for a compelling Read. Rightly Sayeth Bill Clinton:

We disagree with you. You want to criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth! Tell the truth! If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother, as an accessory to murder, in prison, and you won't say you wanna do that, because you know that you wouldn't have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions, instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally.

With ads like these,,,

Senator Obama does not need to run negative ads. From a guest blogger over atAndrew Sullivan:

Andrew Sullivan is currently on vacation. This post is not his.

If running a campaign...

is anything like running a country. Sigh. This would not look good in the General Election. The details from The New York Times is worse.

SNL Casting Calls

Saturday Night Live has been hosting casting calls to find someone to impersonate Senator Barack Obama. The only skit involving Senator Obama featured Senator Obama. Here is the clip, which is from October of 2007.



It is funny, brutal, and awkward.

Democratic Debate Tonight

The twentieth Democratic Debate will occur tonight in Austin, TX between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. This will be their second debate without other candidates.

If you were a candidate's manager, how would you advise your candidate to act tonight?

Second, what topics do you think will be addressed tonight?

John McCain, The New York Times, and The New Republic

Last night, The New York Times ran a story that John McCain had an improper affair with a lobbyist. The story itself does not provide enough evidence to be persuasive, though it does imply that during the 2000 Republican Presidential Campaign, John McCain had a relationship with a lobbyist that got too "close and personal," which may have altered legislation in some way. As MSNBC reported, the lobbyist in question stated that she had "influence with John McCain." Because of these comments and the close relationship between the lobbyist and McCain, the McCain campaign conversed with the lobbyist and told her to but out of the campaign.

The source for the story seems to be insiders to the McCain campaign in 2000. Whether or not they are disgruntled is another question.

It seems that The New York Times had the information and planned on running the story in December, before the primaries and caucuses began, but decided to wait. The New York Times ran the story this week because The New Republic will publish a story on why The New York Times dragged its feet on the story.

During a 9am news conference, McCain denounced the story and denied all aspects (no relationship, no influence, or no conversation between the McCain campaign and the lobbyist) of the report.

This brings up a whole set of questions:
(1) If the story is about an affair, should this be a front page story?
(2) If this is about ethics, with a hint of the affair, should this be a front page story?
(3) If it about ethics, why did The New York Times wait,
(4)Why would The New York Times wait until after McCain "won" the nomination?
(5) Is this a political "hit job"?
(6) Would the Times have waited until after the convention in Minnesota?
(7) Since McCain denounced the story, is it up to The New York Times to defend its story.
(8) Did The New York Times run the story knowing that other papers, such as The New York Daily News (tabloid cover photo, story here and editorial here) and The Washington Post (who has a better story here and here) would run with this?
(9) How will the conservatives respond- attack McCain or rally around him?

Personally, I care little about the content of the affair. The ethics angle may be important, especially since McCain is a "maverick" who isn't influenced by lobbyists. The timing of the piece interests me most since it helped McCain survive the primaries but may hurt him in the general. Of course, the timing of the piece now, especially is this is just a "hit job" means that The New York Times will have helped McCain rally the base.

It is up to The New York Times to provide solid evidence now or we have another CBS/ President Bush story that will help conservatives.

One More Word (Unless the Need for Another Presents Itself) On The Despicable Tim Gunn

Tim Gunn's blightful Rhetoric with regards to (shocker) Hillary Clinton didn't start with Conan and Larry the Cable Guy. Here's a Newsweek Online piece dated February 5.

Gunn: I'm deeply respectful of gender and of gender differences, and I like someone who acknowledges what his or her gender happens to be. I mean, are we ready for a male cross-dresser in the White House? No. But frankly speaking, there are times when I wonder about Hillary.

To which the interviewer could have responded, what a nasty thing to say, are you really this small, and by the way, let's save us both a little dignity and not print what you just said. Instead, she learnedly responds:

Ha! Is there any female who pulls it off well?

A bit later:

[Interviewer]I hate to keep focusing on Hillary [heh], but is there anything she's doing right?

Tim Gunn: [Pauses] You can say I responded with utter silence. [Laughs] But let me put it this way: her clothes fit her, she does have a polish, and she's well groomed. Those things are all good. But it's like she's wearing a whole body of Kevlar and she wants to make certain as much of her is protected as possible. I just want to say to her, "Hillary, don't be afraid to wear a dress!"

Ranging from the most to the least "reputable" sources, the level of sheer discursive scummery that this Primary has unearthed retains the capacity for surprise, even among the least "Hopeful" of us.

Harrogate at Home

An exclusive inside look at Harrogate's homelife......

Thanks Xkcd for the image

President vs. Senator

Because Solon has made the statement several times that Hillary Clinton would make a better Senator than she would a President, I've been wondering what are the qualities that we value in a President versus the one in a Senator. I freely admit that I haven't given this a lot of thought myself, and I daresay that most people don't entertain what it means to be a Senator rather than President. Following are a list of qualities I would like to see in a Senator and a President. I'm interested to see what those in the blogosphere think about this issue. Please note, however, I do not intend this to be an analysis of Hillary Clinton per se (although I know it will end up there) but rather a consideration of what it means to be a Senator vs. President. Also note that I tend to use feminine pronouns in my writing and that my use of them doesn't reflect anything other than a personal preference for feminine pronouns.

President
1. Thoughtful, tolerant, well-spoken, intelligent human being
2. Aware of national and international issues
3. Able to surround herself with equally thoughtful, tolerant, well-spoken, intelligent human beings
4. Able to know when she needs to listen to the advice of someone smarter than her
5. Creative, innovative, and open to change
6. Able to define what that change is rather than simply saying we need to change
7. Willing to challenge the status quo when it is necessary to do so
8. Willing to maintain the status quo when it is to the advantage of the country to do so
9. Able to admit a mistake without seeming to admit weakness to the rest of the world
10. Willing to use any diplomatic means to avoid any type of military conflict

Senator
1. Thoughtful, tolerant, well-spoken, intelligent human being
2. Aware of national and international issues
3. Able to surround herself with equally thoughtful, tolerant, well-spoken, intelligent human beings
4. Able to know when she needs to listen to the advice of someone smarter than her
5. Creative, innovative, and open to change
6. Able to define what that change is rather than simply saying we need to change
7. Willing to challenge the status quo when it is necessary to do so
8. Willing to maintain the status quo when it is to the advantage of the country to do so
9. Able to admit a mistake without seeming to admit weakness to the rest of the world
10. Willing to use any diplomatic means to avoid any type of military conflict

35 Years of Experience...

This is a serious question asked in good faith for Senator Clinton supporters:

If, as she does on the campaign trail, states that she has 35 years of experience, why did she not run in 2004 when the Democratic Party needed her?

The new line of attack for Senator Clinton, which will play a prominent role in Thursday's CNN debate, is that Senator Obama is not qualified for the position of Commander-in-Chief...

The Delegate Hub

The Clinton Campaign opened a new site, The Delegate Hub, to argue that all Delegates should be counted. The Five Facts from the Cite:

FACT: Pledged delegates and automatic delegates are the same - they each count for ONE vote.

FACT: Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates.

FACT: Automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.

FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy.

FACT: There is a clear path to an overall delegate majority (pledged + automatic) for Hillary Clinton after all states have voted -- with or without Florida and Michigan.

If you go to the link, the campaign explains each fact in more detail.

This is an interesting means of persuasion, though some of the "facts" seem odd. For example, the web site argues that the Obama campaign should not be able to persuade the automatic delegates to support its cause, though the Clinton campaign is doing the exact same thing there.

Any thoughts?

Senator Clinton Supportere, Rhetorically Unaware

Politico has the new pro-Clinton 527 ad to run in favor of Senator Clinton. The opening: "If words could create jobs, we wouldn't be in a recession."

Like her campaign, the website for the 527 in the ad is under construction. Seriously.

Comments:
The words of Senator Obama played a role in creating the recession? Or was it the rhetorical style of the Bush administration?

"The only thing we have to fear is..." Yet, the Solution to the recession is that Hillary will solve it for us with her experience (and 99 other members of the Senate plus the Reps. in Congress who also worked on the plans she cites since she was not an Executive)

And I thought Senator Obama was the Savior...

Not So Much Fun With Obamamania Part I: The Lies He Tells

Steve Soto's piece in response to Obama's 44 Minute Performance of last night, published yesterday, entitled "Still Awaiting The Democratic Call To Arms". There is a big ole thread about this on Talk Left. But it is a thing Harrogate has been talking about a lot, on and offline, for quite a while now.

Obama's diss of the Democratic Party even as he stands on the verge of carrying its banner. A surrender of the idea that the Party had principles worth fighting for. Furthering the Naderesque illusions: oh, they're all culpable. It upsets Harrogate a great deal, as lies writ large are wont to do.

What is interesting about this is, Obama supporters on this blog and elsewhere rarely quibble with the following:

what exactly are the Democratic Party getting with Obama as their presumptive nominee? They will not be getting a nominee who can define differences between the parties. Obama seemingly only mentioned “Republicans” in the context of reaching out to them, while letting their leaders off the hook, as if the last seven years of graft, corruption, and circumvention of the Constitution were bipartisan in origin. Obama aimed his attack not against the party which controlled Washington for the better part of this decade and which controlled Congress for the better part of the 1990’s. Rather, he aimed his critique against both parties and Washington as a whole, as if Democrats are equally culpable for the country’s problems. If tonight is any guide, Democrats will be getting a nominee who runs just as often against them as Republicans. They will be getting a nominee who shows little stomach for holding the Republican Party in general and John McCain particularly accountable for what they have done to this country. His campaign seemingly has an easier time carving up a female Democratic opponent than they do a Republican standard-bearer who represents Bush’s third term, and who questions Obama’s fitness for office.

This nonpolitical message may be the message that Obama’s Millions want to hear, and we can all pray that they show up and vote for him and the Democratic Party in November to offset the wave of motivated far right forces aligned against him, as well as the Indies and Latinos that McCain will pull from him.

My main question Senator Obama is this: with the nomination almost in hand now, when does your message shift from being all about you and the movement towards a call for a Democratic government to right the wrongs from years of GOP harm?

The answer is, of course, the message does not shift. If it was going to, it would have during the Primary. But his strategy was always about getting Republicans to cross over and vote for him in the Primaries, and it worked beautifully. Even if he were interested, he could not become a fighter for Democratic principles now.

Obama and the Rhetoric of Change

Robert J. Samuelson of Newsweek offers an interesting examination of Barack Obama's rhetoric of change.

Harrogate Bets Michelle Obama's Even More Proud of America, Tonight

For the first time in her adult life, Michelle Obama, aspiring first lady, felt pride in her country--and lo, this was even before Wisconsin!!!!!

Because until this moment in time, until this generation came along, until this glorious Leader emerged, there was only darkness and meaningless Party affiliations.

MSNBC "adores" Obama

Except when then don't. Chris Matthews, otherwise referred to as Tweety on some progressive sites, interviewed State Sen. Kirk Watson (an Obama supporter) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (a Clinton Supporter). Matthews let Rep. Jones attack Senator Obama with the usual talking points about expereience, hope, etc. and without challenge. Matthews then asked Sen. Watson to name one legislative achievement by Senator Obama and Watson could not and said he could not at this time. Matthews then asked him three more times. When Watson tried to change the subject, neither Matthews or Jones would let him.

Chris Matthews then asked, "Name one achievement...Now." Sen. Watson could not. After this last question, you could here laughing in the background from their panel...

Of course, Kieth Olbermann then asked Matthews to name one accomplishment of the US Senate in the last year, an easier question, and Matthews could not.

Congratulations, Obama. Fuck you, Tim Gunn et al

No matter how you look at it, it is pretty clearly over now, Obama has pulled this off barring some total collapse at the end. Congratulations to him, if this be so.

And, fuck you, Tim Gunn. And, fuck you, Conan O'Brien, and your studio audience too. And Larry the Cable Guy, who damn sure aint no "girly man" (now if we could teach him to read he'd be perfect).

What is the matter with you, Wisconsin....

Do you not like solutions?

And what about you Virginia, Maryland, D.C., Nebraska, Maine, Louisiana, Kansas, Washington, and Hawaii?

Do you hate solutions?

Texas' Favorite Democrat

Chet Edwards, the lone Democrat to survive Tom Delay's redistricting in 2004, endorsed Senator Barack Obama.

That is on top of Senator Obama's endorsements from the Mexican American Democrats.

Senator Clinton received endorsements from former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox, former Texas Supreme Court justice Bob Gammage, state Rep. Valinda Bolton of Austin and Cathy Bonner, a former aide to the late Gov. Ann Richards and a leader of a major cancer research proposition Texas voters approved in November.

That's a lot of "formers" for Clinton.

"Papa Bear" O'Reilly's Defense of Barack Obama: Strange Bedfellows, or a Match Made in Rhetorical Heaven?

"Papa Bear" (Harrogate doesn't plagiarize) holding forth on charges that the Obama camp is staging faintings at events:

The Obama campaign says none of that was staged, and we're giving them the benefit of the doubt. Again, we have no evidence to the contrary and there's no question Barack Obama is a rock star. Some people are getting overheated.

And, on the Deval Patrick flap, O'Reilly joins other Intellectuals in invoking Topoi:

No question those two sentiments are almost exactly the same. But people often borrow thoughts when speaking. It happens all the time. If Barack Obama had written an article and not credited Governor Patrick, that would have been plagiarism. Just talking off the cuff like that, I think you've got to cut him some slack.

Finally, O'Reilly proffering his "Wag of the Finger" to Brooke Shields, who has the temerity to question why people are making a big deal, in this year 2008, out of Jane Fonda saying Cunt on network television:

BROOKE SHIELDS, ACTRESS: Again, you know, bleep me out. I just don't think [EXPLETIVE DELETED] is a controversial word. I find it frighteningly sad that there was an, you know, there was an outrage that, we all, gasped, you know, when Jane Fonda said it. It's just sort of — it's disturbing to me that today, in this day and age, after all that's been done, after everything that's happened, we still have standard and practices doing this. And it is just a word.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I'm not exactly sure why Ms. Shields is taking this stand, but I am sure in this case she is a pinhead.

In Celebration of the Choice Before Wisconsin This Fine Tuesday: Thom Yorke's "Analyse"

"Analyse", from the virtuosic Eraser. This performance will roll the eyes back in your head and curl your toes. Just Mr. Yorke, a piano, and a little something Harrogate likes to call music.

A self-fulfilling prophecy of endless possibilty
You roll in reams across the street
In algebra, in algebra

The fences that you cannot climb
The sentences that do not rhyme
In all that you can ever change
The one you're looking for

It gets you down
It gets you down

There's no spark
No light in the dark

It gets you down
It gets you down
You traveled far
What have you found
That there's no time
There's no time
To analyse
To think things through
To make sense

Like cows in the city, they never looked so pretty
By power carts and blackouts
Sleeping like babies

It gets you down
It gets you down
You're just playing a part
You're just playing a part

You're playing a part
Playing a part
And there's no time
There's no time
To analyse
Analyse
Analyse

Obama and Charges of Plagiarism

What is plagiarism, in the world of stump speeches? How seriously should we be taking the issue of plagiarism that has recently emerged regarding one of Obama's stump speeches?

To paraphrase Alanis Morisette, it's ironic that the speech in question is about the power of words. In response to Clinton's disparagement of Obama's Rhetoric, Obama gives speeches about Rhetoric, asserting its primary value. But then the authenticity of Obama's words becomes a question.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said yesterday that plagiarism is particularly troubling because rhetorical skills are a key factor in Obama's appeal.

"It raises questions about the premise of his candidacy," Wolfson told reporters in a conference call

Verily, as they say in the hood where Harrogate used to roll, that there Howard Wolfson is Harrogate's Dawg. Highlighting Rhetorical Skills and Appeals and Premises and such.

What say you all?

The Demographics of Congress

Solon and I are watching a back episode of Real Time with Bill Mahr and one of the guests, ABC Analyst Matthew Dowd, just suggested that our country is more sexist than racist. (He didn't give any support for this claim and no one really challenged it.)

I have to admit, I'm curious. How does one prove or disprove this statement? This prompted me to check out the demographic makeup of Congress. Not that what I found supports or disproves the claim, but it is interesting.

Currently, in the Senate, there are 16 white women (five Republican, 11 Democrat) and one African American man (Democrat). There are 70 female (20 Republican and 50 Democratic) and 39 African American (all Democrats) members in the House. (There are nine Democratic African American women in the House, who count in both categories.)

The thing I know for sure is that the nine black women in Congress are superstars!

I have no idea what these statistics may or may not mean in terms of racism and sexism, but they speak pretty clearly to the issue of electability. I have to admit that I'm surprised, although I'm not exactly sure why. We can probably rationalize the numbers in terms of class. It's easier to have enough money to run for even low level political office if you're middle class or higher, which white women have the opportunity to be more often than black men or women. I'm not sure if that tells the whole story, though.

Thoughts?

A Glossery for Campaigns

From the Onion

The Commodification of Barack Obama

You can read about it here.

A Word, and a Hillary Clinton Open Thread

As Faithful Readers pour into this site in unprecedented numbers, thanks in part to Solon and Harrogate's flaming-sword hellraising on TalkLeft as well as on this Site, and taken in tandem with the erudite and spirited posts by our new Board Members M and megsg-h: And Yea and Verily, perhaps inspired most of all by the vaunted resurgence of Oxymoron--Harrogate has taken a break from actual posts for these past few days.

In the spaces between Fun With Obamamania Part II (Strawberry Shortcake Got What Was Coming To Her) and this Post, veritable spates of pro-Obama Rhetoric (Harrogate almost said propaganda) have filled this Blog, leading to perhaps the misunderstanding that The Rhetorical Situation uniformly endorses Barack Obama, which it most decidedly does not.

Harrogate will continue making his complex, impassioned, and airtight case for Clinton as the primary season wears on. But for now, here is an Open Thread for all readers wishing to discuss reasons why Hillary Clinton would make a terrific President of the United States.

Note: As this should be a bumper crop of a thread, we may have to cut it off after hitting 200 comments.

Super Delegates

The New York Times has another article on Super Delegates. This one is interesting for the "themes" of the campaign: Old versus New Democrats; success in Red v. Blue States; Loyalty versus Opportunity or Loyalty versus Judgment.

Here is something else the delegates will need to examine, the pledged delegates. There are 1075 pledges delegates remaining. Here is the current count:

CNN (including Super Delegates):
Senator Obama 1,262
Senator Clinton 1,213.

New York Times: (Pledged Delegates)
Senator Obama 934
Senator Clinton 892.

AP (w/ Super Delegates)
Senator Obama: 1,275
Senator Clinton: 1,220

MSNBC
Senator Obama: 1,116
Senator Clinton: 985

If Senator Obama receives a 60% - 40% split that could be a decisive advantage and a strong argument that the remaining Super Delegates should support him (it would give him over 1,900 hundred delegates according to the AP and CNN estimates and leaving Senator Clinton with approximately 1,700.)

If Senator Clinton receives a 60% to 40% split, she will (according to the MSNBC) take a slim lead, making the involvement of the Super Delegates more controversial. There will be no clear winner and no clear argument as to who the Super Delegate will support.

Well Texas, what will you do?

A Look at the Polls

Here is Pollster's "Poll of Polls" that tracks the development of the candidates since 2007.

Legislative Records for Senators Clinton and Obama

Here is a list of their accomplishments in the Senate.

The Prison House of Language

How the Clinton campaign (and some supporters) trapped themselves in their own discourse.According to John Heilemann:

And, in fact, it was worse than that. By arguing that one of Clinton’s key virtues was her ability to go toe-to-toe with the GOP attack machine, her campaign exacerbated instead of ameliorated her reputation for ruthlessness. “By bragging about how tough they were,” says John Edwards’s former chief strategist, Joe Trippi, “they reinforced the sense of the media that everything they did had a negative cast to it.” At the same time, Trippi argues, “it made it really hard for them to call Obama on his shit. How can you complain about Obama being negative when you’re bragging about your willingness to do the same thing against the Republicans?”

Obama, by contrast, was in the enviable position of being able to author his own meta-narrative. With his two autobiographies, he was able at once to accentuate his positive qualities and, in pointing out the potentially damaging aspects of his past (his teenage drug use preeminent among them), to inoculate himself against attacks. The grassrootsy, bottom-up, decentralized campaign structure that he and his team built, funded by small donors via the Internet, enhanced the impression of him as a man committed to a different kind of politics. And his strategists were wise enough to understand that when it was time to go negative, they should never do so with TV ads but stick instead to more sub-rosa media, from radio and direct mail to robo-calls. “In my experience in politics,” Trippi says, “nobody ever really gets called out on that crap.”

It is an interesting look at how Obama can get away with some his comments while Clinton gets attacked for hers. It is not necessarily the media's fault, though the media "reports" the standards. According to this article, the Clinton campaign chose its meta-narrative and now is trapped because of it-- the problem of a terministic screen.

The Emotional Breakup

with Senator Barack Obama. From Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

Problems with Voting

I have never thought that it was a good idea to note election results on election day, mainly because in its rush to judgment, the entertainment industry er... the news industry, may not have the correct information themselves.

But this is very troubling. According to the 2q, the vote in New York City is not correct and further delegates will switch from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama. The reason:

City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly — and unofficially — on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.

In the Harlem district, for instance, where the primary night returns suggested a 141 to 0 sweep by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the vote now stands at 261 to 136. In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn — where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton — she now barely leads, 118 to 116.

The article stated that there were some areas where Clinton did not receive votes at first and this is not sinister. However, the campaign did not need this...

The Voice of the Party

Politico has a piece by Josephine Hearn today about the demographic makeup of the superdelegates. Of interest to those at the Situation? Check out the following:

In an ironic twist to the historic Democratic nominating contest between an African-American and a woman, the balance of power may be held by a more familiar face: the white male.

An interesting conundrum, to say the least.

Only in Nicaruagua

Will the Patriots be 19 - 0. From The New Republic:

The NFL donated 290 Patriots hats and an equal number of team jerseys trumpeting the slogans "Super Bowl Champions, 19-0" to impoverished children from two small communities in southern Nicaragua.

Thursday's gifts could not change history--the Patriots lost the Feb. 3 game to the New York Giants 17-14--but they made a lot of youngsters in the communities of San Gregorio and Buena Vista very happy, said Miriam Diaz, spokeswoman for the humanitarian organization World Vision, which arranged the donation with the NFL.

"They [Patriots] lost, but the children won," Diaz said.

Also, from The Onion, "Patriot's Season Perfect for Rest of Nation."

A moment of insincerity...

On MSNBC, President Bush connected the school shooting at Northern Illinois with the "real enemy" that is out there to support the FISA Bill so the government can protect us.

Interesting rhetorical choice, an appeal to pity. I am sure if the legislation were in place, the shooting would not happen.

For those that dislike Obama's language

Slate has the article for you: "The English Language, Obamafied..." which presents "the unabridged Encyclopedia Baracktannica."

A few examples:
Baracksploitation: A phenomenon whereby editors want to put only Barack Obama on the cover of their magazines

Baracker spaniel: Canine Obama supporter

Barackronism: An Obama statement that is not in its correct historical or chronological time

Doing that thing Obama does

Well, it is a morning of rhetoric. Over a Slate, Jack Shafer discuses Obama's rhetorical style. He also links to a paper by David A. Frank, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Oregon. Here is a taste of the Slate article:

As the candidate who prides himself on disagreeing without being disagreeable, Obama takes on a Christlike quality for lots of people, especially white people. If a white American doesn't feel guilty about race, you can be almost certain that he feels anxious about it. Believe me, if these people had a street address where they could go and get absolution, they'd take the next taxi. Obama has a talent for extending forgiveness to the guilty and the anxious without requiring an apology from them first. Go forth and sin no more, he almost says, and never mind the reparations. No wonder they call him the brother from another planet.

He also knows how to comfort voters with a national narrative of his own invention. As Frank writes, the Song of Obama usually begins with references to Thomas Jefferson, a self-contradicting political thinker whose stock—for good reason—has not always been high in African-American circles. Next, he ropes in Abraham Lincoln, whom he describes as less than a perfect emancipator in this 2005 speech. And yet Obama, a tall, gangly, lawyer whose political career was made in Springfield, Ill., slyly compared himself to Lincoln when he declared for the presidency. Lincoln, Obama said, was "a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer" who "tells us that there is power in words" and "tells us there is power in conviction."

Obama's national narrative notes both Roosevelts before calling on Martin Luther King Jr. and, as everybody knows, Ronald Reagan. The implication, of course, is that the Obama candidacy stands as the fulfillment of the American ideal, and by casting their ballot for him, voters can participate in that transcendent moment. It's a dizzying notion. No wonder George Packer's mind went vacant after he heard Obama speak.

In his speeches, Obama pretends to be a hero out of Joseph Campbell. He talks about being on a journey that is about more than just hope and change. If you want to walk together down his American road, he wants you to be prepared for hard work. It's never going to be easy. He warns his listeners to beware of the cynics and the they-say and they-said naysayers who believe the quest is hopeless.

Hillary Clinton and the Rejection of Rhetoric

Or, fun with Clintonian Ethos...

From Michael Gerson, a former Bush speech writer, in today's Washington Post:

But Clinton's largest problem is not a lack of money or public enthusiasm. It is the lack of a compelling narrative for her campaign.

And while I know Gerson is a "republican," as a speech writer, he offers a very interesting glimpse in how a speaker attempts to establish "character."

Most successful presidential runs eventually have an overarching theory: the generational ambitions of John Kennedy's "New Frontier," the rising cultural resentments of Richard Nixon's "Silent Majority," the reviving national confidence of Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America."

Obama's appeal is straightforward: getting beyond "the ideological battles that have consumed us for the last 20 years" -- in which Clinton and her husband have been two of the main combatants.

Hillary Clinton's attempt to define a narrative of her own has been hobbled because her campaign is defined by the rejection of rhetoric. Obama's eloquence and idealism are dismissed as "abstract" and a "fairy tale" in contrast to Clinton's experience and policy substance. It is difficult for a campaign to inspire while using "inspiration" as an epithet.

It gets better as Gerson examines Clinton's narrative:

The challenge for Clinton is that her other options -- the other narratives for her campaign -- are equally flawed:

First, there is Hillary the Fighter. In recent interviews, Clinton has come out swinging with negative attacks -- what she once referred to as "the fun part" of politics. Obama has "questions to answer about his dealings with . . . a big nuclear power company" as well as with "Mr. Rezko." But it is hard to imagine American voters thinking: "If only the Clintons were a little more ruthless, I'd finally support them." It is this very trait -- after a series of racially charged attacks -- that many Americans, including many liberals, found more repulsive than "fun."

Second, there is Hillary the Comeback Kid. One campaign official commented, "We're taking a long-term approach to the campaign and look at it as a delegate game. This is not like the playoffs, where if you don't win you don't advance." No -- my mistake -- that was not a Clinton official, it was Rudy Giuliani's campaign manager speaking last year. Giuliani tried -- as Clinton is trying -- to disprove an iron rule of politics: When you lose a lot, you eventually look like a loser.

Third, there is Hillary the Tested. "I've been examined one side up and the other side down," argues Clinton, while Obama has not. Well, it is true that the Clintons have been endlessly vetted -- but mainly because their shared career has been an endless string of scandals. Stuart Taylor of the National Journal recently took a depressing stroll back through the derelict funfair of the Clinton years: the deceptions about Gennifer and Monica, the Travelgate firings, the prosperous trade in cattle futures, the questionable transactions of Castle Grande, the strange case of the misplaced billing records. In the midst of these colorful controversies, Taylor observes, Clinton has developed "a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity."

It is not enough to be vetted. The goal is to be vetted and found clean.

Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.

Fun With Obamamania Part the Second: The Battle for Imagination Land; or, "I Just Saw Strawberry Shortcake Tied Up Dead With Pee In Her Eye"

These South Park clips, with Butters brilliantly playing Barack Obama in each, dovetail nicely with recent questions that have come up on The Rhetorical Situation, involving

1)whether or not Barack Obama is trading solely in Imagination Land;

and 2)whether or not Imagination Land is Real.

The Super Delegate

defection continues. From the New York Times. There is something going on behind the scenes.

Returning to New Hampshire with a twist

In her speeches today Senator Clinton returned to January and reintroduced her talk v. action argument against Senator Obama. Here is a taste from Bloomburg:

`There's a big difference between us, speeches vs. solutions, talk vs. action,'' Clinton told workers after touring a General Motors Corp. assembly plant at Lordstown, Ohio.

During her speech, she stated:

"Speeches don't put food on your table. Speeches don't fill up your tank. Speeches don't fill up your prescriptions or do anything about your stack of bills that keeps you up at night. That's the difference between me and my democratic opponent. My opponent makes speeches, I offer solutions."

So, we are back to pre-New Hampshire days. It seems this argument didn't work so well the first time but she offers it again, with a new twist: "solutions" replaces "action."

Now, here we have this speech/ action divide, again, which is terribly problematic. But, if I were a reporter on the campaign, I would ask her two questions:

1) How do you reach a decision on a topic or is that not important? Should we just do something?
2) Why are you making speeches? Shouldn't you just attempt to take the presidency?

Eve Ensler, Jane Fonda V-Day Clip

Harrogate's third hat-tip of the week to Shakespeare's Sister, who is
delighted with Jane Fonda's utterance of the word "cunt" on the Today Show.



Lots of social conservatives of the Brent Bozelle "titillate-while-decrying" school will be affecting outrage over this. We'll keep an eye out for 'em.

UPDATE: Harrogate initially missed the part of McEwan's post involving Meredith Viera's subsequent, on-air apology for Fonda's diction. Are we on the verge of another "Wardrobe Malfunction"-esque, Rhetorical Typhoon that sucks all other cultural discourses into its greedy vortext? Time shall tell.

Chafee: A Vindicating Endorsement for Obama?

Former Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, provides the latest high-profile endorsement of Barack Obama. Throughout, Obama has spoken of reaching out to what he sometimes calls "disaffected Republicans." Certainly Chafee would fit this descriptor, as Readers will remember the ignobility with which the GOP jeered him on his way out the Senate door in 2006.

Obama's central reliance on Independents and potential crossover Republicans has been the subject of much contemplation on this blog, as everywhere else. Of course, this is also a much-trumpeted strength of McCain's. If Obama versus McCain is the Showdown, we will in all likelihood see the two candidates slugging it out for the Lieberman/Chafee Block while relying (in Obama's case, exclusively) on the Veep nominee and mutliple surrogates to allay substantial elements of partisan distrust.

Happily for him "My Friends" McCain will blessedly be spared the discomfort of having to deal with a General Election operating as any kind of specific referendum on the last eight years of Republican rule.

Why Catholics may vote for Obama

Over at Slate, Douglas W. Kmiec-- someone who worked on the Romney campaign-- on why Catholics may break for Obama. And this includes even "Republican" Catholics.

A funny joke...

We take ourselves much too seriously around here.

So, here is a joke from They Might Be Giants:

What is Tuba plus Tuba?

An interesting look

inside the Hillary campaign, especially the shake-up. It's by Joshua Green from The Atlantic Monthly.

Correction: To Honor the Holiday, Matt Damon and Tom Waits

"Well, he gave her a dimestore watch
And a ring made from a spoon
Everyone is looking for someone to blame
But you share my bed, you share my name
Well, go ahead and call the cops
You dont meet nice girls in coffee shops"

Reason #6,666,666 that Tom Waits rules.

I think this about covers it...

The actors here hit upon every key remark of the campaign so far...



Anything missing?

The reason for my views on free speech

According to Inside Higher Education, the president of William and Mary stepped down after the school's Board refused to extend his contract. The reason: it turns out conservatives pressured the state legislators to fire Gene R. Nichol because, as president, Gene R. Nichol supported the removal of a cross from a campus building (it was later put in a chapel) and he supported the students when they hosted a controversial art exhibit by sex industry workers. The Board stated ideological differences were not the cause...

The Board also asked Nichol to accept a buyout on the condition he stated the firing had nothing to do with ideological grounds. Nichol refused.

I have found speech that offends me.

This is not satire; this is a real ad. I repeat, this is not satire.

Who is the audience for this video, or, which voters is she trying to reach?

Who DOESN'T Read the Situation?

Well, it seems as if people are paying attention to the Rhetorical Situation. Read this BBC article about the many pop culture geniuses who are backing off of Britney Spears:

Spamalot creator Eric Idle [for example] has removed a song lyric making reference to pop star Britney Spears from the musical. Explaining the change, Idle said: "We don't laugh at sad people. Britney is being tortured to death and we don't want to be on that side.

Post Request

I posted the following as a comment, but just to make it front and center and all official-like:

I don't know where I stand on the issue of party before all else. Honestly, I haven't given it much thought before, as the Democratic party hasn't been in a divisive situation like this since I became a voter. Might I request a post and discussion on this issue? I'm curious to hear the thoughts of the bloggers.

Ooooo... and I just quoted myself!

A New Endoresement...

for Hillary Clinton. Joseph Wilson, former diplomat and the husband of exposed CIA agent Valeria Plame, endorses Hillary Clinton on the grounds that Hillary is a fighter and Barack is not "manly," er...I mean, "tough" enough to stand up to Republicans.

Wilson's case rehashes foreign policy and attempts to save Senator Clinton on Iraq by absolving her, and Democrats, because they just couldn't know (and a fortiori, since they couldn't know, Obama certainly could not know there were no WMDS). Rhetorically, Wilson's cases rest on anecdotal evidence for Hillary and rhetorical questions against Obama.

Am I a hypocrite?

President Bush has finally signed a stimulus package into law. For the record, I think this is a bad idea. Our country is already facing a huge budget deficit, spurned on by the large tax cuts Bush has given the rich and the cost of the war against terror. I mean, where exactly are we getting this money from?

I freely admit that I am not an economist, but I'm don't understand how this is going to prevent a recession. Most every one I've talked to about the stimulus package is planning to use the rebate they will get to pay off bills or to add to their savings. That said, I will happily deposit the rather large rebate check that Mr. M and I are predicted to get and put it in savings, all the while standing by my belief that this form of stimulus will not help the economy that much. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2

Harrogate just emailed a link to this painting for the students in the class he is currently teaching, and eagerly awaits their response to it. In the Norton Anthology of American Literature, Harrogate's students will read the following:

The American public was introduced to modern art at the famous New York Armory Show of 1913, which featured cubist paintings and caused an uproar. Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, which, to the untrained eye, looked like no more than a mass of crudely drawn rectangles, was especially provocative [. . .]

Thus a key formal charcteristic typical of high modernist works, whether in painting, sculpting, or musical composition, is its construction out of fragments--fragments of myth or history, fragments of experience or perception, fragments of previous artistic works. Compared with earlier writing, modernist literature is notable for what it omits: the explanations, interpretations, connections, summaries, and distancing that provide continuity, perspective, and security in traditional literature.

This is only a small portion of a very long Introduction to the Anthology our class is using. Fortunately, Harrogate has a lively group this semester, and he anticipates there will be argument over the merits of the painting, as well as this whole business of "trained" versus "untrained" eyes when it comes to art. Hopefully the painting, in tandem with the poetry by Amy Lowell and H.D. that they will be reading for Friday, will be "especially provocative" in Harrogate's class as well.

Harrogate is curious what Readers here think of any or all of the following:

1)The painting: Either in or out of context, what argument, if any, does it make?

2)The quality of Norton's undergaduate-aimed description of Modernist literature (Again, bearing in mind this is only a snippet from a very long Introduction).

3)This poem, published by Amy Lowell in the immediate aftermath of WWI, entitled "September, 1918":

This afternoon was the color of water falling through sunlight;
The trees glittered with the tumbling of leaves;
The sidewalks shone like alleys of dropped maple leaves;
And the houses ran along them laughing out of square, open windows.
Under a tree in the park,
Two little boys, lying flat on their faces,
Were carefully gathering red berries
To put in a pasteboard box.

Some day there will be no war.
Then I shall take out this afternoon
And turn it in my fingers,
And remark the sweet taste of it upon my palate,
And note the crisp variety of its flights of leaves.
To-day I can only gather it
And put it into my lunch-box,
For I have time for nothing
But the endeavor to balance myself
Upon a broken world.

What We Owe Hillary

Just read this short piece by Emily Bazelon on Slate and it really sums up where I am right now:

Since the Iowa caucuses, I've been feeling the Hillary tug. Most of the women I've talked to in the last couple of months have felt it, too: Even if they weren't sure they'd vote for Hillary, they were rooting for her on some level. They wanted her to make a strong showing. They didn't want the girl who worked hard to lose willy-nilly to the guy who waltzed in. Those feelings must have helped bring more women than men to the polls in state after state, almost always in favor of Hillary.

But you know what? The tug doesn't feel the same to me now. I wonder if that's true for other Democratic women who could have gone either way, too. If Obama's margins are wide enough to carry women in Maryland and Virginia and D.C.tonight—and so far, according to the exit polls, he has the majority of women in Virginia, by a lot—maybe this shift will help explain why. Hillary has been an excellent first for us. No one else could have done what she's done, with all her aplomb and professionalism and seriousness. But she doesn't have to be the nominee, or the president, to have come through. She hung in there past every other contender, save one. She made it to the finals, the last round, overtime—whatever sports metaphor you want to use. I don't mean to suggest that she's done. But if she loses for good in the next weeks or months, she loses with dignity and heft and heart. And she'd leave us feeling, in a way I know I've never felt before, that a woman can be elected president. We already owe her. We'd owe her for that, too. Even if we don't owe her, or give her, our votes.

I know your anger, I know your fears...

For Harrogate...

I wish we could be on the back patio of Margarita Rocks...drinking a few beers, discussing politics...Instead, I am in an ice box and you are in Texas...

This song is for you... You will appreciate it...

The Primary/ Caucus in Texas

Here is a two part analysis of how the vote in Texas may play out. It is not like a primary or a caucus as it incorporates both types of voting, it is based on state senatorial districts and not congressional districts, and it incorporates Super Delegates and votes based on the over all vote.

With all involved, it may be close.

Part One

Part Two

Oh My God He's In a Cult!: Fun With Obamamania Part I

Link

Could it really be true, Harrogate often finds himself excitedly wondering, that "we are who we've been waiting for"? Harrogate dares anyone to listen to what Barack Obama actually has to say, to consider the challenges he poses on the level of the moral imagination: Yea, indulge this, and then reflect for a moment about the current occupant of the White House. If an ache doesn't soon follow, then you are a bizarre soul indeed, by Harrogate's measure.

So why all this cult business?, Harrogate's critics might wonder. Harrogate was, after all, one of the first on the blogosphere to use the word.

It is partly Obama's own tendency to overstep the compelling suggestion of transforming how we imagine government, to cross over into a Twilight Zone wherein he and his have actually transcended contemporary politics altogether. Verily, Obama alone, and those drawn to/awakened by him, are indeed "above it all." Listen closely to the rising chorus and ye shall hear:

No longer does Party affiliation matter, it is in fact passe. What matters is that we get behind this particular human being at this moment in history, and follow him down the path of Truth and Light.

Should he not get the nomination, it is not worth investing in the Democratic bid for the White House. And then, when empirical things like a continuing Health Care crisis dovetailed with a robber-baron tax code; like escalation in Iraq and Bombing of Iran, these will be no matter either, it is not for us to sully our hands with such things. It will instead be for us to honor his memory then, and wait for him to come again in 2012.

Oh yeah, and also to ignore his lack of actual impact in the Senate.

Let me guess

So let me guess, we should just chalk this one up to another example of a free-market economy, capitalism, and free speech, right?

Seriously though, I don't think we live in a world (as sad as it makes me) where we can actually argue that people don't hate Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. I'd truly love to believe that people hate Hillary Clinton for her politics, but considering that individuals are actually making and selling urinal targets with her face on them, I have to say that her gender is a large part of why she is so hated. And this is a hatred that, as Harrogate has correctly pointed out many, many times, is irrational and unexplained--but then isn't that the basis of sexism and misogyny? What irritates me the most about this is not that the urinal targets exist, but that no one (save Melissa McEwan, Harrogate, myself, and some others) are talking about it. What pisses me off is that if someone were selling an image of Barack Obama dressed up like Uncle Tom everyone in the country would be up in arms--and you can bet that the MSNBC reporter who commented how funny such an image is would get fired (and I would say, should such a thing ever happen, rightfully so). And what really pisses me off is the Clinton campaign's refusal to address such misogynist images. As Harrogate and I discussed yesterday, Hillary Clinton needs to respond to this irrational, unexplainable hatred that people fear for her if only to address the irrational, unexplainable hatred that many Americans feel for all women in positions of power.

Cha-Ching!; or, The Wondrousness of Others Doing Your Work For You: McEwan's "Hillary Sexism Watch"

Some have insisted that one cannot claim a pattern of sexism in the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton, based on what one is seeing with one's own eyes. And, those holding that position like to illustrate the tenuousness of anecdote by offering up ostensible counter-anecdotes, such as a pundit ceding that Hillary Clinton has run a smart campaign, or predicting that she is poised to win in a given state.

For the second time today, Harrogate offers up as an authority Melissa McEwan, who he has long considered one of the most entertaining and thought-provoking voices in the blogosphere. McEwan's post on the matter today constitutes both an archival spectacle and a testament to using the internet to do media scholarship.


There may be Readers out there who are growing tired of this topic. To those Harrogate makes his humble appeal, the topic is important and deserves to be taken seriously. If there is a possibility that popular culture is continuing to wink and nod at gender-charged denigration (that one's for M), then it is worth probing. And if the charge can be substantively defended, then this is something we need to address. And finally, fatigue is a poor plea to make here, arguably just as poor as "Iraq fatigue." Verily and yea and forsooth, the stakes being nothing less than the Presidency of the United States, and maybe more importantly still, who we are as a people, and what it is we value.

Mandates versus Incentives

From Politico-- the difference between Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's Health Care Plans. One for the major differences: argumentation tactics.

"Women and Caucuses" & Still More "False" Claims of Sexism in the Media: Gosh, Why Do These Women Take Everything So Seriously, Anyway?

Melissa McEwan is the lead blogger at Shakespeare's Sister, a pretty heavily trafficked left-leaning site. At one point, Readers will perhaps remember, she was one of two ladies in charge of John Edwards's internet presidential bid.

Sunday, she made these provocative observations in a post entitled, "Women and Caucuses."

From the post:

Put this in the context of the series of posts Kate and I have written recently (e.g. Damned if You Do, Stealth Vote Salon, and I Am Not Ashamed), along with the associated comments threads and women bloggers who have linked approvingly to those posts, all of which speak to the very real, if near-totally ignored, phenomenon of women who are hesitant for various reasons to openly support Hillary, and the reality of caucuses requiring public support that the privacy of a voting booth does not—and only someone deeply engaged in willful ignorance could deny that sexism is playing some role in Obama's caucus wins.

And that doesn't even take into consideration the structural problem of caucuses requiring more time and offering less flexibility. With women still the primary caregivers (of child care and elder care) in the vast majority of American homes, caucuses favor the young, and disfavor older women with familial responsibilities, who comprise a large portion of Hillary's base of supporters.

But even more interesting, given the recent spate of denials of sexism in the media on this very blog as well as by such austere guardians of media fairness such as Hannity and Colmes, is the link she provides to a post subtitled "Hillary Sexism Watch: Part Nonillion and One in an Ongoing Series"

One example McEwan gets into is of course the Schuster comment. The second, an Upper Deck baseball card. Some nice range, there.

And then the Great Uniter, Barack Obama himself:

Someone speaking about Obama being the underdog, outsider candidate—which, by the way, once someone gets Democratic monument Ted Kennedy's and former nominee John Kerry's endorsements, is a meme that needs to die—says: "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out." Certainly this was a reference to Hillary, whom the Obama campaign has been long painting (and not without reason) as the establishment candidate. Had the non-sexist equivalent, as pointed out by Homunq here, been used—"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the gloves come off"—there would have been no problem, but "claws come out" is as sure a sexist dog whistle as is catfight.

The big problem is that the someone who said this is Barack Obama.

Ahh, Melissa McEwan. Yet another "hysterical" citizen, hallucinating sexism where there is clearly none.

Another Chelsea Clinton Post

Over at Slate, Guy Branum, who has a history with the Clintons-- including a search by the Secret Service-- over the public role of Chelsea Clinton. His take: it is not about gender, an anti-Clinton bias, or misogyny, but the attempted use of someone as a campaign spokesperson and a public figure who is removed from public critique.

Also from Slate: A History of Pimpimg, well...the word. "A Brief History of the Verb To Pimp."

A Sidebar to Big Pimpin'

I hate to even bring this up again--I think we've hashed it out more than sufficiently--but I have to critique the right-wing response to the Schuster incident. On Hannity's radio show today (yes, solon listens to this smut in the car and, yes, I have presented a very convincing argument likening it to the legal definition of porn... more on that later), Sean compared Schuster's comment about Chelsea Clinton to Keith Olbermann's previous accusation that Bush was "pimping out" General Petraeus. Olbermann faced no consequences for his statement and Schuster was suspended. Hannity claims, quite fervently, that the difference lies solely in MSNBC's partisan nature and not any issue of gender or sexism. Because men are pimped all the time, I guess. At least Republican men.

I fully realize that Hannity does not speak for the right wing in its entirety, but I've heard this floating out there and it needs to be addressed.

Interesting...

An online petition to make sure the next Presidential Debate focuses on "sexism and misogyny."

There have been lots of issues talked about in the Presidential debates but two items that have not gotten much coverage are women's issues and the sexism and misogyny in the media during the current election.

Race has been talked about and discussed and in fact the Congressional Black Caucus sponsored a debate.

What about women? Women issues deserve to be highlighted and the sexism and misogyny displayed in this election should be addressed. We will not heal as a country until we do.

We are asking the sponsors of the next two Democratic debates to ensure us that these issues will be addressed. As an added note a question about the "gender card" does not count unless of course you want to also ask about the "race card."

I imagine this is serious, though I am not sure how much rhetorical weight an online petition like this has. Thoughts?

You Ain't See Nothing Yet

A McCain parody...maybe.

"John.He.Is"



"No, We Can't."

The Gut as an Epistomological Center

Megs, this article is for you: "When It's Head Versus Heart, the Heart Wins."

Because voters are not computers, willing and able to remember and analyze candidates' every position, they rely on what political scientist Samuel Popkin of the University of California, San Diego, calls "gut rationality,"

Looking a last-minute Valentine,

Try these from the GOP.

I think we all need one of these

I am going to order one of these coloring books for everyone who blogs at The Rhetorical Situation.

Why the Popular Vote Should Not Matter in the Primaries

There is considerable tension in the Democratic Primaries because of the virtual tie between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Because a winner may not triumph through the pledged delegates, the fear, and loathing, is that the Super Delegates will decide the election. But the question remains: how should the Super Delegates, especially those without constituencies, decide for whom to vote?

One suggestion is that the Super Delegates should vote for the person with the most popular votes but not necessarily the winner of the most pledged delegates. This would not work. Here is why:

Please note: I write this not to favor one candidate over another. This is simply a way to discern how we should think about the Delegates and the Super Delegates and the role of the popular vote. On Super Tuesday, both Clinton and Obama received over 1.7 million votes, making the difference almost inconsequential. Clinton did receive more votes, as she did in Nevada, but the difference could easily be made up in other states.

1) The first reason is the most obvious: the democrats designed the winner to be decided on delegates and not the popular vote. The popular vote becomes a red herring in all of this. To decide that the popular vote matters is to change the rules of the game. If the popular vote was to be the most decisive aspect and the candidates knew this going in, then it would be fair to suggest that this would be the way to discern the nominee.

2) It should not matter that the more populated states votes one way and the less populated states votes another. Unless you want to differentiate as to why one democratic voter should have more say that another democratic voter based on his/her geographical location, the difference in location should not matter. It would not be correct to say that the knowledge of voters is greater in one state or that the interests of the voters are more important in one state; instead, voters in all states need to possess the ability to influence the elections. If not, then there would just be the tyranny of the majority. Besides, even though the vote in congressional districts is proportional, the larger states have delegates that go to the winner of the state to try and help the winner of the state, which may not be fair to the people who vote but fair to the candidate.

3) The argument that the winner of Blue States should receive support because the winner of Red States is unlikely to carry the state seems very suspicious. First, there is no reason why a Democrat cannot win a red state, especially with the current state of the country. During the 1980s, Reagan carried Blue States. In the 1990s, William Clinton carried some Red States. Second, the Democratic Nominee needs to win at least one important Red State or a few Red States to win the 2008 Election: this means that Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and Arizona may be very important to this election. The Democratic nominee needs to find ways to reach out to voters outside of the Democrat base to obtain these states.

4) The “popular vote” seems to be very misleading. Since the States choose the rules for their elections, there is no consistent format. Some states rely on primaries; some states rely on caucuses; some states allow for early voting; some states rely on closed primaries. Consequently, the system chosen will alter the amount of popular vote. Unlike a general election, which would be able to all voters in the same standardized form, the popular vote in the nomination process possesses to many standards to make it legitimate.

5) In some states, voters chose between six candidates; in other states voters chose between three candidates; in other states, the voters chose between two candidates. Even after Edwards left the race, he still received hundreds of thousands of votes on Super Tuesday, alter the vote totals of both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. This questions the legitimacy of the overall popular vote.

6) Finally, the vote in Michigan and Florida is not legitimate in any form and should not contribute to the overall lead. In Michigan, most of the candidates were not on the ballot. In Florida, the candidates agreed not to campaign there. Some voters, knowing full well that the vote would not count, stayed home. The vote of these states is not reflective of anything. To add the vote to the overall popular vote and to argue that it needs to be counted would incorporate even more illegitimacy into the process. If these states followed the rules, then these states would have been even more important—imagine if the Florida primary was this week or next week. It would have a tremendous amount of influence on the election. However, since the candidates agreed to the rules, the rules must stand and this vote should not matter in any form.

Based on these reasons, the role of the popular vote should not be considered as a relevant factor in determining the Democratic nominee. Delegates and Super Delegates should examine other factors.