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.