0
   

Finally agreeing with Dowd

 
 
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 01:50 am
Well, sometimes I have agreed with her and sometimes not.

But this time I do --


Yes She Can

Published: August 12, 2008
Maureen Dowd

While Obama was spending three hours watching "The Dark Knight" five time zones away, and going to a fund-raiser featuring "Aloha attire" and Hawaiian pupus, Hillary was busy planning her convention.

You can almost hear her mind whirring: She's amazed at how easy it was to snatch Denver away from the Obama saps. Like taking candy from a baby, except Beanpole Guy doesn't eat candy. In just a couple of weeks, Bill and Hill were able to drag No Drama Obama into a swamp of Clinton drama.

Now they've made Barry's convention all about them ?- their dissatisfaction and revisionism and barely disguised desire to see him fail. Whatever insincere words of support the Clintons muster, their primal scream gets louder: He can't win! He can't close the deal! We told you so!

Hillary's orchestrating a play within the play in Denver. Just as Hamlet used the device to show that his stepfather murdered his father, Hillary will try to show the Democrats they chose the wrong savior.

Her former aide Howard Wolfson fanned the divisive flames Monday on ABC News, arguing that Hillary would have beaten Obama in Iowa and become the nominee if John Edwards's affair had come out last year ?- an assertion contradicted by a University of Iowa survey showing that far more Edwards supporters had Obama as their second choice.

Hillary feels no guilt about encouraging her supporters to mess up Obama's big moment, thus undermining his odds of beating John McCain and improving her odds of being the nominee in 2012.

She's obviously relishing Hillaryworld's plans to have multiple rallies in Denver, to take out TV and print ads and to hold up signs in the hall that read "Denounce Nobama's Coronation."

In a video of a closed California fund-raiser on July 31 that surfaced on YouTube, Hillary was clearly receptive to having her name put in nomination and a roll-call vote.

She said she thought it would be good for party unity if her gals felt "that their voices are heard." But that's disingenuous. Hillary was the one who raised the roll-call idea at the end of May with Democrats, who were urging her to face the math. She said she wanted it for Chelsea, oblivious to how such a vote would dim Obama's star turn. Ever since she stepped aside in June, she's been telling people privately that there might have to be "a catharsis" at the convention, signaling she wants a Clinton crescendo.

Bill continues to howl at the moon ?- and any reporters in the vicinity ?- about Obama; he's starting to make King Lear look like Ryan Seacrest.

The way the Clintons see it, there's nothing wrong with a couple making plans for their future, is there? That's the American way and, as their pal Mark Penn pointed out, they have American roots while Obama "is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values."

The Clintons know that a lot of Democrats are muttering that their solipsistic behavior is "disgusting." But they're too filled with delicious schadenfreude at the wave of buyer's remorse that has swept the Democratic Party; many Democrats are questioning whether Obama is fighting back hard enough against McCain, and many are wondering, given his inability to open up a lead in a country fed up with Republicans, if race will be an insurmountable factor.

Some Democrats wish that Obama had told the Clintons to "get in the box" or get lost if they can't show more loyalty, rather than giving them back-to-back, prime-time speaking gigs at the convention on Tuesday and Wednesday. Al Gore clipped their wings in 2000, triggering their wrath by squeezing both the president and New York Senate candidate into speaking slots the first night and then ushering them out of L.A.

Wednesday will be all Bill. The networks will rerun his churlish comments from Africa about Obama's readiness to lead and his South Carolina meltdowns. TV will have more interest in a volcanic ex-president than a genteel veep choice.

Obama also allowed Hillary supporters to insert an absurd statement into the platform suggesting that media sexism spurred her loss and that "demeaning portrayals of women ... dampen the dreams of our daughters." This, even though postmortems, including the new raft of campaign memos leaked by Clintonistas to The Atlantic ?- another move that undercuts Obama ?- finger Hillary's horrendous management skills.

Besides the crashing egos and screeching factions working at cross purposes, Joshua Green writes in the magazine, Hillary's "hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency."

It would have been better to put this language in the platform: "A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters."



That was probably too long for a sig line. Too bad. I was a feminist before she was, no bowing. She's a user.

Not that they or we all aren't. But really.. I see some kind of primo (I haven't found the exact word yet, probably long and starts with p) re all this.

Further, I'm floogled re whatever extent Obama has agreed with all this.
Too much getalong.



On the other hand, maybe Obama's smart. This will all gain no ballast.
Depressive mode, though.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,845 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 02:08 am
I am especially interested in Obama voters' arguments against Dowd's column and my instincts.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 05:21 am
Oh, I tend to agree.

I just don't think Obama had a lot of attractive options at his disposal.

The Hillary contingent is loud and pissed off. It's much different from Gore shutting out Bill and Hillary in 2000 -- neither Bill not Hillary were the close runners-up in the nominating contest.

And BOTH are big stories in a way that they weren't in 2000. You have to have the last Democratic president speak -- they did in 2000, 2004, and this year. And it would have been way too ham-handed to shut out Hillary -- close runner-up in the nomination contest -- completely.

So that means that both have to speak, pretty much. Shutting them both down would have been a Big Thing and would have created its own drama.

I think having Hillary speak on the anniversary of women's suffrage makes sense.

All that really leaves is, have Bill on the same night or not? Dunno why they made the decision to have them on different nights, probably something to do with time slots. Maybe this was a bad idea, not sure, details are lacking.

But I don't think "back-to-back" means anything in particular -- it makes a lot of sense that they both have slots, and they're put in the middle. Not opening day (25th), not the finale (28th). Hillary on the 26th, Bill on the 27th.

A-ha, just found this about Bill's time slot:

Mark Ambinder wrote:
I hear that Clinton has been asked to speak between 9 pm and 10 pm ET. Primetime -- sort of. Remember that the television networks will broadcast only the 10pm-11pm hour live, leaving the other two hours of prime time to the cable nets...

On Wednesday, the 10-11pm hour is reserved for two events: putting the candidate's name over the top and the vice presidential candidate's speech.

So while Clinton _would_ speak in prime time, he wouldn't be live on network television, and at most, the networks would briefly excerpt his speech before they turned to live events.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 11:16 am
Glad to read that timing business.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 08:45 am
@sozobe,
Quote:
So while Clinton _would_ speak in prime time, he wouldn't be live on network television, and at most, the networks would briefly excerpt his speech before they turned to live events.


what worried me about this was that people who are interested aren't going to be watching the networks (who does anymore?) - they'll be watching the live feeds

I really wish there was a way around 'needing' to let them speak. Or give them itty-bitty timeslots. Particularly Bill. The man needs to have a sock stuffed in his mouth.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Vanishing Languages - Discussion by Letty
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Finally agreeing with Dowd
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/15/2026 at 08:21:41