Palin's speech II

I was wrong.

It was no tear-jerker. Just jerk.

I forgot, for a couple days, that the base of the GOP really only cares about mocking other people. Hard to believe I forgot that. That's what hope does to you, I guess.

Hillary Clinton's convention speech, to me, was phenomenal. Not just because of the values we share. She was a class act. Even her barbs at McCain were done with respect.

Palin, in no small feat, managed to follow a rabid Rudy by looking petty. She is petty. No wonder they love her. I cannot believe any real Hillary supporters could have watched that and seen anything in Palin they saw in Clinton.

This has been a shallow and ugly convention. I've watched every convention since I was nine years old. I truly believe this is the worst one I've ever seen.

Impostor

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

Beyond the usual pleasure of reading one of Digby's dispatches, I was happy to read this morning's anecdote about the Hillary supporter who was ready to work hard to get Barack Obama elected.

Though I've been greatly annoyed by the relentless reporting of the "rift" in the party, when Hillary gave her fantastic speech last night, I started to wonder if the media's inflation of the magnitude of the perceived internal war might actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Clinton so skillfully connected this election and its consequences to the history, sacrifice and struggle of American women for equality and fairness, I began to think maybe John McCain did the Democrats a favor with his ads fanning those flames. Clinton's Harriett Tubman reference last night was brilliant.

I also thought about Hillary's campaign and how different the outcome might have been had she taken Rachel Maddow's advice early on and focused her attention on John McCain and the GOP, instead of trying to take down Obama.

But, as Digby wrote this morning, the media narrative is like a piece of Ikea furniture. The holes are already drilled, the dowels already measured out and there's only one way to put it together, no matter how painful it is to assemble it into its catalog-photo orientation. And in the end, of course, there are obviously a few screws loose.

For the loosest screws, we can always turn to Fox News, where they set the bar low yesterday, explaining that Michele Obama's speech actually re-enforced her negative image -- that is, when you replace her words with completely different words. This will be fun to do with McCain next week. ("The glimmerings of democracy are very faint in Russia America today, and so I would be very harsh.")

Steve Benen notices today that other media outlets aren't replacing Clinton's words with their own, they're just ignoring them completely and inviting "body language experts" to demonstrate that she was essentially lying.

On the evening of June 28, a few hours after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared together in Unity, N.H., for their first post-primary joint appearance, CNN devoted quite a bit of airtime to "body-language experts."

At one point, one of the "experts" argued that the position of Hillary Clinton's navel carries great political significance: "She angles her belly button toward him. She's treating him with respect. She has her hands in a fig leaf position, which tends to be a passive position, really turning the power over to Obama. We face our belly buttons and the core of our body to people we like, have affinity toward and people we respect. And she's doing it."

It was, to my mind, some of the worst on-air political "journalism" -- I use the word loosely -- I've ever seen from a major news outlet. And yet, CBS News this morning did the exact same thing.

I'm disappointed. I was expecting to wake up and learn that anonymous sources leaked word that wasn't even Hillary last night, but an impostor. Maybe even Barack Obama in a Hillary costume.

I have the undeniable proof right here:

Passed Over

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

The Rat[Loving] Express is rolling ahead with an ad called "Passed Over," lamenting the fact that Barack Obama didn't select Hillary Clinton as his running mate, despite the fact that she received millions of votes. The McCain camp charges that Clinton spoke the truth and Obama couldn't stand the pain.

I, for one, cannot wait to celebrate the exciting news that John McCain has selected Ron Paul as his vice president.

PUMA = DUMB

The Clinton supporters in Party Unity My Ass met with John McCain to hear what he had to say about their potential support of his candidacy:

"He stayed for a good almost half hour afterwards shaking hands, listening to our concerns, talking to us," said PUMA founder Will Bower, who said he thought many of the people there would vote for McCain.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stayed to mingle with the crowd, whose members also included Clinton backer Harriet Christian, made momentarily famous on YouTube for getting ejected from the Rules & Bylaws press area.

Bower said he'd liked McCain's answer on judges, in which he "pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsberg and Breyer."

Wow, McCain supported Ginsberg and Breyer? What a guy! He must be just the kind of candidate a Clinton supporter would love.

MODERATOR: Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House? [...] Senator?

MCCAIN: No, because it obviously would mean that Senator Clinton is the president of the United States, and we don't want that.

Most importantly, it would mean that the appointment of Supreme Court justices and other judges would be -- take a very sharp turn to the left.

One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges.

I'm proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. I'm very proud to have played a very small role in making that happen.

Bower, if you're not a complete moron, then I don't know what you are.

Poor marketing

You may have noticed that this blog has been pretty dead lately. DB has had a lot going on in life, which has made it easy to ignore my own blog. But really, this primary has been just too damned ugly.

The number of blogs I read has diminished considerably over the past several months. I just haven't had the energy to duke it out over stupid things. It's really been painful to witness.

My candidate was Chris Dodd. After he dropped out, I considered John Edwards. But he dropped out before I even made up my mind about that commitment. That left me with Obama or Clinton. I would have been happy to see either in the White House, quite frankly, but over time I realized that Hillary Clinton -- a remarkable woman -- was a terrible candidate with a horrible campaign.

Again, she's a remarkable woman. But let's look at her campaign objectively.

I don't think anything encapsulates the problem of her candidacy more that the recent flap with her RFK assassination comments. It was awful and for so many reasons.

1) Any time you are in the final rounds of a tough campaign contest and your biggest supporters all go on TV to explain that you really don't want to see your opponent murdered, that's a colossal screw-up you made. When the talking heads have to "give you the benefit of the doubt" on something so macabre, you've screwed up. Will the media blow it out of proportion? Yes, that's what they do. Will your opponent make hay out of it? Yes, that's how it works. (Remember "bitter" and "would not have been my pastor?")

2) The fact that Nixon won in 1968 would seem to undermine the entire argument that she was making. The 1992 argument appears to be specious, at best.

3) Not understanding that it is irresponsible to bring up assassinations, particularly during this election, is something of a disqualifier in the judgment category.

4) The insensitivity to the Kennedys during a particularly difficult week for the family appears (to the public at least) quite tactless and uncaring.

5) The "apology" compounded the problem by failing to address the implications that were so obvious. Worse, the tired "I regret if anyone was offended" is exactly what the Obama campaign would have hoped Clinton would say. It reinforced the Obama message that the Clintons represent the same typical Washington thinking that needs to be put to rest.

But beyond those particular reasons this was a terrible gaffe, the real problem with her candidacy was exemplified by what this episode says about her message in general. Let's look at this from a marketing standpoint, since she's really been selling herself to the public.

In the locker room, before the big game, maybe the coach will say "They don't think you can win it" to psych up his team. Maybe on the podium, holding the trophy, the winners will say "They didn't think we could do it!"

But nobody sells something by reiterating that the product is undesirable. Why in the world would a campaign get on television over and over for weeks and argue that there is a growing chorus of people who don't want them around anymore? How is that an effective message for the public? Even if it were true (and as Chris Matthews -- the stopped clock who's right twice a month -- said to Terry McAuliffe, "You're arguing with nobody!"), why would you try to sell yourself with that message?

Hillary, herself, brought up the idea that people want her gone before refuting it with those bad examples. Why? What can you gain by emphasizing that there are people who don't like you?

Her message has been that Obama (presumably not assassinated) will be unable to get the support he needs to win. You will never see an ad like this: "PEPSI -- Because the Coke machine might break!" That's not a winning message.

While Obama has been associating himself with the message of change and progress that the Kennedys have embodied, Clinton associated herself with RFK's death. Great branding!

Her message increasingly is about the stolen elections in 2000. When you think of the anguish of 2000, think Hillary! Brilliant!

The glass ceiling is difficult to shatter, yes. Absolutely. But you celebrate breaking it after you win. Why make the fact that your victory is unlikely a prominent component of your rhetoric? Yes, it's true. Yes, we are overdue for a women to be president. I agree.

There are also the organizational problems and the Mark-Penn-doesn't-know-it's-not-winner-take-all problem.

The Hillary campaign has argued when they lost states that they were outspent and the defeat should have been worse. Memo to campaign managers: That just tells people that you were either given less money and had less backing or that victory was in reach and you failed to capture it.

I understand that Hillary's supporters are upset and feel robbed. But, seriously, if you could write a manual for selling something, this campaign would have to be included in the What-Not-To-Do chapter.

Once again, I think Hillary is a remarkable woman. But her campaign has been remarkably poor.

Past ready

Via Kevin Drum, I find this at the Corner from former Dan Quayle speechwriter Lisa Schiffren:

Admit it [Lisa Schiffren]

Let's say last night really did indicate that Hillary's negatives will keep her off the ticket. (Or keep her from winning if she's on it.) You know what? Deep in my psyche, in the place that kind of misses the toothache I've been prodding at with my tongue, I am having a tiny little pang of missing Hillary. Not her, but hating her. Hating Hillary has been such a central political impulse for so long now — 15 years — and I have had to work so hard to keep it up as she became more appealling looking, less shrill, more human — I don't really know what I will do with that newly freed strand of energy.

The sad thing is, America is past ready for woman president. Just not a woman who got to office on her husband's coattails. Time for the new crop of professional political women — the ones who are tough enough to run for office — to stick your heads up and start putting your opinions on the table.

Say what you will about Quayle, at least he didn't want people to know he wasn't that smart.

It's one thing to want to hate a political opponent enough that you struggle to do so for a decade and a half... Even worse to want people to know that hating somebody is central to your politics.

But what tips her scales from pathetic to imbecilic is the fact that Schiffren, while calling for "a new crop of professional political women," reveals without irony that her hatred for Hillary grew harder to maintain "as she became more appealing looking, less shrill."

What could possibly be keeping "professional political women" from jumping at the chance to run for president with writers like Schiffren ready to analyze their opinions?

But let's be real here. The fact is, Hillary was wearing a fairly low cut summer top. She was not displaying cleavage, as the shot on Drudge indicates. Someone else wearing the same outfit might have done. But Hillary Clinton does not have cleavage to display. Period. Indeed, Hillary never forgave her mother-in-law, Virginia Kelly for pointing this out decades ago to the young Bill Clinton, a cleavage man if ever there was one.

Perhaps Schiffren can go back to crusading against women in the realm of fiction if no ugly or flat-chested ones answer her call in real life.

Otherwise, I'm sure she can burn off that strand of energy fantasizing about the codpiece.

CNN's Ticker

CNN is putting out the idea that Hillary Clinton might put her husband, Bill, on the Supreme Court.

What an interesting news flash to come out on the day of the Iowa Caucuses! Was this something that leaked from the Clinton campaign? Was it something Hillary said? Has Bill dropped some hints to CNN?

Uh, no. It's a "prediction" by conservative law professor Doug Kmiec, who worked for Reagan and Bush 41 in the OLC. You remember Kmiec... He penned a lackluster defense of the Bush administration after James Comey testified about the shenanigans in John Ashcroft's hospital room. During the Clinton years, of course, Kmiec was the champion of the "rule of law" and intense critic of executive abuse of power.

In short, Kmiec has no insight of value on Hillary's intentions. Certainly not enough for CNN to front page his "prediction." Absolutely not enough value to make this a top news item on Caucus Day.

I guess they didn't have enough stupid predictions to fill the airwaves and internets.

UPDATE: This didn't even register in my brain when I read it:

Kmiec worked in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses as a top lawyer, but said he has no personal or political "disdain" for Bill Clinton.

Disdain? What a joke. Trash reporting. Maybe they should have indicated in the article somewhere that the dean of Pepperdine Law School -- that is Kmiec's boss -- is Ken Starr. Actually, they shouldn't have printed this crap at all.

Shameful reporting.

UPDATE II: It's 6:50 pm ET and Wolf Blitzer just pushed this story, too -- without even mentioning Kmiec by name.

To talk or not to talk

DB has been tied up this week, so apologies for the light blogging. I'm also a little late getting into this topic, but here's some scattered thoughts about the dust-up between Clinton and Obama over their answers to a YouTube debate question.

Here's the brief synopsis: The candidates were asked if they would, in their first year in office, speak with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. Obama came right out and said yes. Clinton said she would increase the diplomatic efforts, but she wouldn't promise to meet them in her first year, not wanting to be used for propaganda purposes. Since then, Clinton has called Obama naive. Obama has responded by saying that voting to authorize the war in Iraq was naive.

Time will tell who comes out on top. The media, naturally, jumped on the experience vs. judgment angle. I think there are other elements to this disagreement that make it interesting.

International diplomacy is more than simply one president calling another or rolling out the red carpet at the ranch. Obviously, that's important, but diplomacy is a multi-dimensional endeavor and the Bush Administration has been ineffective not just because the doors at Kennebunkport or Crawford weren't wide open, but because the doors at the State Department were essentially closed. It goes without saying that the nation's top diplomat has been more successful at shoe shopping and raising awareness of golf as a sport than she has been at bringing countries together to solve major international problems. The answer to our failed diplomatic record needs to be more than simple cosmetics.

On the other hand, who cannot recognize the absurdity of Bush's notion that it's somehow a form of punishment to be told you can't meet (or get a back rub from) him?

This debate is giving me some flashbacks to 2004 because it's not much different than when John Kerry said he could "fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." Dick Cheney responded by mocking Kerry for wanting to show al-Qaeda our "soft side." Obviously that wasn't the point Kerry was making, but in the general election, Cheney's bottom-feeding quip was effective enough.

Clinton's answer was clearly more thoughtful. Obama's was more appealing emotionally. Will the Democratic primary voters choose thoughtfulness over emotion? It doesn't look like it.

Then there is the post-debate debate. I'll just say that I think Obama's response (that it was naive to vote for this war) was a pretty good stinger, at least as far as the primary goes.

The point I think will be lost in all this is the idea that a president should do the right thing for the right reasons. The GOP came into power believing that everything President Clinton did was, by default, wrong. If Clinton did it this way, we'll do it that way. Just ask New Orleans how that worked out. Bush's policies are catastrophically bad across the board and the damage he has done will require extensive repair. But the decisions the next president makes have to be more than just opportunities to repudiate George W. Bush.

If the next president is going to speak to another world leader, it has to be because America is ready to talk at that level, not just because a talk is overdue (though it most certainly is). If it takes two or three years of strong diplomatic efforts to get to the point where a talk between top leadership can be productive, that's how it ought to be done. However, if the president feels that a meeting in January 2009 will send the right statement to the world, then that's a justifiable reason to do it, too.

But we cannot allow the next administration to exist solely to prove it's not the Cheney administration. The best way to do that is to be thoughtful and to do what's best for America.

In case you think that sounds too much like Lieberman, keep in mind that I'm not saying it to stop anybody from disagreeing with me. Or to keep America in some sort of insane biblical conflict.

Daou and Legum on Clinton's team

Hillary Clinton pulled off quite a feat last June when she hired Peter Daou to be her Chief Blogger.

Today, Steve Clemons reports that she's also brought Think Progress' Judd Legum into the fold.

A formidable tandem.

UPDATE: It seems DB isn't the only one who noticed the constant panning of the camera during Hillary's announcement.

UPDATE II: Keith Olbermann just told us that the constant panning was for "Internet hipness." Consider this blogger unhip, because that tactic made the video almost unwatchable for me.

Dramamine, please

DB is still digesting the video from Hillary Clinton today. But what is up with the cameraman? I got sea sick watching that thing. Did anybody else notice the pan-and-scan?