Here is Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton who has campaigned for her extensively:
“I think Bernie’s terrific as an advocate. There’s a difference between a strong community advocate and being someone who can get things done.”
And here is Sarah Palin, speaking at the 2008 Republican National Convention:
“Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.”
I guess Stabenow has some kind of internal filter that made her recognize that deriding Sanders as an ineffectual community “organizer” would be too redolent of a certain Caribou Barbie, but changing the word to “advocate” doesn’t alter the meaning.
A night after Hillary Clinton tried to convince Democrats that she’s not part of the establishment, her establishment supporters are out in force trying to marginalize her opponent. Sens. Gary Peters and Claire McCaskill are making the unelectable argument, which has gotten Sanders’ congressional supporters upset.
“Campaign operatives of hers and some surrogates continue to promote the attitude that we should be dismissive. That it can’t be done. That he’s not qualified,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who has endorsed Sanders.
He said McCaskill’s approach “evokes the ghost of [former Wisconsin Sen. Joseph] McCarthy [R].”
“It’s red-baiting and you’ll probably see more of that unfortunately, but I don’t think it’s going to stick.”
In the normal course of events, I’m probably more sympathetic to progressives like Raúl Grijalva, but I think he’s the one who’s guilty of hyperbole here. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making the argument, which is really just an opinion anyway, that Sanders won’t win the general election because people are uncomfortable with “socialism.”
My view is probably closer to Jerry Nadler’s:
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who represents a reliably liberal Manhattan district, said a Sanders nomination could provide a “fresh face” for the party — or result in utter disaster.
“His candidacy, were he the nominee, could conceivably be a real problem down-ballot. It could be a big loser because people are still terrified by the word ‘socialist,’ et cetera. Or not,” Nadler said.
“One of the reasons I’m supporting Hillary is that I don’t want to take that gamble,” he added.
That’s a big “or not” sitting out there. A lot of people want to vote for Sanders but aren’t willing to gamble on him. That’s why this electability question is being pushed so aggressively by the Clinton surrogates in the establishment. And, it could very well be that they’re correct. I wish I knew, honestly.
One thing I’m sure about, though, is that breaking out the Sarah Palin talking points isn’t smart. Talk about how people view socialism all you want, but don’t dismiss community organizers or advocates.
This isn’t a Republican campaign.
“Not willing to take a gamble” is a legitimate statement. Agree or disagree, but accept that it is a legitimate expression of concern. Geez, everyone is going by their visceral feelings in the argument about who is or isn’t electable.
Agreed. Grijalva sounded silly there. I think it wont be as big an issue as people think, but I can understand why people like Josh Marshall are concerned. Also remember, electorate is much diffrent from 1972.
The word ” socialist” doesn’t hold a scary connotation to me, especially in this context. I would rather face our problems than assume some convenient, one time progressive can get things done. Or even wants too. What — exactly— is she going to get done and does she have any plan or passion to change over congress? She should lay it out there and get behind it and forget saying she will get some things done like more war. She would rather parry Sanders points.
Everyone says it’s too soon for them to count, but there are polls that say, at least, both Hill and Bernie are electable in most of the likely matchups with a Republican opponent in the general. So, it’s not just hunches (visceral feelings as you say). But I think you’re right that it’s mostly just guessing so far.
That said, hard to argue with the turnout argument(s) comparing Clinton to Sanders and there seems to be a fair amount of agreement that Sanders is generating (a lot) more excitement on the campaign trail since he joined it last summer.
Longest-serving woman in the House makes her case for Bernie Sanders
Good for her. I’ve always admired Marcy Kaptur. She is another of the few Democrats in Congress who spoke up against the bank bailout in 2008. Good to know she’s got Sanders’ back.
It’s easy to see why McCaskill is afraid of nominating a lefty really popular with the base but unacceptable to the convential establishment – she won a nearly hopeless reelection campaign by getting the Republicans to do their version.
Could have fooled me.
Maybe if HRC just went ahead and did it. That is, maybe if she did throw the kitchen sink (aka the Communist threat) at him, we would know. Many thought that Jeremiah Reid was going to sink Obama.
The question is, how many voters are left alive that will have a visceral reaction to negative ads based on the “Soviet threat?”. If Bernie can make through that attack, he’s made the case for elect-ability.
Oops. Wright not Reid.
The question is, how many voters are left alive that will have a visceral reaction to negative ads based on the “Soviet threat?”. If Bernie can make through that attack, he’s made the case for elect-ability.
I think it would be a dangerous assumption to think that attacks on Sanders by the GOP in a general election will simply be attempts at fear-mongering about “Soviet threats”. And equally dangerous to think that all that would need to be done is to point out the silliness of such an argument and everything will suddenly turn into rainbows and ponies. Not saying that’s your intent, but a lot of people I know are making that kind of argument.
The field of potentially fatal attacks on Sanders in a general election is wide and deep. It certainly won’t be a case of “making it through an attack” and everything will be okay.
Right. But using the hammer and sickle image with parades of cannons and ominous voice-overs is right close to invoking Nazism, isn’t it? Won’t the idea of Godwin’s Law that as soon as you bring up such a ridiculous comparison as your argument you’ve lost it because you’ve gone too far?
Bring it on. Let them flounder in their mid-20th century red-baiting. As soon as they go there, Sanders will have already won.
I honestly think that whatever the Republicans throw at him will be extremely convincing . . . to themselves.
It will do him no harm, quite the contrary. Have you not noticed, he’s not an inanimate object. He gives as good as he gets — no, better.
It needs to get a bit nasty now. It’s good vetting, and we need to see how each candidate responds.
Because the general election will be nothing if not nasty.
That doesn’t mean I disagree with Booman, and that both sides should watch their rhetoric. (Channeling Sarah Palin is never a good thing.)
It worked well for Obama. Imagine if the Jeremiah Wright thing had come out in August instead of March/April.
Agreed. Let her rip. Better now than later all the way around. Likewise, someone should let loose the hellhounds on Hillary. There’s a reason she’s got so much baggage to hide, it’s because she’s got so much baggage. And so far, last night we saw it in full force, all she’s got as a retort is “shuuuut uuuuup. I’m just as good as Obama!!!” And don’t think that’s going to fly against Cruz, or Trump, or Rubio, or Kasich, or any of them.They’re not all chafing at the bit waiting to cut to ribbons Hillary Clinton.
(are chafing at the bit…)
I think Oliver Willis, yes of MMFA of all things, nailed it here:
http://medium.com/@owillis/this-is-a-really-stupid-reason-not-to-support-bernie-sanders-e080a297b156
#.2ldjvjuwx
Like totally man.
For the pearl clutchers to ponder:
I find it funny that OW is keeping it relatively even while Boehlert is selling what ever dignity he had left down the river. They both work for the same pro-Hillary outfit.
Clearly Clinton’s surrogates are showing their surprise at having to contend with the rise of Sanders. There is disarray.
So now the Clinton machine is having to look at the Sanders’ campaign much the way the Rep establishment has had to face the success of Trump. Sanders’ campaign is viable and making inroads into what Clinton assumed were her sacred set of supporters.
Nasty isn’t the right choice.
Fear makes you nasty. A lot of Hillary support is fear-based, imo. Not misplaced, either. But it is what it is.
Nothing surprising here. But let’s see how things progress (cough cough).
One would think that HRC would be better prepared for a real challenge from Sanders after the last go-round with Obama. What strikes me (and has been the case for a while) is that HRC sucked it up in 2008 and accepted “merely” being SoS under Obama.
But it appears that she really did expect to be crowned in 2016. After all, it’s her turn!!
Wake up, Hillary! It’s not a shoe-in, and you shoulda been better prepared. It appears that you’re not. WHY?
It was Bob Dole’s turn too. How did that work out?
Two points:
It’s not a shoe-in, and you shoulda been better prepared. It appears that you’re not. WHY?
Would you have preferred that she lie better about who and what she is?
What strikes me (and has been the case for a while) is that HRC sucked it up in 2008 and accepted “merely” being SoS under Obama.
Not buying that anymore. I’d wager good money, and I don’t gamble on long-shots, that a deal was struck. It does explain much that has seemed curious to me over the past seven years.
It does explain much that has seemed curious to me over the past seven years.
Such as?
I’m not answering for Marie, but I’ll give you one thing I’ve long wondered about, that could well be an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5knEXDsrL4
Hmm — fits but not on its own. Only part of a larger pattern.
I’m not answering for Marie, but I’ll give you one thing I’ve long wondered about, that could well be an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5knEXDsrL4
First of all why an open Presidential seat would have no contenders as if the sitting POTUS was running for re-election. Look at how many GOP candidates there have been in the past three election when they didn’t have an heir apparent. And the ’08 election on the DEM side. Even in 2000 when their was an heir apparent, Bradley did challenge Gore. Not well or effectively but it was authentic.
Then they whole private e-mail server business. Someone in the admin had to have known about it and let her do it her way. Who and what she was protecting herself from will probably never be known.
As SOS was she really representing Obama? After the flubs (Ukraine and Syria that were continuations of the style and tone during Clinton’s tenure) of his first year, why has Kerry been so different in the past two years?
No lookee at the intersection between the State Dept and the not so savory CGI connections.
Since Obama isn’t much a negotiator, it’s possible that he offered them carte blanche for their total support in the ’08 general election. Or they could first have reminded him of ’72 when the DEM elites took a hike.
Ukraine especially made me wonder. Did not seem like Obama’s pattern to instigate such. Reminded of loose cannons.
Might not want to dismiss the fact of Hunter Biden’s bidness in Ukraine.
Monsanto and breadbasket of Europe might have a thing or two to do with it, also.
“It could be a big loser because people are still terrified by the word `socialist,’ et cetera. Or not…”
Precisely the problem.
Here’s the best answer to this conundrum that I know.
Ol’ Will the poet penned it. Pinned it, too as far as I am concerned.
Only Bernie among the national contenders is really speaking about “taking arms” against our troubles. Is it better…nobler in the mind…to continue to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous neoliberalism or is it time (finally) to take the plunge? To “sleep” no more. Or…to sleep forever if we lose?
I know my choice.
Win or lose.
Sometimes y’just have to take the chance when it presents itself. Jump off the cliff in the sure belief that you will fall up.
Now is one of those times.
AG
Well, and for those of us getting on in age, a paean to the youth vote fighting blissfully for a revolution:
Do say.
Establishment Democrats like McCaskill showed their colors with their positions on Ferguson. She’s gone downhill from their and at this point is contributing to her own future defeat by not staking out a popular position to her left.
And that’s why she should have an opponent in the primary. Does she? Or are the Missouri Democrats reluctant because “McCaskill is electable” or “She’s not good but any Republican” is worse? She where those arguments lead you?
she’s not up for re-election
Good! She decided to retire? Or did you mean just this cycle? If so, she will be up someday.
she won re-election in 2012 so a 6 year term
Yes, the point being that few dare challenge a sitting Senator unless they smell blood in the water.
Are y’all not getting a bit over sensitive here? Campaigning is all about making positive arguments about yourself and comparing your opponents negatively against your accomplishments or experience either directly or by implication. Calling this nasty is a bit like the archetypal ultra-conservative “little old ladies” clutching their pearls…
The whole primary process is supposed to help voters assess how well potential candidates will fare in the cut and thrust of the general. If you don’t like it, don’t get involved in politics.
And it wasn’t just Sarah Palin who was concerned about Obama’s lack of Executive (or even legislative) experience. Arguably, that lack of experience seriously impacted on his effectiveness as President, despite his formidable intelligence and praiseworthy eloquence.
Republicans may take the nasty personal stuff to totally unedifying extremes, and I would much prefer an evidence based policy argument. But Democrats need to stop being quite so precious about criticising a party rival: criticism does not equal consorting with the enemy!
Well sure, a campaign consists of delivering arguments about why folks should vote for you and not the other guy. But it’s the choice of arguments and the way they’re delivered that tells everything about the candidate.
Lambert Strether today:
It’s here:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/200pm-water-cooler-252016.html
Presidential hopefuls Sanders, Clinton in dead heat – Reuters/Ipsos poll
Quinnipiac is perhaps not an outlier, but a canary in a coalmine…
Ruh-roh.
Is that a national poll? I heard on the news this morning that Sanders was leading Clinton in New Hampshire by 60 to 30, but I find it hard to believe.
Yes, that’s national.
You can play with the demographics of it here (7,151 Respondents in total):
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/
Sanders lead in NH has been strong for a few months, but also easily dismissed by team Clinton b/c a VT or MA candidate always does well in NH. (That however, didn’t stop her team from dumping a lot of money in NH media buys when he first took a lead to stop and possibly reverse his momentum. That was also back when Clinton though she could wrap it up after NV and SC.)
But here’s what I said three days ago — Iowa was a game changer:
Did you notice that in one of last Fall’s Iowa rallys he echoed FDR’s “I welcome their hatred” speech, which was IMHO one of the most powerful speeches ever.
Wonder if he will echo Stevenson if team Clinton keeps up with the smears —
But Truman had the best quips.
Longer and still apt today:
That last quote shows they haven’t changed in 60+ years.
My Dad loved “Give ’em Hell Harry”. I was a little too young at the time.
A personal story. Bob was perhaps the best boss I ever had. Best manager for sure; a lot of that came from the fact that he was upbeat and a people person. On that last point it meant that he spent as little time as possible in his office and as much time as possible gabbing.
Upon arrival at work one day he had to tell everybody about a show he’d seen the night before — “Give ‘Em Hell, Harry!” Part of his enthusiasm was because he never went to live theater productions. Most of his enthusiasm was about Truman. How he’d been a really great guy. I just listened as Bob went on and on. Then, because I can be devilish on occasions, I asked, “Did you vote for him?” Bob was too honest to lie, but conceded that if he’d known then… and was sorry that he hadn’t.” I allowed that voting is difficult and said that I hoped that one day I wouldn’t have such a similar regret. (Voting for losers reduces the number of regrets one has to live with.) Why that was devilish of me was that I knew that a Republican like Bob wouldn’t have voted for Truman (and he knew that I knew), but he was probably less rigid after that.
And yet it is Obama floating privatization of the TVA and Lamar Alexander yelling “no.”
Saving the public, again, from bad choices by Dems. I find I welcome their reflexive opposition tooooo often.
Local politics does have a way of interfering with a Republican politician’s slavish devotion to privatization, outsourcing, offshoring, etc. Congress is so hopelessly compromised that it cannot even rationally deal with decommissioning federal bases.
Maybe. There are a handful of other polls covering the same period with Clinton reliably over 50% in Democratic support. Pollster has the split 50/38 (Clinton/Sanders). Feels a little closer than that, but maybe not so much.
Sounds more reasonable than two to one.
Just what you’d expect from them. And you know what? If they keep this up (and they probably cannot help themselves), it’s going to be counterproductive for Hillary. Very. Because it will reinforce what they already know about her and her entourage.
The financial meltdown of 2008 was a game changer for American politics. Essentially because it meant the end of the Reagan era. Why? Because hardly anybody can still have faith in that bullshit any more. It’s just not morning in America any more, or at least not if you think you can keep sucking up to Wall Street.
The economic, political, and psychological conditions for Reaganism and all its extensions, like the Clinto’s Republican lite, are over. It’s just that the change has taken a long time to get traction. And that’s no accident. Wall Street and the rest of the oligarchy, including their friends in the Democratic Party, have done everything they could to stave it off. But you can stave off the inevitable just so long.
Obama did a lot, although I was with Robert Reich and others in 2008, fervently hoping they’d put the banks in their place. ANd what do you know, Reich is with Sanders now. But whatever Obama did or didn’t accomplish, in the present context I will characterize it as simply helping, unintentionally, to create the conditions for a viable Sanders candidacy.
And that’s why so many people under the age of 40 are galvanized by Bernie, not at all by Hillary. So I repeat, this kind of stuff is going to be very counterproductive for Hillary. In the words of that famous German political philosopher, “Believe me now or believe me later.”
As opposed to Obama the socialist? Or those commie Clintons? The Republicans (and many Dems) live inside lies. You tell the same lie too many times…
Honestly, if this is what counts for nasty, I won’t mind.
People better toughen up now, because the Republicans are going to be ten orders of magnitude nastier.