There’s nothing shocking or scandalous about candidates, during the course of a presidential campaign, adjusting their message as they go along. The double standard that mainstream media outlets apply in reporting on these changes, though, can be pretty outrageous.
For example, in the New York Times today, Patrick Healy decides to emulate Maureen Dowd, applying maximum snark in discussing a Democratic candidate:
There has been Commander in Chief Hillary Rodham Clinton, the steely leader who, voters were assured, would “destroy” terrorists and be Thatcher-like tough.
There has been Strong-and-Experienced Hillary Clinton, but that proved to be so uninspiring that Change-Agent Hillary and Likable-Since-I-Was-a-Kid Hillary were rolled out.
And Teary-Eyed Hillary, of course, won the New Hampshire primary last week, after the candidate choked up describing the rigors of the race.
. . . Her newest public face is a blend of policy and persona. She held two roundtable discussions with average people, experts and activists on Wednesday in Nevada, which holds its presidential caucuses on Saturday, focusing on a proposed nuclear waste repository near Las Vegas and the economic ills and mortgage foreclosures in the state and the nation.
That was where I-Feel-Your-Pain Hillary emerged, a reprise of her husband Bill Clinton’s touchy-feely message from his 1992 campaign.
Mrs. Clinton listened. She nodded. She expressed sympathy. She promised to fight for the people in the room.
Compare this with Dave Lighthouse of McClatchy Newspapers, writing about a Republican:
As Americans grow increasingly anxious about whether the economy is sinking into recession, Mitt Romney may find that just being himself is the best way to campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
The former Massachusetts governor has spent months, and millions, trying to convince voters that he’s the true heir to Ronald Reagan and a devout social conservative. For that he’s drawn scorn from critics who remember his moderate views a few years ago on matters such as abortion and gay rights.
Romney scored his first big Republican primary victory Tuesday in Michigan largely by emphasizing his background as a successful business executive who knows how to foster innovation, change and prosperity. That may be his best, and most authentic, sales pitch.
Yes, you read that right — GOP presidential candidates don’t flip-flop, they just become more authentic. NYT op-ed columnist Roger Cohen echoes this mantra today in writing about St. John McCain:
McCain does not win the wavering as [a] policy wonk; he’s flesh and blood. The straight-talking survivor of more than five years of Vietnamese imprisonment is at home in his own skin in a way Bush will never be.
Sure, Cohen implicitly criticizes a Republican (our beloved Dubya) as inauthentic there — but one who’s not currently a candidate. Back when he was running for president, Bush’s straight-shooting, from-the-gut honesty was never questioned.
Similarly, even though Healy up above contrasts Hillary Clinton’s supposed falseness (because, you know, being initially reticent about showing emotion in public but eventually learning is something real, genuine people never experience) with Barack Obama’s "intuitive talent" at bonding with others, you can rest assured that should he win the Democratic nomination, Obama will be revealed as a phony in the eyes of the jaundiced media as well.
None of this is an accident. Since voters inherently tend to side with Democrats on issues, the GOP has long since learned to campaign in ways that try to nullify specific policy stands as a consideration. It doesn’t matter if that other candidate is saying things you agree with, the Republican argues — he or she is insincere, a flip-flopper, a waffler! Whereas the GOPer always manages to lay claim to superior personal characteristics, including "knowing where they stand" (who knew that always wanting to give money to rich people and corporations, regardless of the subject at hand, was such a virtuous moral attribute?).
The amazing thing about this authenticity charade is how effortlessly the corporate media promotes it, even though it’s utterly untrue. But if Democrats want to debunk it, they’d better be prepared to do it themselves, because the press seems quite content with their false narrative.
Related posts:
- The Media’s Generous Double Standard For Republican Extremists
- The Torturer Times: The Washington Post’s Partisan Press Release Service
- Hey John Nichols: Pointing Out That Fox News is Partisan Isn’t “Whining”
- Von Spakovsky Accuses Obama Civil Rights Team of “Nakedly Political” Acts; NYT Fails to Note HvS’s Own Partisan Work
- Frank Rich Annoints Palin the GOP’s 2012 Favorite





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

z
now I can make it zed. I wanted to be sure and beat Biodun
gnome!
swopa!
Hi, swopa, all!
Darn It! I read the post!
Seems that someone wants to make it appear that Hillary is some “Seven Faces of EVE (Evil)” multiple personality type. Of course one can integrate more than one mood and approach to events in one PERSONA.
That’s what makes use humans rather than automatons.
Or stereotypes.
Tweety is acknowledging the backlash for his Hill hatred… ;-)
The thing about Hillary’s varying pitches is that she is all of the above. There’s nothing inconsistent about each of the ones that are cited.
Now St. McCain has had a flip-flop love-hate relationship with W ever since his SC debacle.
WOOOH! Tweety’s been getting some serious flak! “Some people I respect think that I’ve been disrespectful of Hillary Clinton!” ETC. Etc. etc. Wow! This is the Imus apology! One step from fired and off the air, I think. If you missed this, you really missed something! Guess they’ll be doing some serious you tubes of this one.
Is he, now? Any repentance on his part?
Swopa, you are spot on with your analysis. The mainstream media function as a tool of the oligarchy, because its owners and virtually all of it’s “journalists” either are, or aspire to be, oligarchs themselves. The fucking bastards.
Oooo. Missed it. Plz post YouTube ASAP.
I thin KO and Maddow summed it up the best:
Then Mitt must be the most authentic of the batch…
My new war cry is:
Rage against the Media Machine!
Thank Goodness for Blogs!
I hope the world is watching and realizing how true it is that democracy relies on having a free press. Otherwise, it’s just a hollow shell.
we need to reclaim the flow of information before we can reclaim our government and benefits of citizenry.
(jeez, did I just write this little mini manifesto? moi?)
Are you kidding? I said he acknowledged it… ;-)
I saw that. Maddow is really smart, and knows how to make her points in a vivid, but crystalline way that goes over really well on teevee. The left needs more people like her.
Trying to save his ass from this; perhaps:
I loved the way Rachel Maddow characterized the E-H-O differences. Thanks for posting the quote.
I saw that last night and it was like arriving at a little oasis in the thundering storm. C&L has the video, too. It was very nicely put and great to have meaning restored to at least one word (”change”)over used this election cycle.
Sounds like Healy would prefer a cardboard cutout rather than a real person as a candidate. Can anything be more inane than to complain that Hillary is a flesh and blood person with many different sides to her personality and belief system? Better question: is it possible for any democrat ever to please these fraudsters about anything?
We should have a catchy acronym to describe the media’s apposite reaction to Democratic candidates’ actions versus GOPs — oh, how about IOKIYAR
Democrats need a candidate who will break through the veil of these narratives and get the public to listen to the truth.
LOL- god it’s a dog-eat-dog world here!
She is able to “package” her amazing mind and she has a great TV personality. She really needs her own show.
Serious penetance, are you kidding. He has been seriously slapped over his remarks about the only reason she got to where she is today is because her husband “messed around.” After several minutes of setting up an apology and apologizing profusely, he said he gets it, and noted that if he had said that John McCain is only where he is today because he was a POW, he would blah blah blah, but he acknowledged that it would have been wrong and he understands that. Too bad he hasn’t apologized to Elizabeth Edwards for asking her if she bites her husband’s balls! Or all the other inappropriate things he says. He can’t seem to help himself.
Oh, wow — a demonstration? Good. About time somebody called Tweety on the carpet. I emailed NBC complaining about him last week.
Pardon me for repeating myself: but I am so enjoying the very public blowback on the msm. First the Paulistas in NH (FU Frank!) and now Chris Matthews is paying a price. Way to go, citizens. I don’t care who you want to vote for. We stand together for a free press!!
No.
This is another case of simple answers…
It is so time for him to go
Not inconsistent, but shows how much she is focused on “pleasing” many different groups (not a good leadership sign). I don’t see the same thing with Obama -or Edwards, or Elizabeth Edwards, or Condi Rice (ouch). In short, it IS a problem, and may be why so many people dislike (you think she is on your wave length, then she goes and says/does something very different).
Ding.
Steve-AR, do you have a link to that story?
and say goodnight Russert
And, she is one key reason why it is politically imperative for the Dems to find a way to expand Air America. She was home grown there.
I do. It’s just that instead of telling different groups specific things they want to hear, Obama throws out verbal Rorschach blots that allow each group to hear whatever they want.
Gosh, it’s almost as if the Mainstream Media were nothing more than a propaganda organ for the corporatist Republican party… But if THAT were the case, why, wouldn’t we expect the quality of public dialog to rapidly decline into a kind of circus?
haha, good one. authentic candidates, yes. authentic presidents? not so much. Mitt is “girlfriend” material, wouldn’t want to marry him. sorry to be a sexist pig!
I agree. He is totally compulsive.
Once again, this is simply an effort to shift this election to Tabloidization rather than discuss issues and policies.
It’s the level of analysis that might accompany an article about Britney’s “meltdown” on the Supermarket checkout magazine stand.
Just imagine what they would have done with Abraham Lincoln’s complex personality. A man who could play like a colt with his son, cry when that son died, get weepy at Gettysburg, show slyness by emancipating the slaves in Confederate territory, then intellectual foresight in realizing that he needed to permanently erase slavery as a divisive issue forever more.Lincoln showed more than a little sympathy to both sides in the Civil War. But also could undertake and approve severe actions that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Not to mention that he got more than a little snippy with Scotty McClellan’s great-great Grandpa for being a do-nothing General when the war effort was on the verge of collapse.
Healy would have gone positively batsh*t over Lincoln.
And she is right..and it only took her a couple of lines of transcript. There is really little difference between the three except for what Rachel; basically pick the style you want.
All of the angst about policy differences really doesn’t mean shit..All of the things we are worried about will be determined by how many good Dems replace Thugs in the Congress.
No way! You’re out of your mind!
Is this about the “Sheena, the She-Devil remark”?
Folks, you may want to consider asking your favorite Democratic candidate to work to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” and limited media ownership should they become President. Better still, tell your Congress-critters too.
Sad to say, and I’m not making excuses for him, but it seems to me that Chris Matthews has had Edwards on probably more than any other show. It seems to me he’s given him a lot more face time than most, but I doubt that he’ll ever learn to control his mouth.
really? style? or emphasis? Or am I being naive again? :)
Point well taken. But it is different, in my view. I wrote earlier about Obama being like a mirror – people look at hinm and see themselve in him. It is similar to the old teflon thing (like Reagan), and like Bill Clinton. I think for Obama it is part speaking ability part speaking (like JFK), and attention to the larger vision (whole of the matter) rather than the details (Carter).
excellent on point suggestion. thanks.
I don’t think so. In fact, that may be one I hadn’t heard. This was mostly about his remark that Hillary would not be where she is today, would not be a Senator, would not be a candidate, if her husband had not “messed around.”
I would view changes in policy or positions as “pleasing” various groups and not good leadership. And in that category I do not include changing positions because you learn from mistakes (though one can certainly doubt the sincerity of such changes). But what Swopa cites from Healy could be interpreted as different sides of a personality: commander-in-chief, strong & experienced, teary-eyed, I-feel-your-pain. Voters may want the prez to have a monolithic personality (think W) and feel uncomfortable with the candidate when it isn’t, but that’s not the same a flip flopping.
I’m not supporting Hillary, but I think Healy’s criticism is way off base.
link
link
Wow. I didn’t know Rachel is a Rhodes Scholar.
I agree, but that does not seem to be happening. Is there another way we could frame this (I don’t think the issue is only that of local ownership either). What I miss in part, is any place I can hear decent music (like the new Bruce stuff (XM sucks).
I heart Rachel. She is not only smart and beautiful but also tough as nails, very funny, and daring, very quick thinking.
And Stanford. Her education shows, she has used it well.
I guess there are so many sexist and misogynistic remarks that he makes that’s it’s hard to know which “one” he’ll apologize for.Tweety’s Sexism
I just think the effect of whichever Dem is in the White House will be much less that the effect of a massive political shift in Congress.
I don’t like the Healy piece as a whole either (it also sounded a bit MoDo. And I agree with you on change because the situation has changed (or because one learns from one’s experience). But, so much of what she does is so calculated. Like in the debate when she was asked to address her weakness, and she refused. On the other hand Obama’s response was at once honest, human, and endearing. I can’t tell you how much “paper” I have lost in my life.
She was on the set with Keith last night, now taped from the radio studio. She was also wearing make-up. Girl’s moving. We’ll be seeing lots of her. It would beautiful to see her take Tweety’s job, and see Tweets take Carlson’s.
what i’m reading from swopa’s piece is the typical character/personality assassination of dems by R smear artists vs. the sweet talking buildup of seriously flawed flipfloppers. I’m sick of it and I think most voters might see through it now that they’ve bought the bridge from Bushco.
Showing different sides of a personality is OK and appropriate. Shows depth.
I must say Rudy’s “consistency” is a little shallow.
9/11 9/11 9/11.
Look Clear Channel has totally ruined the radio station I listened to for 30 years. They changed it from music and talk to just talk. And then they put Rush Limbaugh on…
If there were any way that I could encourage the Goddess to smite the Clear Channel execs with the modern version of the ten plagues of Egypt, I’d be very tempted to do so!
*sob* I’m of the wrong persuasion, my heart is broken… ;-)
Cool! Amy Goodman is awesome, too, although less dynamic on teevee than Maddow.
Especially murrain.
The media and Matthews are writing Edwards off again. giving it to Hillary as if it is already decided…is it?
Didn”t Mittens’ old company buy Clear Channel?
Agreed. That is another concern: that Dems are able to keep responsibility for the obstructionism on the Rs, even after we “took control” in 2006.
BTW I finally saw Wexler’s speech. He was pretty fired up about going forward with impeachment hearings.
Yes. Necessary for her to get as far as she has. She hasn’t been allowed much room for error.
I can see that. Can’t say that would weight heavily in my decision, though.
So, true, and it is owned by Romney’s firm, so clearly it was all calculated. But how do we deal with it? I wonder if the new internet radio business wouldn’t help -at least for in-home. Clearly the industry is threatened by internet radio – is it because ofits political potential, plus profit? It might be nice if some left-leaning company (which?) with internet linked-potentia akin to net-flicks, couldn’t put together something to bring a new radio type in through the TV box. Seems as if XM is really right wing in what it is willing to offer.
Funny.
SC will be key to Edwards.
WOOOH! Tweety’s been getting some serious flak! “Some people I respect think that I’ve been disrespectful of Hillary Clinton!” ETC.
—
Thus there are a lot of people he does not “respect” and he does not have the ability to check his own words and behaviours (after how many years on air and in politics).
Agreed. And so young! She wore a suit last night too. I love her being involved in the debate discussions. Sharp, sharp, sharp.
All of the stock market indices are off more than 10%. Ergo, Recession. Some of these same indices are off by 20%. Ergo, “Big D”
Some of the same crooks, criminals, and traitors who caused this mess are running for the White House. The Shadow Government owns most of them.
To think that Thompson, Clinton, Huckabee, or Nancy Pelosi has a clue about fixing the Zio-Scams infecting our economy from Wall Street defies explanation.
Ron Paul has a plan to solve our economic chaos.
[RBG Note; let’s keep ethnic or religious references separate from references to perceived scams infecting our economy. Thanks.]
On McCain, now that the economy’s so important, his self-deprecating remarks to the effect that he doesn’t know much about the economy but he owns Alan Greenspan’s book ought to be a candidate killer. (He forgot to mention that he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.)
Since we all love the polls…check out this article from the Las Vegas Review Journal: “On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton outdistances Barack Obama by 9 points.”
Sorry to break your heart…thought you knew. ;(
I don’t think it’s decided at all. Leahy endorsed Obama today.
On calculated and making it. Well, just to give a couple of counter examples: I think Barnie Frank is pretty honest about things, which is why I like him. Compare Rachel Maddow and Hillary: both are smart, tough, etc. But with Rachel you get a sense of her mind grasping all that is going on and answering things honestly based on her view of things. With Hillary, I get a sense of her mind working, to present what is out there in such a way that it will accrue benefit to herself.
The RIAA is also threatening web based streaming radio too. They upped the royalties owed by streaming stations to them a few months ago. To the point where most bootstrapped people running the stations can’t afford it. Some are still up, but many that play music that’s owned by the RIAA (which is a lot of them!)will likely fold when that new royalty fee gets enforced.
My station so far is somewhat exempt, since we primarily use classical music from the Victorian and the PreVictorian period, so it’s not subject to those fees for the most part. But other stations? I’d hate to see what those calculations turn up as.
And, the TV cameras loves her; I bet she will be picked up for something bigger on TV pretty soon.
Could you clarify what you are alluding to here?
And she is right..and it only took her a couple of lines of transcript. There is really little difference between the three except for what Rachel; basically pick the style you want.
All of the angst about policy differences really doesn’t mean shit..All of the things we are worried about will be determined by how many good Dems replace Thugs in the Congress.
—
Could not disagree more, this is the same line the media used between Gore and Bush… there is no difference between them. I will say that sadly or happily we will only get to know the lies of one of them (the one who wins).
Not only is he compulsive; he also considers it his job to be a provocateur.
IE: not so hidden agenda.
Maddow is a journalist; Clinton is a politician. What you point out follows directly.
Part of it IS corporate out-of-area ownership. Regarding music, the stations are in competition for the same markets with a standardized playlist, rather than knowledgably creating programming to appeal to groups within a region. Also these big radio stations argue that they deserve larger and larger portions of the service area and bandwidth. The FCC has really destroyed the concepts of local service, diversification, and public interest programming. They’ve created a monolith.
Instead of five 50,000 watt stations imagine a hundred stations run by everything from community organizations interested in politics, school kids, college students, minority groups, and just good old folks who want to play music that isn’t readily available (or formatted in a different manner) than commercial stations. To some degree this is occurig with Low Power Radio Stations…but these are often shut down (after some major investment) by some religious or commercial station that wants that sliver of spectrum.
Here in California we have one low-power station called KDRT (K-Dirt) that broadcasts a wide range of things about Davis (a college town) regional politics, sustainable agriculture, HS kids programming, storytelling, as well as a lot of interesting music (Blues, Jazz, Country, World) from many very talented music afficianados. But it’s getting shut down because a fundamentalist religious station wants to take that tiny bit of frequency with a power upgrade. There are a half dozen of these types of stations in the area, and a couple by the same group that have vast coverage overlaps.
This sort of stuff is typical.
Sad to say, and I’m not making excuses for him, but it seems to me that Chris Matthews has had Edwards on probably more than any other show. It seems to me he’s given him a lot more face time than most, but I doubt that he’ll ever learn to control his mouth.
—
He has been on twice (in OCT/NOV-now) and Elizabeth once I believe. The first one was bad and the other two had their moments between badness. Your hubby is a trial lawyer…HA HA. You have cancer why don’t you go home and die…HA HA. You are so good looking and had that $400 hair cut…HA HA. I dunno, at least he had him back on the second time and did a decent interview where Edwards could talk about a few things that matter.
Yup
I don’t thing you can blame Hillary for saying what will get her votes, as long as she stays within her principles and overall beliefs. She cannot accomplish anything if she’s not elected.
Steve Martin on how to become a millionaire: first, get yourself a million dollars, now…
I didn’t mean to imply that being successful requires being calculating. There are many ways to be successful. And your examples reflect that. Especially Frank & Maddow who are gay. Being calculating is Hillary’s way. I know her type very well, and resemble it in many ways, so I think I know where she is coming from in that regard. (I’m too big-mouthed to come across as calculating, more’s the pity.)
True. But there are politicians who manage to come off as not so calculatng on everyone: Jim Webb is one.
Not the same. The analogy would be Gore or Bill Bradly.
I’m talking about the AIP*C crowd that has been plundering Wall Street.
He’s calculating alright. Like a precision run bulldozer. (and it does take precision to run those things, when you think about it.)
My point is in part that I don’t think this HELPS her get votes. She got votes in NH in part because of her infamous “incident” – when she finally showed some natural, human emotion. (SOme see that as calculated, I didn’t). BUt if it was, it goes to my point as well.
I think Tweety went apeshit when he saw how well Fox was doing for a while there. Said to himself, I can out batshit those people, and has been trying to ever since.
OT
Boehner’s up on CSPAN, I think he’s going to cry soon
All of the stock market indices are off more than 10%. Ergo, Recession. Some of these same indices are off by 20%. Ergo, “Big D”
Some of the same crooks, criminals, and traitors who caused this mess are running for the White House. The Shadow Government owns most of them.
—
And some like Countrywide CEO who ran his company into essentially insolvancy or illiquid walks off with $110 Million severance pay and BoA buys them for $7 a share (down from about $60, and below the “book value” of $26). Of course the purchase is a shame since FED likely back room deal with BoA to ensure they would be covered on losses…thus we are paying that guys severance and all these other people Billions that they have stolen (either through a bail out and or printing more money and inflating the value of our dollar, etc).
She learned that lesson really well in 1980 when Bill became the youngest ex-governor in the US. In 1978-79 they got too far ahead of the electorate and Bill got creamed at the ballot box.
Sorry ecahn, as little as I know you here, I see you a smart, engaged, natural, a bit self-congratulatory (which is fine, we academics need to take pride in what we do), and not especially calculating in the sense trying to BS others into thinking you are one particular “package” (a definite plus). In other words, you are NO Hillary. :-)
Let’s be very clear that whatever “plundering” there may be on Wall St. knows no ethnic or religious boundaries.
he’s chokin’ up
Yes, let’s.
Richmond there is a link for you on the Muhammad Yunus thread
Again?!
IIRC, he had sucked out $1.8 billion before he got canned.
The whole world cries with him….(where’s the musical instrument imoticon?)
If they manage to come off as not calculating, isn’t that just because they are even more calculating?
I’ll take that as a compliment. *g*
The reason I think I know where whe’s coming from is that I was 3 years ahead of her at Wellesley. I never met her, but I know the type. Didn’t like it then, and still don’t 40 years later.
Wow! A first!! I’m famous!! ! ;-/ —now to run off and check. Shameless, shameless. (Oh and Surfer – thanks.)
Not always true..IIRC, one ethnic/religious group was excluded from participation in the S&L Scam.
They are trying to kill off the internet music “industry” by charging for royalties. ASCAP and BMI have insisted that the (often hobbyists and Mom and Pop Operations) that b’cast over the net pay huge licensing fees, just like a big radio station. I think Non-Commercial Public Broadcasters eventally got a discount, but only after they threatened not to broadcast artists signed up to one or other of the licensing groups. And that might be the secret.
My own hope is that smaller, and more progressive, artists who see the benefits of breaking away from these licensing groups either create their own group…or go independent (a la Ani di Franco). Very few musicians see any money from radio b’casting anyways…and if they split off they’d actually have a group of programmers that would air these “alternative artists” pretty much exclusively. The problem is that folks like Springsteen are contractually bound into labels that are doing this…and usually only making money from a little airplay of the ancient archive of Bruce. His new stuff is likely only played on Non-Commercial or Satellite stations. How is the commercial radio system good for MARKETING artists like him, Bonnie Raitt, John Lee Hooker, and 99.5% of the talented musicians out there. Instead you get more Britney and even Paris Hilton getting airplay.
OK. LOL. Are you sure your name is not PsychProf? If you don’t think you need therapy you are in denial and need it all the moreso! :-)
Janus GOP-lin: “Oh, lord, wontcha buy me a Mercedes-Benz”
Thanks to you and everyone up the thread for this terrific line of discussion. It might make a good topic for a future blog. Biodun, are you around?
what’s he crying about now? a shrinking minority? Wexler’s speech? Santa left him a lump of coal?
He should have taken his cue from what happened to Crossfire; most particularly, what happened to Crossfire after Jon Stewart went on the show and told them point blank to their faces that their show was hurting America.
This sounds like another riff on the meme that it is always good if you are a Republican and always bad if you are a Democrat. This was what pundits and the media were selling before the November 2006 elections. They are doing it again.
I didn’t mean to imply that being successful requires being calculating. There are many ways to be successful. And your examples reflect that. Especially Frank & Maddow who are gay. Being calculating is Hillary’s way. I know her type very well, and resemble it in many ways, so I think I know where she is coming from in that regard. (I’m too big-mouthed to come across as calculating, more’s the pity.)
—
I am for Edwards but thought Obama did give up a bit to much meat to be chewed on with his organization comment. If anyone watched I think he explained it well, and also gave a great example of why Bush is on time all the time but sucks.
In any case there is the truth that calculation is only one potential part of a potential leader – without spark/wisdom/enlighthenment it may be for nothing (Ex. re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic would not do much). This can go both ways of course, having these skills can also lead to things that a less organized person might miss. For me here are the prized skills:
- Inovation over Dogma/aka an eye on the road less traveled: It is easier to outsource organization (to your aides) than wisdom.
- Wisdom: Intellegence is more common than wisdom. Wisdom will also help choose when to take the road less traveled/
- Skill & Effort & Empathy: Take your skills and the items you have picked to work on and see them to the end personally
- Truth: If only.
For me Edwards is on top (used to be Obama), and now Clinton and Obama are tied for 2nd place. I will likely go back and fourth on this since I already have a #1 choice – but often times I think if they are both so similar that I would rather the edge in experience for Senator Clinton, at the same time Obama is so much more the inspiring speaker. Lastly I struggle over the machine and insiders many of the people would bring in (how much of that is a good thing and how much a bad thing – and what are those people going to be tasked to accomplish).
Broad-strokes policy wise (theme I guess) I really think Obama and Clinton are pretty similar (system is OK, just badly managed) and like Edwards message of fighting with those who are illegally hurting our system (and changing/enforcing the laws to better us). This is all a bit smoke and mirrors since we don’t know where these people are bending or breaking the truth.
If all things remain the same I will support the Dem winner, if things get worse or scandle comes about I will likely write in someone and move if Rs win.
I think I know the type of which you speak. It’s so hard to deal with because (at work anyway) one would think everyone’s on the same page (getting the job done) when it is really about Calculating Person’s Career. Really a big stressful obstacle to handle. Unless you are on board with moving CP’s career forward. Then it’s smooth sailing. Gotta know the difference between the public agenda and CP’s agenda.
But that doesn’t do any good if the policies don’t change. The only way that it will occur is to increase the number of Progressives in Congress…otherwise you’ll get continued “blocks” and “holds”. Of course, people criticise her willingness to actually implement change.
But “people” don’t occupy the Executive branch, a person does. Edwards is saying HE needs to be in because he will do this. But he needs to get Congress to assist him in this, which doesn’t mean Republicans. But that gets back to “A”. How do you get Congress to change?
And I worry about Edwards’ actual credentials in this regard. Just look up his Federal Campaign Commission Financial Statements and “Fortress Investment Group”. Edwards WAS a lobbyist.
Which is also a populist message. And relies on getting the “will of the public” to shift opinion in Congress. Otherwise you have stasis. Again, the question is what are the policies…and what happens when the strategy fails with Republicans and some Democrats?
In all three cases these individuals need to have a “relationship” with Congress in order to achieve their ends. They can’t simply do it through Presidential fiat (unless they are going to continue the Unitary Executive model).
As I have pointed out several times on this site, I can’t see much difference between the H-O-E policy programs on issues like the Middle East: Iraq/Iran/Palestinian, Health Care, Terrorism, the Sub-Prime Lending Debacle, Energy, etc.
I’d try to bring Howie Klein into it…he used to be a Record Company Mogul (President of Warner-Sire Records, I believe) and likely knows more dirt about it than anyone. He may have to even confess that he wallowed in it. I remember him speaking to a conference of College radio DJ’s about how to “improve” the sound of College radio by reducing programmer discretion and focussing on “the hits”. Sort of an alternative Top-40 format. The folks at my former station basically told him to f*off.
That was years ago.
An excellent posting, Swopa. Thanks.
way OfT – just watched Jon Stewart and The Pantload from last night. Not pretty. Evidently it was an eighteen minute interview cut waaay down for teevee – so it didn’t make much sense without the continuity.
What *was* evident was that, by the end of the interview, JStew had pretty much called Jonah a raving lunatic and there was antagonism to spare…
Wish I could see the whole thing – anybody have a link to the entire interview?
Jonah surely acted the part of a raving lunatic, but I’d like to see the parts that got cut.
One of the big differences is that Edwards has almost always been the first to set out a policy and then watch the others gradually catch up to him 6 months down the road. Now, part of that might be that he’s not currently in the senate, but part of it is called Leadership.