I heard someone (I think it was Jeff Zeleny of the NYT, speaking on PBS's 'Washington Week') make an interesting point about the election. Part of Obama's victory is due to his campaign's deliberate attempt to win across the country, even in states traditionally assumed to be Republican (such as Indiana and North Carolina). Part of that, we know, is a credit to Howard Dean's 50-state strategy for the DNC.
But part of it is also due (this is Zeleny or whoever's point) to the punishingly long Democratic primary season. Obama did so well in the general election because he put together campaign offices in states where Democrats don't normally bother, and he did this because the results in those states actually did matter during the primaries.
Consider: Obama won the Democratic primaries/caucuses in states like Montana, Virginia, Idaho, Colorado, and yes, North Carolina. The Clinton campaign notoriously failed to set up offices in several of these states, expecting the primary season to end on Super Tuesday, and lacking the logistical resources to adapt thereafter. Further, the Clinton strategy was based upon banking delegate in large states (like California and New York) that traditionally vote Democratic anyway, while the Obama strategy relied upon a slow accumulation of delegates from every state.
Arguably, it was the length of the primary season that induced Obama to be active - early and aggressively - across the country. Imagine that he had won all of the first several primary contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. Suppose Hillary had dropped out before or immediately after Super Tuesday. Surely then Obama would have done much less to create a campaign apparatus in traditionally Republican states - why bother at that point? But as it happened, North Carolina and Indiana held their primaries on the same day, May 6, three months after Super Tuesday. Surely Obama's intense efforts to win those primaries (he got NC by 15% and lost Indiana by 1%) contributed heavily to his later general election results there.
So it is likely that Barack Obama owes his victory - at least in part - to the tenacity of Hillary Clinton's opposition early this year. That is something that the Party should keep in mind when it gets to work revising the crazy primary rules. Maybe those rules are just as they should be.
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Why I don't read political blogs anymore
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
-Buffalo Springfield, “For What It’s Worth”
September and leaves are already falling, only slightly less rapidly than the standards of civic decency.
Something unusual has happened recently: I’ve stopped enjoying politics. For someone who began watching C-SPAN at age 12, this is a bit of a traumatic self-discovery. Admittedly, my political enthusiasm has always been tempered with a lumpy dose of irritated cynicism, but lately this has flared into actual distress. Especially on the internets: it’s gotten so that I need only glimpse the name ‘McCain’ or (especially) ‘Palin’ anywhere in a blog post and I begin cringing in anticipatory revulsion.
Let’s be utterly clear about what I’m now to say: I fully acknowledge that the haters of Obama et al. are just as capable of vomiting clouds of uncharitable abuse into the aether. But I don’t know those people. I don’t read their diatribes, half-truths, their hooded jeremiads. Doubtlessly I would find their claptrap equally disturbing, if not more so, were I to encounter it. But I don’t run in those circles.
Instead I read insinuations that John McCain has lost higher cognitive function, that Sarah Palin is a ruthless moron, that anyone who would even consider voting Republican cannot be anything but the most foolish, vile, degenerate specimen of proto-human. Political discussions seem nothing more than contests amongst ideological clones to offer the most nastily emotive expression of hatred for their mutual enemy, a great echo chamber for badly-informed belligerent self-righteousness.
Living as I do on the great blue isle of Manhattan, my encounters with such attitudes are not confined to the web. At a picnic a couple weeks ago, one guest laughingly remarked of McCain that “crashing your plane on your very first mission doesn’t qualify you to be president!” The audience chuckled, but I did not: “After that plane crashed, McCain was stomped, beaten, and stabbed by the locals, was handed over to guards who systematically tortured him for years, and refused early release out of fear for how this would affect those left behind. No matter what you think of John McCain, you do not mock him for anything even remotely connected to this incident.” I didn’t say quite all that, being insufficiently spontaneously punchy. But I said some of it, and wish I’d said all.
Demonizing conservatives has become one of the few expressions of prejudice still acceptable in tolerant communities. Yet it’s still nothing more than the ancient ritual of ostracism, the union of a group of people through their mutual effort to pointedly deny even the signifiers of simple decency to a ceremonially designated Other. Justifications will be proffered, reasons frantically thrust forward, rhetorical covers drawn over the ugly primal motives thundering below. Fine. But when you write that you “hate Republicans” and enjoy the approving comments, bear in mind the spiritual kinship that verb forms between you and earlier groups who have bonded by hating those outside the bond.
The right has been a bit too gleeful in its seizure of Barack Obama’s unwise statement about “bitter” middle American voters who “cling to guns or religion”. Yet there is something of substance here. Obama’s comment reveals a disturbing myopia (in himself and his liberal San Francisco audience), a smug inability to appreciate that others’ refusal to share one’s views may be motivated by anything beyond the most base or foolish instincts. Republican voters are not grimy caricatures or hoodwinked yokels. They are real people with real concerns, real values, real perspectives on a world that can bear the weight of more than one conception of human existence. If you find yourself completely incapable of empathizing with them, then that is your failing, not theirs.
In the end much of the offensive materials could be explained by a few concepts from psychology: confirmation bias, ‘my side’ bias, correspondence bias. Over and over, when I see blog posts enthusiastically declaring that the latest McCain gaffe or Palin revelation shows the Republicans to be indubitably unfit for office, I just know that these same bloggers would dismiss as irrelevant these same mishaps, had they been committed by Obama or Biden. Perhaps what most pains me is watching this election season reduce otherwise fair and nuanced observers to binary detectors whose tunnel vision is sensitive only to the variable of party affiliation.
All that said, I don’t expect anyone to cease the partisan gesticulation on my account. Whatever it is – catharsis, distraction, social totem – it plainly has a purpose for its authors. But my reserves of effortful indifference and prudent selective illiteracy are approaching their end; I cannot read much more. And it is only September.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
nomeclatura
Oh, I've been meaning to write this before Obama announces his VP choice.
There has been much talk about the crucial factors the candidate must weigh in choosing his running mate. Will the VP-pick make up for Obama's experience gap? Appeal to Clinton voters? Be consilient with the message of reform? Carry the south? Not be discovered to have once received electroconvulsive therapy?
But this misses the crucial question. Does the prospective running mate have a surname that can be stuck between 'Obama' and '2008' without yielding a bumper sticker that people are ashamed to put on their cars?
This is more difficult that you might think. Consider the options.
Obama/Biden sounds like the colloquial way of expressing a state of languid anticipation in some backcountry dialect. "The old mule, she been obamabiden' out by the barn all week."
Obama/Kaine sounds like the unrefined base crop for a hallucinogenic narcotic. "Under a new agreement with the Peruvian government, the Drug Enforcement Agency will soon begin spraying the obamakaine fields with herbicide."
Obama/Sebelius sounds like a new species of terrifying disease. "Federal authorities have imposed a quarantine on the city of Toledo until it is determined how the Obama-Sebelius strain is transmitted."
Obama/Nunn sounds like an inscrutable expression of frustration, probably coined by Catholic school students. "I dropped it! Oh, bomb a nun!"
Obama/Dodd is something a 10-month old would say. "Baababba oma babadoba obamadod dababa..."
Obama/Reed sounds like the name of an earth-killer comet. "Scientists say there is a 25% chance that Obama-Reed will strike the planet in 2053 with a force greater than the asteroid that ended the dinosaurs."
And Obama/Clinton? That sounds like the clinical name for a psychological condition characterized by unrelenting struggle between two strong personalities, resulting in the patient's inability to accomplish anything at all. "The four years I had untreated Obama-Clinton were the most confusing and traumatic of my life."
There has been much talk about the crucial factors the candidate must weigh in choosing his running mate. Will the VP-pick make up for Obama's experience gap? Appeal to Clinton voters? Be consilient with the message of reform? Carry the south? Not be discovered to have once received electroconvulsive therapy?
But this misses the crucial question. Does the prospective running mate have a surname that can be stuck between 'Obama' and '2008' without yielding a bumper sticker that people are ashamed to put on their cars?
This is more difficult that you might think. Consider the options.
Obama/Biden sounds like the colloquial way of expressing a state of languid anticipation in some backcountry dialect. "The old mule, she been obamabiden' out by the barn all week."
Obama/Kaine sounds like the unrefined base crop for a hallucinogenic narcotic. "Under a new agreement with the Peruvian government, the Drug Enforcement Agency will soon begin spraying the obamakaine fields with herbicide."
Obama/Sebelius sounds like a new species of terrifying disease. "Federal authorities have imposed a quarantine on the city of Toledo until it is determined how the Obama-Sebelius strain is transmitted."
Obama/Nunn sounds like an inscrutable expression of frustration, probably coined by Catholic school students. "I dropped it! Oh, bomb a nun!"
Obama/Dodd is something a 10-month old would say. "Baababba oma babadoba obamadod dababa..."
Obama/Reed sounds like the name of an earth-killer comet. "Scientists say there is a 25% chance that Obama-Reed will strike the planet in 2053 with a force greater than the asteroid that ended the dinosaurs."
And Obama/Clinton? That sounds like the clinical name for a psychological condition characterized by unrelenting struggle between two strong personalities, resulting in the patient's inability to accomplish anything at all. "The four years I had untreated Obama-Clinton were the most confusing and traumatic of my life."
Thursday, August 7, 2008
precursors
I realized today which election the present one most resembles. Not the ones the candidates (and media) would like. Obama, of course, aspires to be Kennedy: young, hip, demographically historic, and unimaginably popular. McCain protrays himself as Reagan - old only in an experienced, reliable way, and a sunny Conservative you can feel good about. But these are superficial comparisons that miss the importance of the relationship between opposed candidates.
I think there is a more revealing analogy between the 2008 election and the 1952 election. The country is/was wobbling, about a decade after suffering a major attack at home, now trapped in a grinding distant foreign war apparently unrelated to the original fight, tired of the policies and practices of the long-dominant outgoing administration.
Barack Obama is Adlai Stevenson. Professorial, worldly, just slightly effete. A liberal internationalist concerned to wrap American power in diplomatic respectability. Incredibly intelligent, probably a bit naive. Perceived as stronger on domestic affairs than in confronting international threats. Deeply rooted in urban Chicago politics.
John McCain is Dwight Eisenhower. Famous for his military service and perceived as most prepared to confront hostile foreign threats. Older, more folksy, with a reputation for plain dealing. Smart, but by no means an intellectual. A bit removed from changing social mores, but uncomfortable with the reactionary wing of his party.
These observations extend, I think, to a further point. Like Stevenson and Eisenhower, both McCain and Obama are fundamentally decent, competent people. Unlike a range of 1950s and 2000s politicians (Johnson, Nixon, Mitt Romney, John Edwards) none of these seem to be hyper-mercenary narcissists bent irrevocably on the acquisition of power. My overall point, I suppose, is that 2008, like 1952 - and unlike 2000 or 1968 - is ultimately a safe election. Neither of the candidates is likely to be a disastrous president.
One thing's for certain. The results of 1952 do not map predictively onto 2008. Stevenson was decisively and absolutely crushed by Eisenhower, winning only 18% of Electoral College votes. He carried only the southern states, in those days before Johnson's singular bravery and Nixon's repulsive calculation turned the white-dominated south into unchallenged Republican territory. Stevenson ran against Eisenhower again in 1956, losing by an even broader margin. He wanted to try a third time in 1960 (now facing Eisenhower's veep Nixon), but was blocked by a conspiracy of panicked Party elders, his declining health, and the mischief of the Kennedy clan.
The factors behind Stevenson's aysmal performance were plainly unique to those years. The public had simply grown bored with 20 years of Roosevelt/Truman Democratic dominance. And for all the genuine strength of character shown in McCain's years of POW captivity, that is plainly not the same thing as being Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the slayer of Hitler. If McCain does win this election, it will be by a very narrow margin.
Still, the Stevenson/Obama parallel remains helpful. I can see in Obama some of the same traits that make Stevenson one of my personal political heroes: the lively intelligence, the urgent desire to lead America to a more modest and viable position in the international system. And I also see some of the same traits that made Stevenson unpalatable to most Americans: the unmistakable whiff of elitism, the sense that underneath the global celebrity lurks a peevish egghead. Those Stevensonian traits may yet bring Obama defeat.
I think there is a more revealing analogy between the 2008 election and the 1952 election. The country is/was wobbling, about a decade after suffering a major attack at home, now trapped in a grinding distant foreign war apparently unrelated to the original fight, tired of the policies and practices of the long-dominant outgoing administration.
Barack Obama is Adlai Stevenson. Professorial, worldly, just slightly effete. A liberal internationalist concerned to wrap American power in diplomatic respectability. Incredibly intelligent, probably a bit naive. Perceived as stronger on domestic affairs than in confronting international threats. Deeply rooted in urban Chicago politics.
John McCain is Dwight Eisenhower. Famous for his military service and perceived as most prepared to confront hostile foreign threats. Older, more folksy, with a reputation for plain dealing. Smart, but by no means an intellectual. A bit removed from changing social mores, but uncomfortable with the reactionary wing of his party.
These observations extend, I think, to a further point. Like Stevenson and Eisenhower, both McCain and Obama are fundamentally decent, competent people. Unlike a range of 1950s and 2000s politicians (Johnson, Nixon, Mitt Romney, John Edwards) none of these seem to be hyper-mercenary narcissists bent irrevocably on the acquisition of power. My overall point, I suppose, is that 2008, like 1952 - and unlike 2000 or 1968 - is ultimately a safe election. Neither of the candidates is likely to be a disastrous president.
One thing's for certain. The results of 1952 do not map predictively onto 2008. Stevenson was decisively and absolutely crushed by Eisenhower, winning only 18% of Electoral College votes. He carried only the southern states, in those days before Johnson's singular bravery and Nixon's repulsive calculation turned the white-dominated south into unchallenged Republican territory. Stevenson ran against Eisenhower again in 1956, losing by an even broader margin. He wanted to try a third time in 1960 (now facing Eisenhower's veep Nixon), but was blocked by a conspiracy of panicked Party elders, his declining health, and the mischief of the Kennedy clan.
The factors behind Stevenson's aysmal performance were plainly unique to those years. The public had simply grown bored with 20 years of Roosevelt/Truman Democratic dominance. And for all the genuine strength of character shown in McCain's years of POW captivity, that is plainly not the same thing as being Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the slayer of Hitler. If McCain does win this election, it will be by a very narrow margin.
Still, the Stevenson/Obama parallel remains helpful. I can see in Obama some of the same traits that make Stevenson one of my personal political heroes: the lively intelligence, the urgent desire to lead America to a more modest and viable position in the international system. And I also see some of the same traits that made Stevenson unpalatable to most Americans: the unmistakable whiff of elitism, the sense that underneath the global celebrity lurks a peevish egghead. Those Stevensonian traits may yet bring Obama defeat.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
It's 3am. Do you know where your demagogue is?
One bad thing about being in Paris: I'm six hours ahead of EST, so I'll be asleep by the time today's primary results come in. I have to wait until tomorrow morning to find out who won!
But, still, it's a fascinating day. According to Bill Clinton, Hillary is out unless she wins both Ohio and Texas. According to other Clinton campaign surrogates, Obama is out unless he wins all four states (Rhode Island and Vermont are also voting). The Clinton campaign appears to have decided that the best way to win the expectations game is to expect absolutely every possible state of affairs to transpire, simultaneously. Soon we'll hear Howard Wolfson declaring that Obama can only win if Grover Cleveland wins the Pennsylvania primary. (At which point, of course, Cleveland will win the Pennsylvania primary, but the Clintons will sue to block the results on the grounds that his geographic last name gave him an unfair advantage.)
At this point, it seems unlikely that Clinton will drop out, unless she loses both Ohio and Texas by wide margins. Personally, my patience for her has begun to run out. I started off the year unsure of my vote, then I somewhat reluctantly voted for Obama. Now I'm confident I made the right choice. Honestly, the decisive evidence for me is below.
Bush/Cheney 2004 ad
Clinton 2008 ad
But, still, it's a fascinating day. According to Bill Clinton, Hillary is out unless she wins both Ohio and Texas. According to other Clinton campaign surrogates, Obama is out unless he wins all four states (Rhode Island and Vermont are also voting). The Clinton campaign appears to have decided that the best way to win the expectations game is to expect absolutely every possible state of affairs to transpire, simultaneously. Soon we'll hear Howard Wolfson declaring that Obama can only win if Grover Cleveland wins the Pennsylvania primary. (At which point, of course, Cleveland will win the Pennsylvania primary, but the Clintons will sue to block the results on the grounds that his geographic last name gave him an unfair advantage.)
At this point, it seems unlikely that Clinton will drop out, unless she loses both Ohio and Texas by wide margins. Personally, my patience for her has begun to run out. I started off the year unsure of my vote, then I somewhat reluctantly voted for Obama. Now I'm confident I made the right choice. Honestly, the decisive evidence for me is below.
Bush/Cheney 2004 ad
Clinton 2008 ad
Thursday, February 14, 2008
delegating responsibility
Evidently Hillary Clinton will now insist that the Michigan and Florida delegates be seated to vote at the Democratic convention. She needs their votes, as they are big states, and she won both by large margins.
The problem is that the party decided long ago - with the agreement of all the candidates, including Clinton - not to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, because these states violated rules governing the timing of primaries. Officials in Michigan and Florida were warned not to hold their primaries before February 5, but they went ahead anyway. (These rules were in place to stop the primary season from drifting inexorably earlier - without them, we might have had Iowa and New Hampshire before Christmas.) As punishment, the party took away all their delegates, and got the candidates (except Dennis Kucinich) to agree not to campaign in the states.
In Michigan, Clinton was the only major candidate whose name even appeared on the ballot (Edwards and Obama had theirs removed). She won 55% of the vote. In Florida, she flirted with campaigning, despite her pledge not to. She beat Obama by 17% there. Now she wants the Michigan and Florida delegates to be allowed into the convention after all. Michigan would have 128 delegates and Florida 185 delegates. Large majorities of each would be assigned to Clinton (Obama, whose name was not on the ballot in Michigan, would receive none at all from that state). This may be enough to tip the delegate count in Clinton's favor, despite Obama's current lead.
Here's what I'll say. If Obama continues to hold the delegate lead, and if Clinton ultimately secures the nomination by getting the Michigan and Florida delegates seated, then I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. Claiming the delegates from illegitimate elections - elections with only one candidate on the ballot, or in which voters had every reason not to vote - is a shameless abuse of democracy. If the Clinton campaign is willing to do this to win, then I do not want them in the White House.
I agree that the Michigan and Florida delegates should have been counted. But once all of the candidates agreed to these rules and the elections were run, it stopped being appropriate to fiddle with the process. If Clinton wants the delegates from Michigan and Florida to count, she should encourage these states to run their primaries (or caucuses) again, now that the Feb 5 rule has passed. Of course, it's extremely unlikely that she would do quite so well again in both states. But it's about the principle, right?
The problem is that the party decided long ago - with the agreement of all the candidates, including Clinton - not to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, because these states violated rules governing the timing of primaries. Officials in Michigan and Florida were warned not to hold their primaries before February 5, but they went ahead anyway. (These rules were in place to stop the primary season from drifting inexorably earlier - without them, we might have had Iowa and New Hampshire before Christmas.) As punishment, the party took away all their delegates, and got the candidates (except Dennis Kucinich) to agree not to campaign in the states.
In Michigan, Clinton was the only major candidate whose name even appeared on the ballot (Edwards and Obama had theirs removed). She won 55% of the vote. In Florida, she flirted with campaigning, despite her pledge not to. She beat Obama by 17% there. Now she wants the Michigan and Florida delegates to be allowed into the convention after all. Michigan would have 128 delegates and Florida 185 delegates. Large majorities of each would be assigned to Clinton (Obama, whose name was not on the ballot in Michigan, would receive none at all from that state). This may be enough to tip the delegate count in Clinton's favor, despite Obama's current lead.
Here's what I'll say. If Obama continues to hold the delegate lead, and if Clinton ultimately secures the nomination by getting the Michigan and Florida delegates seated, then I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. Claiming the delegates from illegitimate elections - elections with only one candidate on the ballot, or in which voters had every reason not to vote - is a shameless abuse of democracy. If the Clinton campaign is willing to do this to win, then I do not want them in the White House.
I agree that the Michigan and Florida delegates should have been counted. But once all of the candidates agreed to these rules and the elections were run, it stopped being appropriate to fiddle with the process. If Clinton wants the delegates from Michigan and Florida to count, she should encourage these states to run their primaries (or caucuses) again, now that the Feb 5 rule has passed. Of course, it's extremely unlikely that she would do quite so well again in both states. But it's about the principle, right?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
it happened at the South Carolina debate
It is not widely known that CNN recorded an additional segment to Monday evening’s South Carolina Democratic debate. For alleged national security reasons, this segment was never aired. Below is the transcript.
Joe JOHNS: Welcome back to the CNN South Carolina Democratic debate. This is the 47th Democratic debate this year, and the last before next week’s first Iowa debate among the 2012 candidates. We remind the candidates on the stage here that they will have only 30 seconds to respond to each question, and that this limit will be strictly enforced. If a candidate exceeds his or her time, we will call that candidate’s mother and tell her not to let the candidate have any dessert. We would like to take a moment to stress this matter to Governor Bill Richardson, whom we understand remains in the auditorium of our December New Hampshire debate, answering a question about Iran. Governor, your family misses you.
Wolf BLITZER: Senator Clinton, lately you’ve been criticized for suggesting that the work of Martin Luther King Jr. would have been less effective without the efforts of Lyndon Johnson. In comparing yourself to Johnson, did you intend to diminish the importance of King’s legacy?
Hillary CLINTON: Of course not Wolf! But we all need to understand that having an inspiring message is not enough for social change. We must have effective, experienced leadership as well. Think about Jesus Christ. Yes, he had an inspiring message, but what good would that have done without the reaction of the Roman authorities to make him a martyr? If Pontius Pilate had not ordered him crucified, many fewer people would have learned about his message.
BLITZER: Senator Clinton, I’m not sure I understand. Are you comparing yourself to Pontius Pilate, and Senator Obama to Jesus Christ?
CLINTON: Yes Wolf, I am. I have the experience necessary to lead our country. Americans wants as a president someone who knows how to deal with insurrection, not someone they’d have as a drinking buddy, or their personal savior.
JOHNS: Senator Obama, how do you respond?
Barack OBAMA: Well, I think that the Aramaic community will not appreciate Senator Clinton’s slurring Christ’s legacy. But I think we should use a different historical analogy. I think I am more like Ronald Reagan, and Hillary is more like the Soviet Union. Or perhaps I’m Ronald Reagan and Hillary is economic recession. Or I’m Reagan and Hillary is the environment. You know what I mean, right Democrats? Ronald Reagan is awesome!
BLITZER: Senator Obama, your critics allege that your use of racial identity in this campaign may be destructive to the Democratic Party. Do you think that your recent attacks on Senator Clinton regarding her statements on race will be alienating to white or Latino votes?
OBAMA: No, Wolf, because America understands that I am just like everyone. You see, Wolf, my mother is from Kansas and my father is from Kenya. I grew up in Indonesia. Not only that, I make really good enchiladas. You can ask my wife! In college, I went to two sessions of an Arabic class before dropping it. I once shook hands with Jackie Chan. In fact, my advisors have determined that the only ethnic group to which I have no connection is Indian, so next week a team of scientists will insert DNA extracted from a man named Sundarshan Devaraja into my genetic code. You see, Wolf, Americans support me because I embody the unity of America.
CLINTON: Look Wolf, this is why you can’t trust Senator Obama! I have here in my hands a paper Senator Obama wrote in 1st grade, saying that he hates Jackie Chan movies!
OBAMA: Oh, wait, Wolf, I forgot one. You’re all invited to my daughter’s Bat Mitzvah next week!
JOHNS: Senator Edwards, I’ve just noticed that you’re on the stage for some reason. In our first debate, you were hiding in a thicket of white men. Now you’re the only one remaining. What do you have to say for yourself?
John EDWARDS: You see Joe, there are two Americas. And I’m here to represent both of those Americas. I represent the America that has no health insurance, and the America that spends $400 on haircuts. I represent the America that loses its home to foreclosure, and the America that invests in the hedge funds owning those foreclosed mortgages. I represent the America that cannot feed its children, and the America that can take 6 years off of work to run for president. I represent Americans, because I am America – both of its faces.
JOHNS: Thank you Senator Edwards, that was very moving.
EDWARDS: Thanks, Joe. See you in Iowa next week.
BLITZER: Senator Clinton, our next question comes from a viewer, and will be read by CNN’s own Suzanne Malveaux. Suzanne?
Suzanne MALVEAUX: This email is from Edith Crubblenocker of East Mildew, New Jersey. She writes: ‘Every time I see Hillary Clinton on television, I am so disgusted that I projectively vomit up to seven feet. When I hear her voice, scabs break out on my lower legs and ooze greenish pus onto the floor. I once came within a mile of a campaign appearance, and afterwards I had diarrhea continuously for four days. I am an undecided voter, but I will probably not vote for Hillary Clinton.’ Senator Clinton, what do you say to voters who find you nauseating?
CLINTON; Well, Suzanne, that hurts my feelings. (laughs) But I think that when Americans go out to vote, they’ll vote for the candidate who has the most experience and leadership potential. And my campaign staff will be on hand with barf bags and ear plugs for any voter who needs assistance.
OBAMA: Oh, Hillary, I think that you’re sanitary enough. (smirks and laughs)
JOHNS: Now that we’ve covered the important identity politics, let’s turn to some substantive issues. Senator Obama, if you were an animal, what kind of animal would –
(a loud crash interrupts. A man comes stumbling onto the stage, wearing boxer shorts, a cape, and half of a goalie mask.)
CLINTON: It’s the Phantom of the South Carolina Democratic debate!
OBAMA: No, it’s Dennis Kucinich!
EDWARDS: See Joe, this is the type of bickering America doesn’t need. ‘Oh it’s the Phantom!’ ‘No, it’s Dennis Kucinich!’ How many American children are going unfed while we stander here arguing about this? You see, Joe, as the son of a mill-worker, I–
(Kucinich clubs Edwards with a shillelagh. Edwards crumples to the floor.)
Dennis KUCINICH: Hee hee hee! Hah hah hah! You thought you could keep me out of the debates, did you? But no! I’m here to spread the message of love. America needs love! And Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups! (begins prowling erratically around the stage, muttering to self)
CLINTON: You see, Wolf, under Barack’s health care plan, without universal coverage, John wouldn’t be able to get medical attention for that shillelagh wound.
KUCINICH: … end George Bush’s war …
OBAMA: That’s not true Wolf! Hillary knows very well that my plan has full coverage for all injuries incurred from staves or staff-like implements. But you should ask her about her plan’s exceptions for go-cart accidents!
KUCINICH: … wind power by 2016 …
BLITZER: I think we should return to the substantive issues that Americans really care about. Senator Clinton, boxers or –
(a crashing sound from above. The ceiling is torn open, and an enormous metallic saucer descends into the auditorium, lights flashing along its exterior.)
KUCINICH: I told you! Now you see! I feel a sense of enormous peace washing over this place. There will be love, America! There will be love.
(a circle on the hovering craft opens, emitting a beam of light that surrounds Kucinich. The beam then disappears, along with Kucinich. The metallic craft disappears upward at amazing speed.)
JOHNS: I’m sorry, candidates, but we’re out of time. Next on CNN, Larry King will interview Lynne Spears to ask how she feels about becoming a grandma! Stay tuned to CNN, the most trusted name in news.
Joe JOHNS: Welcome back to the CNN South Carolina Democratic debate. This is the 47th Democratic debate this year, and the last before next week’s first Iowa debate among the 2012 candidates. We remind the candidates on the stage here that they will have only 30 seconds to respond to each question, and that this limit will be strictly enforced. If a candidate exceeds his or her time, we will call that candidate’s mother and tell her not to let the candidate have any dessert. We would like to take a moment to stress this matter to Governor Bill Richardson, whom we understand remains in the auditorium of our December New Hampshire debate, answering a question about Iran. Governor, your family misses you.
Wolf BLITZER: Senator Clinton, lately you’ve been criticized for suggesting that the work of Martin Luther King Jr. would have been less effective without the efforts of Lyndon Johnson. In comparing yourself to Johnson, did you intend to diminish the importance of King’s legacy?
Hillary CLINTON: Of course not Wolf! But we all need to understand that having an inspiring message is not enough for social change. We must have effective, experienced leadership as well. Think about Jesus Christ. Yes, he had an inspiring message, but what good would that have done without the reaction of the Roman authorities to make him a martyr? If Pontius Pilate had not ordered him crucified, many fewer people would have learned about his message.
BLITZER: Senator Clinton, I’m not sure I understand. Are you comparing yourself to Pontius Pilate, and Senator Obama to Jesus Christ?
CLINTON: Yes Wolf, I am. I have the experience necessary to lead our country. Americans wants as a president someone who knows how to deal with insurrection, not someone they’d have as a drinking buddy, or their personal savior.
JOHNS: Senator Obama, how do you respond?
Barack OBAMA: Well, I think that the Aramaic community will not appreciate Senator Clinton’s slurring Christ’s legacy. But I think we should use a different historical analogy. I think I am more like Ronald Reagan, and Hillary is more like the Soviet Union. Or perhaps I’m Ronald Reagan and Hillary is economic recession. Or I’m Reagan and Hillary is the environment. You know what I mean, right Democrats? Ronald Reagan is awesome!
BLITZER: Senator Obama, your critics allege that your use of racial identity in this campaign may be destructive to the Democratic Party. Do you think that your recent attacks on Senator Clinton regarding her statements on race will be alienating to white or Latino votes?
OBAMA: No, Wolf, because America understands that I am just like everyone. You see, Wolf, my mother is from Kansas and my father is from Kenya. I grew up in Indonesia. Not only that, I make really good enchiladas. You can ask my wife! In college, I went to two sessions of an Arabic class before dropping it. I once shook hands with Jackie Chan. In fact, my advisors have determined that the only ethnic group to which I have no connection is Indian, so next week a team of scientists will insert DNA extracted from a man named Sundarshan Devaraja into my genetic code. You see, Wolf, Americans support me because I embody the unity of America.
CLINTON: Look Wolf, this is why you can’t trust Senator Obama! I have here in my hands a paper Senator Obama wrote in 1st grade, saying that he hates Jackie Chan movies!
OBAMA: Oh, wait, Wolf, I forgot one. You’re all invited to my daughter’s Bat Mitzvah next week!
JOHNS: Senator Edwards, I’ve just noticed that you’re on the stage for some reason. In our first debate, you were hiding in a thicket of white men. Now you’re the only one remaining. What do you have to say for yourself?
John EDWARDS: You see Joe, there are two Americas. And I’m here to represent both of those Americas. I represent the America that has no health insurance, and the America that spends $400 on haircuts. I represent the America that loses its home to foreclosure, and the America that invests in the hedge funds owning those foreclosed mortgages. I represent the America that cannot feed its children, and the America that can take 6 years off of work to run for president. I represent Americans, because I am America – both of its faces.
JOHNS: Thank you Senator Edwards, that was very moving.
EDWARDS: Thanks, Joe. See you in Iowa next week.
BLITZER: Senator Clinton, our next question comes from a viewer, and will be read by CNN’s own Suzanne Malveaux. Suzanne?
Suzanne MALVEAUX: This email is from Edith Crubblenocker of East Mildew, New Jersey. She writes: ‘Every time I see Hillary Clinton on television, I am so disgusted that I projectively vomit up to seven feet. When I hear her voice, scabs break out on my lower legs and ooze greenish pus onto the floor. I once came within a mile of a campaign appearance, and afterwards I had diarrhea continuously for four days. I am an undecided voter, but I will probably not vote for Hillary Clinton.’ Senator Clinton, what do you say to voters who find you nauseating?
CLINTON; Well, Suzanne, that hurts my feelings. (laughs) But I think that when Americans go out to vote, they’ll vote for the candidate who has the most experience and leadership potential. And my campaign staff will be on hand with barf bags and ear plugs for any voter who needs assistance.
OBAMA: Oh, Hillary, I think that you’re sanitary enough. (smirks and laughs)
JOHNS: Now that we’ve covered the important identity politics, let’s turn to some substantive issues. Senator Obama, if you were an animal, what kind of animal would –
(a loud crash interrupts. A man comes stumbling onto the stage, wearing boxer shorts, a cape, and half of a goalie mask.)
CLINTON: It’s the Phantom of the South Carolina Democratic debate!
OBAMA: No, it’s Dennis Kucinich!
EDWARDS: See Joe, this is the type of bickering America doesn’t need. ‘Oh it’s the Phantom!’ ‘No, it’s Dennis Kucinich!’ How many American children are going unfed while we stander here arguing about this? You see, Joe, as the son of a mill-worker, I–
(Kucinich clubs Edwards with a shillelagh. Edwards crumples to the floor.)
Dennis KUCINICH: Hee hee hee! Hah hah hah! You thought you could keep me out of the debates, did you? But no! I’m here to spread the message of love. America needs love! And Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups! (begins prowling erratically around the stage, muttering to self)
CLINTON: You see, Wolf, under Barack’s health care plan, without universal coverage, John wouldn’t be able to get medical attention for that shillelagh wound.
KUCINICH: … end George Bush’s war …
OBAMA: That’s not true Wolf! Hillary knows very well that my plan has full coverage for all injuries incurred from staves or staff-like implements. But you should ask her about her plan’s exceptions for go-cart accidents!
KUCINICH: … wind power by 2016 …
BLITZER: I think we should return to the substantive issues that Americans really care about. Senator Clinton, boxers or –
(a crashing sound from above. The ceiling is torn open, and an enormous metallic saucer descends into the auditorium, lights flashing along its exterior.)
KUCINICH: I told you! Now you see! I feel a sense of enormous peace washing over this place. There will be love, America! There will be love.
(a circle on the hovering craft opens, emitting a beam of light that surrounds Kucinich. The beam then disappears, along with Kucinich. The metallic craft disappears upward at amazing speed.)
JOHNS: I’m sorry, candidates, but we’re out of time. Next on CNN, Larry King will interview Lynne Spears to ask how she feels about becoming a grandma! Stay tuned to CNN, the most trusted name in news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)