The Clinton Post Mortem - 3 statements

First, here is a commentary on these statements:

Here's how it works: A candidate (almost always Hillary Clinton) makes a statement, any statement out of the thousands made on the campaign trail each week, and that statement is seized upon by the chattering class and then dissected in order to determine what the real intention was. Experts pore over the text and announce what the candidate should have said during an impromptu exchange with the media. It's not that the statement in question is wrong, or blatantly malicious, it's that the statement wasn't quite right. It should have been a little bit more this or a little more that. Plus, based upon the pundits' expert training and analytical skills, they're able to spot a deeply disturbing, unspoken meaning right below the surface. Alarmed, they then rush to alert voters.

In responding to the statements in question, the perpetrators can be grouped into 2 categories:

The accusers These are the people who understand the events, but deliberately distort the statement in question, and deliberately spread the distorted version of the truth.

The cheering onlookers These are the people who cheer the distortion of the truth, because the distorted version of the truth happens to favor a candidate or a cause that they believe in. The end justifies the means, or at least, the great goodness of the end justifies the small badness of the means.

When a distortion or a canard spreads, and causes damage to a campaign, it is natural for a rival campaign to watch from the sidelines. That would place them in the 2nd category ~ that of the cheering onlooker. Sometimes, a rival campaign will actively act to spread that distortion, thus placing themselves in the 1st category ~ the evil accuser. Both categories of people are culpable, in my opinion.

From the Columbia Journalism Review, we have the following analogy

Psst, did you hear?…Hillary Clinton is questioning Martin Luther King, Jr’s legacy…Pass it on…

Psst…the Clinton camp is saying the Obama camp is deliberately stoking racial tensions…and the Obama camp is saying the Clinton camp is deliberately rewriting history…Pass it on…

Psst…the Clinton camp is denying the Obama camp’s accusations…Pass it on…

Psst…the Obama camp is denying the Clinton camp’s accusations…Pass it on…

Psst…the Democratic party may be permanently fractured…Pass it on…

___________________________________________________________________________________


Let us now consider these 3 statements:

Example 1: Sen. Clinton and the Muslim smear.


Sen. Clinton was asked if she believed Sen. Obama was a Muslim. Her answer, which was provided in less than 1 second, was "of course not". The question was then repeated, and her answer was repeated... but with different language.

KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

If you are Sen. Clinton, you are not allowed to repeat your answer with that different language. That altered language is evidence of willingness to win at all costs. It is an indication of the kitchen sink strategy, apparently. David Knowles declared this to be "A New low for Hillary Clinton"

Interviewed on "60 MInutes," Hillary Clinton gave the nation a glimpse of her win-at-all-costs mentality. Confronted over whether or not she believed Barack Obama was actually a Muslim, she couldn't give a simple, firm answer and let it stand at that.

Many commenters and diarists have repeated the canard that Sen. Clinton was repeating the "muslim slur". Examples include Andrew Sullivan, who initially declared in a post titled "As far as I know" that "Clinton is pressed to say that Obama is not a Muslim. She does - but then she pulls it back. Video here". But in subsequent posts, he neglects to mention that Clinton ever said no to the muslim smear. For instance, he later said: The anti-Muslim smears may also have worked, and Clinton delicately managed to keep them alive last night . He later added for good measure "Hillary Clinton, for her part, knows that Obama is not a Muslim, but when asked to dispel the canard, she can still add the qualifier, "as far as I know." Again the addition is a meretricious nod to truthiness, a hope that something she knows is untrue can yet be introduced into the political bloodstream to her advantage."

In a bit of irony, Andrew Sullivan also explains how all this is done:

Jonah Lehrer explains how we respond to rumors:

Not only are we persuaded by false rumors that get repeated, but we're persuaded even when the false rumors get repeated by one person. As Psy Blog notes, a recent study by Kimberlee Weaver and colleagues, found that "if one person in a group repeats the same opinion three times, it has 90% of the effect of three different people in that group expressing the same opinion."

That's why one popular and persistent blogger, or one partisan hack on CNN or Fox News, can do so much damage.

A single loud voice repeating bullshit is, as far as the brain is concerned, roughly equivalent to lots of voices repeating bullshit. And if lots of voices are repeating bullshit, then the bullshit must be true.Of course, the paradox of this post is that, even though I set out to discredit the Michelle Obama rumor, I actually made things worse.

Robert George on how this is just the latest incarnation of a conservative urban legend that pops up each presidential election.

But Andrew Sullivan is not the only one. Countless commenters including on MyDD, DailyKos have been guilty of spreading the canard either as the Accuser, or as the Cheering Onlooker.

But, there have been examples of responsible journalism. A prominent one is Josh Marshall who declared I've read and now watched a few times. And I suspect this is a case where different people will come away from seeing the exchange with very different senses whether she was hedging or whether people are pulling more equivocation out of her words because of the intensity and combustibility of the moment. For me it's on the edge. And I find it surprising she would leave it on the edge. Why the 'as far as I know' line? On the other hand, at other points, she seems pretty unequivocal. But mainly I'm curious to hear what you think.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Example 2: The MLK/LBJ Flap

Sen. Clinton, on Fox News:

“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do; presidents before had not even tried. But it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people’s lives because we had a president who said ‘We’re going to do it’ and actually got it accomplished.”

There is nothing offensive in this statement. It may be an odd statement to have made ~ to be sure, I would not have agreed to have my political opponent be compared to MLK, even if that is how the question was set up. But, all in all, there was nothing offensive in there. But, the statement led to a media firestorm.

The firestorm was fueled by selective edits on her quote, indulged in by quite a few people and by several mainstream newspapers. For instance, as reported by Media Matters

A January 11 New York Times article marked at least the third time that a Times article, editorial, or blog post truncated Hillary Rodham Clinton's January 7 comments about civil rights. Each of the articles quoted Clinton's statement that "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and that "it took a president to get it done" but omitted Clinton's reference to former President John F. Kennedy. Clinton had also said that passing a civil rights bill was "something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried."

The selectively edited references were all made out to give the impression that Sen. Clinton was insulting all black people by denigrating MLK's contribution to civil rights. In actuality, Sen. Clinton was denigrating Pres. Kennedy ("he was not successful") and Pres. Eisenhower ("he did not even try"), and not MLK. She attempted to clarify her remarks

"Dr. King had been on the front lines. He had been leading a movement," Clinton said. "But Dr. King understood, which is why he made it very clear, that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That's why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That's why he was there when those great pieces of legislation were passed. Does he deserve the lion's share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does. But he also had partners who were in the political system."

But those clarifications were ignored, obviously.


Sen. Obama's campaign profited from this, of course. And Sen. Obama, himself, when asked about it, fueled the outrage thusly:

Asked whether he had taken offense to Clinton's remarks, the Illinois Democrat said he had not been the one to raise the subject.

"Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement," Obama said in a conference call with reporters. "I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

At the time, I was a bystander (my candidate was Sen. Biden, and he had just dropped out after doing poorly in Iowa). But I was amazed over this MLK/LBJ flap ~ it was then that I sorta "knew" (in hindsight, it is easy to identify a moment when you "know" something) that Sen. Clinton was doomed.

Just for fun, let us construct an imaginary dialogue between Steve Kroft and Sen. Obama
KROFT: Were you offended by Sen. Clinton's remarks on MLK/LBJ?
OBAMA: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Clinton at her word that she was not insulting MLK.
OBAMA: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that she is insulting MLK, or implying? Right.
OBAMA: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
OBAMA: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

Now imagine your reaction to those hypothetical remarks. And you will understand the double standard that Sen. Clinton was subjected to.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Example 3: She called for Sen. Obama's assassination

This was one of the most bizarre instances of the "slay the bitch" mentality displayed by a press pack and commentators acting like a pack of hungry dogs.

As reported by the New York Times,

Speaking to The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D., she added: “You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Critics seized on the comments, with some accusing her of suggesting that she was staying in the race because tragedy might strike Mr. Obama.

Others were less charitable ~ they implied (or in some cases, said so directly) that Sen. Clinton was hoping for, or even asking for, an assassination that would let her "win".

In this particular case, Sen. Obama's campaign spokesman appeared to be adding some fuel to the fire by using the word "unfortunate" to describe those remarks. But, to his immense credit, Sen. Obama quickly stepped in himself and expressed sympathy for Sen. Clinton.

_____________________________________________________________________________________


In closing, I should say that I wish Sen. Obama well. He is the Democratic nominee, and I will listen to his case against Sen. McCain and for himself. But, at the same time, I also feel that Sen. Clinton was given a raw deal while we (i.e., the progressive blogs) cheered the process, and that we should acknowledge that. Indeed, I would say to the supporters of Sen. Obama, an honest acknowledgement of the brutal treatment that Sen. Clinton was subjected to would be an important (and necessary) step towards party unity (something like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa)

A solution to the California budget crisis

The California State budget is a mess. It is a very big mess. It is a mess of historic proportions. In fact, it is a mess that will live in days of infamy.

Fortunately, I have a simple and painless solution. This solution will require no sacrifices ~ there will be no tax increases, no fee increases, and no cuts in services. Further, this solution will require no mortgaging of future lottery benefits, and no firesale of our cherished freeways.

A Painless solution ? How is that possible. How would it work !!

Or, I should say... this solution will require no sacrifices from Californians. There will be no tax increases on Californians, no fee increases for use of California parks, no cuts in services in California, and no mortgaging of future benefits in California.

You see... we can simply close our budget gap by raising revenue from the citizens of Wyoming, Montana, Alaska and miscellaneous other small states that "do not count".

How is this possible ? Would that not be highway robbery ?

No, and no. Here is how it would work:

First, the budget shortfall is forceast to be about 16 billion dollars. So, that means we are required to raise an additional 16 billion dollars every year without increasing taxes, or increasing any fees etc.

Next, here is a breakdown of the revenue raised by the Great State of California

and here is the expenses


From the expenses chart, we can see that all expenses are non-negotiable; and that there is no "waste fraud and abuse" in the expenses. For instance, who would want to cut the budget for K-12 education ? Therefore, cutting expenses cannot be accomplished without compromising the primary goal: that the budget balancing will be a painless maneuvre.

From the revenue side, we can see that The Great State of California raises 35 billion dollars from a sales tax. A sales tax !! Isnt that a tax on consumption, and affects the poor more than it does the rich. Isnt that immoral ? Let us get rid of that evil sales tax.

But wait, if we eliminate the sales tax, we now have an additional $35 billion to make up for. We will need to increase the income tax rates so as to generate $35 billion. But this time, we will index the rates to be progressive. Oh, and while we are at it, we might as well increase the income tax rates so as to raise revenue by $51 billion. That way, we make up for the lost sales tax, and also for the current shortfall of $ 16 billion.

But didnt you say that the solution would be painless ? Now you want to raise taxes .. that is not painless

Oh, but it is... you see, the federal government lets you take a deduction on your federal taxes against the state taxes paid, and you are allowed to include your state income taxes, or your state sales taxes (but not both). By eliminating the state sales tax, and transferring all that tax burden to the state income tax, we have increased your federal itemized deductions. Thus, you will be paying the same amount as you did before...just that you will be paying more to your state and sending less to Washington DC.

But isnt that bad. We would be shortchanging the federal government


No, it would be all right...really. Currently the federal government sends $0.78 back to California for every $1.00 that it raises from California. Therefore, by sending less money to Washington, you are helping to correct that picture.

The Clinton Post Mortem

Sen. Clinton has now conceded the nomination. She was the "frontrunner", so it is appropriate to ask the question: what happened ?

I have a simple answer: she never had a chance!

Never before has a candidate with such high negatives managed to win an election ~ slightly more than half of the voting public disliked her when we started about 18 months back. And some of this dislike was with an intensity bordering on hatred. Sen. Clinton was "unelectable". A candidate with such high negatives is not supposed to win, and should not be anointed as a frontrunner. That she managed to come so far, and that she almost managed to win, is a testament to her skills and perseverance.

The rationale for Clinton hatred & why she never had a chance

I cannot explain the Clinton hatred: some of it is justified, no doubt, by various acts of omission and commission. You cannot be in the public eye for so long, and not offer genuine reasons for being disliked. And she has offered plenty of reasons over the years.

But the hatred and dislike seemed far more intense than that which can be attributed only to various policy decisions over the years. In part, she is disliked for being a Clinton, and in part she is disliked for being a woman.

It appears that the Clinton name is associated with NAFTA, the failure of health care reform, and the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, at least within the Democratic party. It also appears that the Clinton name is associated with "Don't Ask Don't Tell", DOMA, and welfare reform ~ which are all viewed as evil deeds by the party faithful. It does not appear that the Clinton name is associated with peace and prosperity of the 1990s.

But, inspite of all that, Bill Clinton remains fairly popular in the US, with approval ratings in excess of 70%. His wife, on the other hand, was disliked by slightly more than half. This, despite the fact that she had no real executive power, and did not influence any major policy decisions outside of health care reform (as we were reminded repeatedly during the campaign by her opponets). The only explanation for this can be sexism (or misogyny...call it whatever you want) ~ about 1 in 5 Americans do not like the idea of a woman being on top (I am basing this estimate of 20% on the difference in approval ratings of Pres. Clinton and that of Sen. Clinton).

Sexism is a significant drawback. Sexism is unlike any other form of discrimination because it is sanctioned by God ~ God made man and woman differently, and gave us different roles in life. Thus, it is okay to expect men and women to have different roles ~ it is okay to discriminate on the basis of sex. This cannot be said of skin color, or religion, or any other basis for discrimination. Sexism is unlike other forms of discrimination because women believe in it as much as men ~ and therefore it is not compensated for. If 1 million white men prefer a white man over a black man, then an equal number of black men will prefer a black man over a white man ~ the net effect is somewhat washed out (unless white men outnumber black men, or hold power etc). But, if 1 million men (white and black) prefer a man over a woman, then 1 million women do not automatically prefer the woman over the man ~ women are also somewhat likely to believe that a woman belongs in the kitchen.

Given all that, I would say that Sen. Clinton definitely started off as an underdog. She did not have my vote, or my support last summer (she does now).

So, let us break her campaign down into 5 stages:

Stage 1: The exploratory phase. She steps into the ring, knowing that her negatives are very high. What should she do ?

There are two options available to her: she can run as the "anointed one", or she can run as a progressive. A progressive would go out and seek every vote, even from those that hate her on the basis of her sex. The anointed one would blow away the opposition (at the time, this was expected to be Sen. Edwards) with fundraising, and other metrics.

The right choice would have been to run as a progressive ~ on hindsight, it is clear that the right choice would have also enabled her to prevail. But, she chose to run as the anointed one. After all, the "anointed one" strategy had worked very well for Governor Bush in 1999-2000. Her strategy is to dwarf her rivals (i.e., Edwards) with early fundraising numbers, and to blow them away with early state wins, thereby ending the contest on Feb 5.

Stage 2: Obama becomes the anointed one.

Sometime after the J-J dinner speech in Iowa last year, it became clear Sen. Obama, and not Sen. Edwards was going to be her main rival. He had become the media darling, and was drawing adoring crowds of supporters. He was a master of the spoken word. His fundraising numbers were surpassing that of Sen. Clinton He was the one we had been waiting for.

At this point, Sen. Clinton's campaign should have retooled. She should have abandoned the "anointed one" strategy and should have run as a progressive. She did not ~ largely, I believe, because Sen. Obama was not polling well with black people. Sen. Obama was popular with the college students, and with the liberals, but not with black people. And as long as Sen. Obama did not have the black vote, his candidacy was doomed ~ liberals and college students do not represent a winning coalition.

But this strategy (of essentially ignoring Sen. Obama) was extremely risky ~ and they knew it as well. Pres. Clinton later said that they knew that if Sen. Obama won the white vote (in Iowa), then he would also catch fire with the black vote. Thus, Sen. Clinton had to win Iowa (and NH) to prevent Sen. Obama from winning SC and the rest of the cotton belt. Thus, Sen. Clinton was forced to try and win in Iowa, a state where Sen. Obama had natural advantages (it is a caucus, which favored his liberal and young support, and it borders IL).

She did not win Iowa... and the media declared her dead !!

Stage 3: Clinton starts running as a progressive

Somewhere between her Iowa loss and her upset victory in NH, Sen. Clinton abandoned her "anointed one" strategy, and began running as the progressive that she was all along. After her NH victory, she declared "in listening to you, I have found my voice". It is true that her change in strategy was forced by events, and therefore has less meaning. But, it is also true that not every candidate who is forced by events makes a change in the right direction.

In any case, it is between Iowa and NH that Sen. Clinton got my support.

But, it was too late.

Sen. Clinton had spent a lot of money while losing Iowa ~ and Sen. Obama was raising money faster than she was. He had a natural advantage in all the Febuary states beyond SuperTuesday. Thus, she made a decision to try and end his candidacy on SuperTuesday. Most commentators argue that this was a poor tactical move ~ she should have conserved some cash for the caucuses in Feb. I submit that, given the predicament she found herself in after Iowa, this was the only tactical move she could have made. She was short on cash, she was behind on points, and she needed a knockout.

She didnt get the knockout on SuperTuesday, and we all know what happened during the rest of the month.

Stage 4: Clinton retools as a progressive

This stage involved her retooling her message, and her campaign tactics. I consider this stage to be the most impressive campaign that I have ever witnessed. She ran as a progressive thoroughbred ~ she asked for every vote, even from the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife. She became the darling of the downtrodden, and came to symbolize the hopes and dreams of many.

At the end of this stage, even some Republican foes that had heaped scorn on her previously were singing her praise.

Stage 5: The concession

This is the stage we are witnessing right now.

I think we should all salute a most remarkable campaign. She started off being unelectable ~ she is most definitely not unelectable now.

Congratulations, Sen. Obama

Today, you have broken quite a few barriers in becoming the first African American to be the nominee of a major party for President of the United States.

In the coming few weeks and months, you will have the opportunity to make your case against Sen. John McCain, and to unify your party behind you. I expect that many questions will be asked, and answered during that process.

But tonite is not a time for asking questions. Tonite is a time for offering congratulations !!

And yes, tonite is a time for wishing you well !!