The Politics of Dope

It just looks bad - eight men versus one woman in the MSNBC Debate on Hillary Clinton tonight. It just looks bad. The strange, manic, almost desperate set-up by Tim Russert and Brian Williams. The scripted, agreed-in-advance questions (wink, wink) all about Clinton, little green softballs to the other Democratic candidates. They've all bought into it. The one topic of the evening? Hillary Clinton.

Sure, other front-runners have faced the increased scrutiny as they broke away in the polls. But I can't remember a debate where the front-runner was literally the topic, where there was a silent agreement among eight men to go after one person with such a single-mindedness. The skin-crawl factor was high.

The fix was in, of course. It's very obvious that the Edwards and Obama campaigns colluded with the "newsmen" on how this debate would go down; hell, they did it through the press, on the front page of The New York Times and in the crossfire on Hardball (wait, is that a mixed metaphor for talking heads?).

And then there's the self-respect factor. How can accomplished men like Obama and Edwards buy into the theme, as if their very candidacies are mere marginalities to Clinton's existence - as if they exist only to provide cable TV rebuttal to her inevitability, like extras in some made-for-television war flick, with their issues and positions just prop cudgels. Yuck.

Then there's this: she stood in well, and dominated. The strange and slimy format only made a strong candidate stronger. Still, the Democrats need shower.

UPDATE: Taylor Marsh calls it the pre-planned mugging it was, and suggests Clinton got immigration right (though perhaps clumsily) with regards to Congressional inaction. And she took level aim at colluder-in-chief Tim Russert:

Russert's goal was to provide the headlines the media was salivating to see. He intended to diminish and discredit Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, using her former president husband Bill Clinton to help do the job, which included a document waving drama that was all for show. I'd say Russert has a problem with a woman being president, but that can't be the case. Nah, he was just doing his job.

In a column headlined "Ganging Up," WaPo's Howard Kurtz accused the media and moderator of scripting an attack on Senator Clinton - and chastised Obama and Edwards for getting sucked in:

Barack Obama was getting all kinds of advice from pundits and bloggers heading into last night's Brian Williams/Tim Russert debate, and the gist of it is:

Attack Hillary. Slam her. Beat her. Whack her with a frying pan. Kick her. Whip her. You do want to be president, don't you?

Commentators are geniuses, as we all know, and much smarter than campaign managers. So they must be right about this. Of course, if it backfires, and Obama is seen as abandoning his high-road appeal and becoming just another attack-dog pol, they will be the first to criticize him for that, too.

The Hill's Peter Fenn - no Hillary fan - agrees the mugging only elevated Clinton:

Well, at least the guys didn’t put a “Kick Me” sign on Hillary’s back. In fact, they probably did her a favor. Undoubtedly, many will feel she is being victimized. Again. This time it’s by the yapping from the other members of her pack, who, in the process, have appointed her the Alpha Female.

This is in spite of the fact that her answers to difficult questions are evasive and never off the scripted message, and that some of her Senate votes are highly questionable, along with public and private statements that seem to be inconsistent and expedient.

But when these questions come from opponents from her party who have one main theme — “Get Hillary” — they simply elevate her and lower them.

And from the always-entertaining Daily Howler:

...in fact, the optics were pitiful. It was sad to see that Obama and Edwards would take part in such a Salem witch-dunk; of all the boys who stood on the stage, only Richardson had the decency to announce that he wouldn’t be part of it. (God bless the occasional man who stands up and says he won’t do this.)... At any rate, the “men” did go after Clinton last night—holding hands like blubbering babies, looking like frightened, wet-legged boys. Brian and Tim and Barack and John learned an inspiring lesson last night—if the four hold hands and help each other, they can work up their courage to dunk the vile witch.

From Real Clear Politics blogger Jay Cost, a conservative:

In the first two segments, I counted thirty-three questions. Twenty-two of them were designed to facilitate either another candidate attacking Hillary Clinton, or Clinton responding to attacks (either from another candidate or from Russert). Indeed, all of the major subjects were structured around attacks on Clinton....Afterwards, I could only stomach so much post-debate "analysis." Before I had to walk away from the TV to find the Tums, I watched in amazement as Chris Matthews interviewed Joe Biden and Chris Dodd - and talked about nothing more than Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE II: One more point. When John Cole and Jane Hamsher agree with you (and you've tangled with both of 'em before - and man, they're tough street fighters) you know you've tapped a vein of the good stuff. First Jane:

The hammering she took from her competitors last night in the debate is not available to her as a means of fighting back. The Mighty Wurlitzer would instantly seize the opportunity to cast her as “cold” and “hostile,” it would leap into the main stream media and that would be that. Her opponents took advantage of that fact. As scarecrow noted this morning, it wasn’t a particularly high water mark in the race. And yet, she’s the one who had the courage to try to defend Eliot Spitzer last night (and more forcefully today), despite the fact that he’s politically toxic at the moment and she knew she’d only take shit for it. Her opponents decided to seize the opportunity to attack her rather than defend Spitzer, and now the media is circling and calling her “shrill.”

And now Mr. Cole, a conservative who (we learned) has formally renounced the Republican Party for a Democratic registration (good on him):

I have only been a Democrat for just a few hours, and already I feel the need to defend Hillary.  Brace yourselves....I understand the need for the candidates to put pressure on Clinton, and believe me, I am one of the foremost believers that Hillary will say or do anything to get elected. But in this case, the pressure Dodd and Obama are putting on Clinton is not only unfair, it is simplistic and stupid and plays right into the narrative the idiots in the media love to tell (and I can guarantee they will)....the Democrats were too overzealous in their attacks on Hillary. The simple fact of the matter is there is no good answer to the mess of illegal immigration, Spitzer is trying to do something, anything, to gain some order, and Hillary may not like it (I certainly don’t), but recognizes the value in what he is attempting to do. That isn’t double-talk or flip-flopping. It is called dealing with reality. And if you have a better idea to deal with Spitzer’s problem, by all means, spit it up.

Comments

[Tom K]

I tuned in to see how you would deal with her weakest performance, and the growing public impatience with her studied consideration of all things, such that no clear answer to a simple question can be given.

What I get, rather than commentary or substantive explanation as to why her responses were appropriate, is campaign spin.

All those guys picking on the little girl!

And colluding with the journalists! (Are you sure you really wanna stick with that one, Tom -- like Hillary doesn't exploit journo relationships at least as effectively as her competitors?)

And she was great anyway!

Those bad men who attacked her are dirty!

As to the real point of interest that neutral (or at least non-partisan) observers are talking about (see http://www.slate.com/id/2176378/), not a word. There is no issue with her evasiveness, you see, just bad men (MEN that is!) colluding to make her look bad.

By the eternal, Tom, this tripe is so far beneath you, you shouldn't even be able to imagine it.

[Tom W.]

As to her performance, great first half - fading second half, last minute downer.

But seriously Tom, I stick by my observation that it looked bad for the Dems to do this - it appeared sexist (yes, she can take care of herself) and ther's absolutely no question that the media/obama/edwards agreement was firmly in place. None.

I didn't call her a little girl - you shouldn't either. And I'm far from the only one to find it unseemly - lefty site FireDogLake did (no huge HRC fan base there) and Howard Kurtz at the WP did. It was a designed gang beating from the start, and she came through it moderately well, I thought.

And it hurts Edwards and Obama in the long run - man, did they look bad.

[Tom K]

You have no authority to instruct me or others outside your family on whom should be called what -- but the record will show I called her nothing.

I used the "little girl" to characterize your description of the leading candidate to rule the world as someone who is too delicate to be engaged in robust debate on the issues by MEN -- with the sex role being particularly emphsized by you. I guess I thought you had too much respect for adult women (who have proven themselves in politics here and abroad many times over) to make this point, unless you had temporarily forgotten that she was an adult.

I'll let neutral readers decide if I was name-calling, or if you raise the accusation as a cheap debating trick, in an understandable but futile effort to recover some footing in a discussion where your more legitimate options are few and none.

[Tom W.]

Tom, what the hell are you going on about? What cheap debating trick? You used the language, I didn't.

My point is pretty simple and, I believe, valid - it looked bad. That's it. I'm not diminishing women to suggest that eight men spending an hour on television verbally beating up the first serious female candidate for President in U.S. history brings a certain "skin crawl factor." It's fairly obvious, not a stretch, not particularly out-of-the-box thinking on my part.

I also suggest - stop the presses on this one! - that its terribly poor strategy for the Dems to smack around their frontrunner, who probably has a 75% shot at the nomination. Republicans, at least those in the recent past, would never do this.

Woo-hoo - two "shocking" pieces on analysis on my part. You'll find similar takes in posts from the National Review to the DailyKos.

It was a terrible night for the Democratic Party, and they didn't ding her on any major issue. In fact, they agree with her on most issues.

[Tony Alva]

You guys remind me of those two old dude muppet hecklers:-)

It may come as a shock, but I gotta go with TW on this one. I watched a good bit and Obama and Slick Johnny came off badly with their attacks. I really cannot understand how ANYBODY would trust John Edwards enough to vote for him.

Not only do I think the old gal solidified her position, those doofuses may have blown a shot at VP. The Clinton's remember all things.

While not agreeing much with what any of the candidates had to offer, I will conceed this much: Hillary has the more reality based position of all the other candidates on Iraq troop withdrawl. She's the only one who has stated that careful analysis be undertaken before just yanking them out. Not that the others would actually do that, it's just that nobody actually buys into the pledges the others are making to do just that and by them saying this, gives away the fact that it's just a bunch of campaign bullshit like it was mid term.

[Tom K]

Tony:

Please don't take my attacks on Tom's sycophancy to the Hillary campaign as an endorsement of any of the other candidiates. It is Tom's credibility, not any of the D candidates standing (relative to Hillary or otherwise) that I am concerned with.

Thus: I say he should insist that Hillary be treated like a little girl if he supports her to run the world, and he says, "Don't call her a little girl." Then he professes dismay when I call that a cheap trick.

He is doing a good job acting Clintonian when he talks about her, as I've noted before. But his value to her, or anyone, exists at a higher level, which he is squandering his ability in inhabit.

[Tom K]

"he should insist" . . . make that, "shouldn't insist".

[Tom W.]

TK - I really don't see how it's sycophantic to support a candidate, warts and all. Like you did with Reagan-Bush(squared). Gimme a break, will ya?

You're basically accusing me of being too obvious - I'll cop to that. This wasn't a subtle post; it was a short piece expressing my very real dismay at what happened last night.

I think it's pretty well-known around this blog that I'd like to see Clinton win this. She's the grown-up in the race (both sides) and we need one now.

And I really don't get your little girl point on this - I'd never position the Senator in that particular role, even to score a cheap point. She's the toughest one in there (both sides).

[Tom W.]

Tony, on Iraq - you make a good point. I think partition will happen, and the best way to make it succeed is to create long-term economic interests. Secretary of State Biden will be a good choice to work on this - but I'm ahead of myself by a good 15 months! I do agree that Clinton's public comments in all debates - despite the hue and cry from the wild-eyed bloggers (like me) - has been careful. She knows she's inheriting a disaster on day one, and needs her options. I hope VP Webb will have an active role in these deliberations.

[Tano]

What a thoroughly sexist analysis.

If Hillary were a man, she would have recieved the exact same treatment. In a nine-person race, if one is a commanding front-runner, they are going to be the focus of attention and attack. That is obvious.

But oh, she is a little wilting flower. A woman! You can't attack a woman!?! Its so ... unseemly.

What a load of crap.

[Tom K]

Tom:
*TK - I really don't see how it's sycophantic to support a candidate, warts and all. Like you did with Reagan-Bush(squared). Gimme a break, will ya?*

Never had much to say in defense of either Bush, though I could be found preferring them to Dukakis & Gore.

As to Reagan: yes, I defended him, but I never said his critics shouldn't pick on him because, say, he was an old man. To say that would, in my view, have admitted that he was not qualified to be president.

To that I'd like to add -- "right on, Tano".

*You're basically accusing me of being too obvious . . .*

No, I'm accusing you of shilling instead of anlayzing. Analyzing might include saying, "the other D's looked bad in attacking Hillary", and/or a substantive defense of her position. Shilling is adopting a campaign's tactical approach designed to mute (or at least discourage) criticism, while avoiding the substance of the cricitism entirely.

[Tom W.]

TK, you might have noticed that I wrote this while watching the debate - literally BEFORE the campaign had a tactical approach to the fallout. It was my personal take, nothing more. "Shilling" is ill-founded and unfair in the extreme; you should try and avoid imagined motivation.

Further, I never said you can't attack a woman candidate - I observed that the eight men out version looked bad on television, and that the thematic/tactical fix was in. You and Tano (who I take to be an Edwards supporter, judging by the desperation of the language) started in with the "little girl," "little wilting flower" language, not me.

I touched lightly on the gender side of it in my original post - others made far more of it - focusing more on the perceived collusion of the moderators and the Obama and Edwards campaign and the willingness of most of the other dopes to go along with their game of "kill the frontrunner."

Again, I'd add - the Republicans would never do that to such a clear leader in the race. Which is one reason why they've won so much.

[Bruce Bernstein]

TW, the charge that the Edwards and Obama campaigns conspired with the media (i.e. Russert and Brian Williams) in regards to how the debate was handled is a very, very serious one. What evidence do you have to back this up? If this is true, or even partially true, the journalists involved should lose their jobs.

I agree that to a great extent the constant attacks on Hillary were unseemly. Her vote on Iran is a legitimate point of debate. On some of the other issues, the candidates are pandering to the media. In particular, harping on her position on Social Security reform is out of line. Tim Russert, not Hillary Clinton, is wrong on this issue. Social Security avoiding insolvency requires relatively minor reforms, and it currently IS solvent well into the future. If anyone has any doubt on this, please google Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker's work on the issue.

Now Medicare is a different matter. People often lump the two trust funds together, which is not an accurate way of looking at things.

The odious Chris Matthews was disgraceful when he MOCKED Bill Richardson in the post-debate interview for defending Hillary. "I have never seen such a strategy", said the smirking, self-satisfied Matthews. This is the same Chris Matthew who mocked and denigrated Al Gore for a month or more while the Florida votes were being recounted. How dare Gore disrupt democracy in this way! Now, it comes out that Matthews voted for Bush. What a surprise!

He also mocked and denigrated Richardson for the remark (in response to his questions) that the government should open the records regarding the various UFO investigations. Saying that does not make someone an aluminum-foil-hat wearer.

Regarding Hillary's answer to the driver's license questions: I, too, at the time, thought to myself, "wow, she's floundering on this one. What a flub!" However, upon reading the transcript of her remarks in the Times this AM, it struck me that she was entirely consistent in her answer, and was explaining her thinking behind the issue. Her answer basically was, "Gov. Spitzer is doing a reasonable thing, given the situation. I don't know if I would do exactly the same thing if I was in his shoes, but I can see his point of view, and am not going to make demagogic attacks on him. Let me explain why he is doing it... and further, the underlying problem is that the federal govt has shirked responsibility on this issue."

The problem is that modern American politics, sadly, has a hard time dealing with an answer like this. It was not black or white. It was not reduceable to a sound bite. And it shows how a government leader must THINK about an issue.

Interestingly, Giuliani often does the same sort of thing, only his thinking is crypto-fascist. But he often explains his crypto-fascist thinking in his answers.

And, interestingly as well, Hillary's husband is somewhat to blame for the sad state of political dialog. he was the MASTER of slippery answers that sounded good but didn't really say anything. So now everyone thinks Hillary is doing the same thing. Maybe she does the same, in some cases (Iran, for example). The drivers license answer, in contrast, might very well have been an honest, straightforward moment that gave insight into her thinking, rare for her campaign.

[b tween]

Hillary warrants no special treatment because of her gender. What those guys did was shred the basics of civility. I would have felt distaste seeing such a gangbang no matter who the victim was - even a heavily armed Ted Nugent.

Luckily, she's not a cretin like the others and was able to handle herself well.

Wonder which Republican could have done that?

(hint: none)

[Tom W.]

Bruce, for slippery and occasionally befuddled answers no one beat Mr. Reagan. I agree on the license issue it looked befuddled, but the transcript is a lot better (see, that's what I mean about television).

As to the "conspiracy" it wasn't secret at all, but it was clearly collusion - indeed, the NYT had it on the front page. The NBC crew had been goading Obama and Edwards for weeks to "go after" Clinton and attack. The campaigns themselves indicated they were prepared to. So moderators and challengers were perfectly aligned, in public. They had their act together. As for "journalists," well I don't think Russert, Williams, or Matthews qualify. They're TV talking heads, pundits, talk show hosts.

You're right on SS - it's been ginned up by the entitlement-hating right as a "crisis." Some crisis, with four decades of benefits already paid for.

One upside to all of this - how much you want to bet Clinton comes out with a major immigration plan in the near future? Now THAT was the real story of the debate - the 3rd rail-like nature of immigration in the U.S. right now. Yes, another ginned up "crisis" but also a real issue nonetheless.

And welcome back Bruce! I'm sure TK's glad to see ya!

[Bruce Bernstein]

Tom, thanks for the welcome back! I had never totally left (as a lurker).

I agree with you that immigration is the current "third rail." Look what it did to McCain! It poses problems for both parties. And there are no easy answers.

In the short run, it might pose more problems for Democrats, since the Republicans can more easily be demagogic on the issue. I saw that Fred Thompson might make it a centerpiece of his campaign. And expect Giuliani to complete his flip-flop over from Mr. Sanctuary to Mr. Crackdown.

One right wing friend of mine predicted "Willie Horton" style commercials highlighting the undocumented immigrants who murdered those college kids in Newark a few weeks ago.

In the long run, it poses more problems for Republicans, due to the ever-increasing Hispanic proportion of the population.

Let's see what, if anything, the Clinton campaign says about the issue moving forward.

[Tom K]

*TK, you might have noticed that I wrote this while watching the debate - literally BEFORE the campaign had a tactical approach to the fallout. It was my personal take, nothing more. "Shilling" is ill-founded and unfair in the extreme; you should try and avoid imagined motivation.*

Tom:

I reject the notion that one has to collude in order to Shill. To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy (with all humor removed):

You may be shilling if --

you find yourself focusing on why the attacks on a candidate you favor should not be made, including but not limited to arguments that they are immoral, rather than on why they are substantively mistaken.

[Tom K]

Ahh, Bruce, I hadn't appreciated you are THAT Bruce B. Welcome back . . .

[Tom W.]

Plus Bruce it's very hard to make the wonkish economic argument. Every major economist, including the conservative Chicago guys, knows that immigration is absolutely key to American economic growth. Our birthrate doesn't support it. We need immigrants, and we need to make more of them legal.

But, of course, words like "amnesty" and "sanctuary" are loaded, vigilantes watch the border, and frankly, the real-world difficulty that some - not all - communities/states have in integrating new arrivals (of late, from Mexico) makes it a very difficult political issue.

Throw in the absolute wild-eyed liberalism of the Catholic Church on this issue - let 'em all in, regardless - coupled with the demographic changes on the evangelical side (hey, some of them might become ours) and you've got a hell of a tangle. I find it fascinating.

[Tom K]

*you should try and avoid imagined motivation.*

That's rich. I've known you my whole life and yet I was describing the objective appearance of your comments. Yet you seem pretty comfortable imagining the motivations of Russert and Williams -- they not only want to put the frontrunner on the hotseat (as anyone could see even before the fact), but they are in collusion with other candidates!

[Tom W.]

TK - you yourself said:

Shilling is adopting a campaign's tactical approach designed to mute (or at least discourage) criticism, while avoiding the substance of the cricitism entirely.

How could I have adopted the campaign's approach when it did not yet exist?

[Tom W.]

Yes but Russert and the MSNBC/NBC crew bragged about their motivation before and after the debate - put HRC on the hot seat. It was explicit!

Also, I don't think you can fairly describe your reaction as "THE objective appearance of your comments" (my emphasis).

[Tom K]

Well, finally an argument focused on exegesis.

The HRC campaign's tactic of using her femininity as a cloud of squid-ink when the going gets rough is so well established that one hardly needed to "get the memo" about this specific debate in order to adopt it. See, "Pretty in pink" Lewinsky conf, Lazio "he stood near her" debate, among many examples.

To the extent my assumption that you are adopting their tactic rests in any part upon a reading of your mind, that reading goes as follows: "Tom's way to smart to believe the crap he's writing here." I do believe that, but I suppose I can't point to any specific proof if you insist that I'm wrong.

And really, do you think anyone regards it as a scoop, or even worthy of comment, that the moderators focused on the candidate who has emerged as the prohibitive favorite? It that is all you meant by colluding, your word choice was not very good . . . again, a proposition I'm inclined to doubt.

And yes, it is THE objective appearance, to me. I suppose each of us can only perceive subjectively. But I think you will find most people who are not active Hillary supporters would agree, whatever their politics, that your post read more like spin than substantive analysis. Each of them, like me, would be reacting subjectively. But I think an "objective appearance" of your post can fairly be gleaned from the collective subjective reactions of its readers.

[Tom W.]

I don't get your references - "Pretty in pink?" Not sure what you mean - do you actually believe her reaction to the Lewinskly betrayal wasn't genuine, that it was some kind of act in case she were to seek public office someday?

I vaguely remenber the Lazio gaffe when commentators suggested he stood too close to her and looked rather oafish. The going never got tough with Lazio either, no need for the ink.

And sure, she's going to appeal to women voters, but I'm not sure where all the steam is coming from here in your argument. You're saying she's somehow "protected" as a special case. To that I say - hahahaha!

She's got the toughest personal hurdles in the race. I'm sure she'll try to makethe best of her firt-ever gender qualifications, but she certainly didn't win New York on gender, Tom. (And she didn't sweep the GOP-dominated upstate counties in '06 by portraying a victimized female). So it doesn't wash.

[Tom W.]

Oh, and that "hahaha" was uttered in the style of London Boys...