State of Diss Union

Did you see Barack Obama's discourteous snub of rival Hillary Clinton before President Bush's mail-it-in final State of the Union Speech last night? The peppy Senator Clinton, rather than avoid the headline-making Camelot duo of Teddy Kennedy and his young iconic pal, strode right over and stuck out her hand with that spunky grin of hers flashing serious kilowattage. Recognizing the gamesmanship, Kennedy grinned and shook it. Obama turned away, frowning deeply, finding something much more interesting in the middle distance of Claire McCaskill's hair.

It was a moment of the finest reality programming - described by the talkers and captured in what Keith Olbermann described as Pulitzer shot by veteran AP lensman Scott Applewhite - that a couple of centuries of disharmonious union can possibly produce. This political junkie loves the SOTU, not for the speeches - which drone on incessantly, with their menacing Cheney teeth-sucking backdrop, lately leavened by a dash of Pelosi room-surfing - "oh look, there's Justice Breyer!"

Last night, the drama was in the room, not at the podium - Senator Biden walked Clinton (an endorsement, perhaps?), Senator Obama cutting in front of several colleagues to stroll in with Uncle Teddy, the hugs and kisses and man-punches down the aisle. And there was my Congressman, the large-skulled Eliot Engel, in his usual camping spot, down the row on the left, in prime C-span territory. I remember camping out for Stones tickets, but Eliot pitches his tent for a chance at pumping Steney Hoyer's fist on camera. Traditionally, Engel waiting for the President is the first sign of spring in New York politics, well before the first crocus.

So Obama capped a day that was supposed to lift Democrats' spirits by connecting the martyred vision of JFK with a swarm of young voters with a rude gesture that will only remind many women of his nasty "likeable enough" crack in New Hampshire. For a speaker of such grace, the surprise lies in such boorish moments.

Still, you had to love Teddy's late-season moment in the sun yesterday, even if Chris Matthews did torture his usual logic of a generational "change election" in which  political dynasties - like Dylan's cannonball - are forever banned: a difficult argument to make faced with a gaggle of Kennedys led by the 75-year-old lion in winter. Great theater, though. Top drawer.

And while Bush droned on as yesterday's man, one intrepid group I'm proud to know ignored Obama's singularly ungracious moment and soldiered mightily in the cause of analyzing actual policy. The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy pulled the proverbial all-nighter to provide a rapid analysis of the President's proposals to Congress. Please read their analysis and comment on it, but I think Andrea summed it up quite well at the top:

The American people want change. Every Presidential candidate, Democrat and Republican, has made this a mantra. But the State of the Union Address reveals no alteration from President George W. Bush. This year the President labored to keep breathing life into the same worn out ideology that has repeatedly failed America’s current and aspiring middle class.

Comments

[Tom K]

I missed it, but agree with you that it may hurt Obama if he's unable to play this sort of game. If you don't know where the camera is and how you're supposed to pretend to feel, you can't be "ready to lead for change on day 1". More seriously, you're right to tie it to the "likeable enough" comment, as I think that planted a seed about Obama that will flavor all such incidents going forward, to his detriment.

But, Tom:

"The peppy Senator Clinton . . . strode right over and stuck out her hand with that spunky grin of hers flashing serious kilowattage"?

Really?

I can't wait till this campaign is over. I'm hoping that when HRC is safely in office (or, less likely, out of it), you will regain your self respect. Or maybe you can get a head start on the anticipated HRC hagiography business.

[Tom K]

A thought on the HRC side of the spectrum -- this is the guy who's foreign policy is all about engaging in civil discourse with everyone, even our enemies?

[Tom W.]

Yeah, he'll meet unconditionally with Ahmadinejad but can't bring himself to shake Hillary Clinton's hand at a American state event that demands public courtesies?

It speaks volumes. (And I know you hate him, but I'd suggest Al Gore in recent times was the very paradigm for public state courtesies and decorum admist political rancor).

And TK, I thought you'd take my HRC description in the humorous way it was intended...

[Tom W.]

But btw, it's a pretty accurate description...and far less hagiographic than your average Obama piece on MSNBC...

[Tom K]

I was gonna say: alright, now that I see the TomWolfian satire, I withdraw my objection. (Tho' you should have included more exclamation points!)

Then, you contradict yourself: except at the most abstact level, a description shouldn't be both humorous and accurate, unless what it is describing is inherently humorous. And Hillary gladhanding, grandstanding, or whatever one might call it is not inherently humorous (in that, it needs context to be funny.)

Still and all, I'll withdraw my criticism since, despite your confusion of the issue, something less than a strict literalism is discernible in your description.

[Ralph DeMarco]

Tom, I have to say you are really dissapointing me with this line of analysis. I don't get it. First of all, Obama should feel a bit akward standing next to Kennedy while Clinton shook his hand. To me, it was a mature thing to do! And the "likeable enough" comment was an attempt at humor. I mean, really! Tom, your're sour grapes attidude is embarassing to me. I have been supporting Edwards for months now, and luckily I don't have the same emotional investment in a front runner like Clinton. But I have to say you were really naive about Hillary Clinton's ability to transcend all the negatives surrounding her campaign. Maybe if we never had a George W. Bush in the White House some people (like me) might have found her candidcay more appealing. But, I'm sorry, I don't want Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton dynasty in the oval office. Many Dems and independants who don't hate Hillary feel the same way. Why you never took this seriously is beyond me. Not to mention that she's had high negatives all over the country for years. Considering the last seven years of Bush, I think you should understand that people want change from Clinton, Edwards, and all the other well-known white men who've been in power for decades. And, I am particulary puzzeled at your comment that Obama is only a few notches higher in your estimation that G.W. Bush. Huh? Man, I just don't get it.

[bruce b.]

Tom, do you care about Democratic unity? If so, do you think postings like the last two are productive in helping forge unity, in the end? Is it your perception that your language and arguments help Hillary Clinton's cause?

Do you think Obama has any legitimate reason to be pissed off?

Do you think that Bill Clinton's statements in the last two weeks had any effect on the Kennedy endorsements?

And finally, is it your contention that the Kennedy endorsements don't matter, or matter very little?

[Tom W.]

Sorry Ralph, I think she's easily the best qualified - that hasn't stopped me from mentioning her faults and mistakes here, I have. But to me, Obama's faults are greater.

Bruce:

- To a degree, but not above all things.
- No
- No
- No
- No
- A little, yes. It was a heckuva endorsement.

[bruce b.]

You are making postings enthusiastically trashing Obama, and have no illusions that they help Hillary Clinton's cause? So you are doing it out of artistic license?

It seems far-fetched to say that Bill Clinton's activities had no effect on the Kennedy endorsement. Do you believe that the reports that Kennedy was APPALLED enough to call Bill Clinton and try to get him to stop were fabrications? Or, as the saying goes, "fairy tales"?

[Tom W.]

Yeah, I think they had no effect - that's just one of those media fabrications without anything from the principals. Kennedy saw a way to maximize his participation, connect with the young people, and took it. He's buying into the Obama vision as much as the next guy - it's not an anti-Clinton move.

I'm not seeing where I'm "trashing" Obama any place here. In the first piece, he gets some light criticism for doing the passive aggressive thing on race, and enjoying the media's work on Clinton (and his campaign sent out the only racial memo so far). In this piece, I'm criticizing the same style point I took on with "likeable enough."

Look, I know he's the messiah to a lot of people and I get why the rhetoric works - but he's not my savior. He's third best in this three-person field (up from sixth best in an eight-person field) in terms of experience, toughness, and the ability to be a progressive President.

Democratic union will happen after the nomination, in view - and not before. It's just one of those years. I'm enjoying it!

[Ralph DeMarco]

If you wanted to back the most qualified candidate, then why didn't you back Biden, Dodd or Richardson early on? They were all by far the most qualified to be president than any of the others. But you picked Hillary because she's got the name, the star-quality and the money to win. The fact that she's a woman should not be important. How does gender or race mean you will perform better as president? And she also has the highest negatives of any of the other Dem candidates -- even within her own party. That should have been a red light.

I knew she'd have a difficult time in the general election because too many Americans will vote against her for reasons they can't even articulate. Why didn't you take that into account? And don't forget that Obama and Clinton are not very far off on the issues. There is no real ideological reason to prefer Clinton to Obama. So this campaign bickering is distracting and will only help the Republicans. Hillary should have run a a super positive campaign because the press is always looking for ways to trash her, and she and Bill gave them plenty of ammunition. This is not to say the Obama has run a clean campaign - far from it, but whose hands are clean Hillary should have kept Bill on a leash, and praised Obama over and over and then say, 'but I have the most experience and the best strategy for implementing them, etc.' But to bring up MLK and LBJ the way she did, was really short-sighted because she just opened herself up. The Jesse Jackson comparison by Bill was also an obvious smear. Hell, I voted for Jesse in 1988. He was not just a black candidate as the media claims. I saw Jackson speak at the GM plant in Elmsford and 75% of the crowd were white union members who cheered him like a rock star. Jackson played the Edwards role in the debates by trying to be the voice of reason in the middle of Mondale and Dukkakis. So having Bill get angry at Obama only brought sympathy to the senator from Illinois.

[Tom K]

Bruce:

You might as well be in the bunker arguing that the Russians really are breaking through. Tom appears no be nearly that delusional in his refual to see the way the Clintons' tactics are perceived by many black voters (and some progressive whites).

Of course, unlike the bunker scenario, this blindness may not be disastrous. Hillary may be able to win, and govern, without the support of those she's losing. But that doesn't mean she's not losing them.

[Tom W.]

Ralph - did you watch the whole interview, several minutes long? It was obviously not a smear. That entire story was media created, as Maxine Waters said today.

I share your view on Jesse, and viewed President Clinton's comparison as far more positive toward both men.

Do I think President Clinton pissed people off, no question. He was clearly freelancing quite a bit. Sometimes it works, and sometimes not. But that's him - it's part of his great success, and also his failures.

On your points about star power and gender? I plead guilty - they did enter into my thinking, and I've copped to that here. Clearly, Dodd, Richardson, and Biden are all qualified - far more so than Obama, in my view.

[Tom K]

In order, they are thus qualified:

Biden
Richardson
Dodd
Obama
Hillary.

I wouldn't vote for them in that order (or at all, for that matter), but that is how their careers of public officials place them, but any objective measure.

[Tom W.]

Obama - laughable.

But you never did like Eleanor Roosevelt or the Watergate prosecutors.

[Kevin K.]

Tom, I've enjoyed your blog, but like Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson, you've clearly gone off the deep end when it comes to Obama. For once the media is enamored with one of our candidates and who's doing their best to knock him down with petty bullshit like this? Republicans? No, Hillary-supporting Democrats. It's really amazing we can win any elections at all.

Good luck in the general election if she gets the nomination. I, for one, am getting more and more disgusted with what I'm seeing from Hillary supporters with each passing day.

[Tom W.]

Kevin - whoa, I'm off the deep-end? This campaign has been one huge attack on Clinton from the media and many bitter Democrats from the start, and Obama has been oh-so-smug about it. You gotta understand - I don't think Obama is a strong candidate, and don't support him. (Some things I like, others I don't). Geez, you expect me just to fall out after the chosen one? C'mon! If he gets the nomination, most likely I'll be a big supporter - at the very least a silent voter. But I haven't been impressed at all, especially of late.

[Kevin K.]

"If he gets the nomination, most likely I'll be a big supporter - at the very least a silent voter."

Which one is it: big supporter or silent voter? I'll at least be honest and admit I'll be a silent voter if it's Hillary. Honestly, I don't think she stands a chance in hell of winning in the general election, so I guess it doesn't matter much.

[Tom W.]

Kevin - not sure yet. Policy wise, he has some convincing to do - not as progressive as she is on domestic stuff. I'm distressed by his tacit acceptance (some would say use) of sexism in the media, and his personal attitude toward his fellow Dem. And his rhetoric is wearing very thin for me. His negative campaigning is no worse than hers (though underreported), so that's a wash and his Chicago dirty laundry will hurt slightly but it's not a killer - most big-time pols have bad stories in their past.

Then too, he messianic quality of this whole thing bothers me. Finally, I'm not sure he understands the world.

But I'm open to being convinced if he wins the nomination. I don't despise the guy (unlike folks who oppose Clinton, irrationally in most cases).

[bruce b.]

Tom, how can you say with a straight face that you haven't been trashing Obama?

[Tom W.]

"Trashing?" Seriously, where's that?

I haven't even been that tough on Obama. There seems to be this sensitivity zone around the guy, like he's not a major candidate for president or something. You really think this is trashing - good lord, just because I'm not impressed?

[bruce b.]

This is reminiscent of your claim that you didn't say Hillary was the "inevitable" nominee. So then I produced the quotes -- my favorite was "the inevitability train is about to leave the station" -- and somehow you STILL insisted that you had not said anything of the sort.

Now I guess the following TW statements from the last few days amount to a little friendly joshing, or a few mild pokes in the ribs:

"(the audacity of) Obama's victory in South Carolina.... was evident only in its cynical partnership with the rabidly anti-Clinton, race-baiting media."

"It was certainly brilliant for Obama’s team to enlist the aid of the news media in stirring up racial resentment against the Clintons " (you were quoting Craig Crawford, approvingly).

"(the Obama campaign) enjoyed the vicious and openly sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton"

"In South Carolina, (the Obama campaign) cleverly played the race card"

"Barack Obama wasn't knocked off his pedestal by Bill and Hillary Clinton. He climbed down himself, with David Axelrod holding his hand. And he'll never reclaim that lofty position again."

"Guys like Giordano and Bob Herbert at the Times - who used a single anonymous comment from an unattributed blog to cry racism this week in a shockingly juvenile column - ought to know better"

(ok, that's trashing Herbert, not trashing Obama -- but I couldn't leave that one out. And I went back to look at the column -- Herbert had many more examples in addition to the unattributed blog comment.)

"This morning, I need a shower to wash away the slime of Obama's not-very-subtle partnership with the sickening race-baiting media." (wow!)

"the sheer dishonesty openly employed by the Obama campaign and its media enablers."

"Once again, Barack Obama is singularly ungracious in victory."

"On sexism, it's all over the Obama media strategy of refusing the repudiate a sexist press corps - silence, pure silence as conservatives tee off. So the campaign might not be actively sexist, but damn if the strategy don't work for 'em."

"Barack Obama's discourteous snub of rival Hillary Clinton"

"Senator Obama cutting in front of several colleagues to stroll in with Uncle Teddy" (I followed the link to "cutting in front of several colleagues" and it said nothing about cutting in front of anybody)

"So Obama capped a day that was supposed to lift Democrats' spirits... ...with a rude gesture that will only remind many women of his nasty "likeable enough" crack in New Hampshire. For a speaker of such grace, the surprise lies in such boorish moments."

"one intrepid group I'm proud to know ignored Obama's singularly ungracious moment and soldiered mightily in the cause of analyzing actual policy." (a brilliant piece of false association... are you implying that DMI, the "intrepid group" you were referring to, agreed with you that Obama's "singularly ungracious moment" was difficult to ignore, or even an "ungracious moment"?)

Ok, I'll stop now, at 14 instances. I am sure I missed some choice ones. And i didn't even finish working through the postings and TW comments.

I repeat my previous question. If you don't think this is ASSISTING your candidate's cause (and you said it was not), then what is the point? Pure artistic license? Practice for the general election? Are you working your way towards a book on the art and science of political insults? Perhaps, like Bill Clinton, you just can't help yourself?

I will concede that many of your statements are humorous and, in a certain sense, artful. But it is really important now -- whoever wins -- that the Democratic primaries not degenerate further. the two candidates will desperately need each others constituencies in the general election.

[Tom W.]

Look, if you think I'm not going to say what I think about Obama, well what can I say. I'm not crazy about the guy and how his team runs their campaign. That's a good list, but it's relatively mild, I have to say - all direct quotes or judgments of mine. The biggest stretch, you could argue, is my charge that Obama's campaign ignores the rampant sexism in order to profit from it. That seems evident to me (and many others, by the way) but I can understand if you don't think so - or if perhaps you think I should stay silent for party unity.

You know, sometimes I go silent for a while. I usually post when something charges me up; thanks for the Bill Clinton compliment, by the way. I'm not really assisting my candidate's cause here (that seems pretty clear!) just speaking my mind and enjoying the back and forth. You know, this place is a conversation not a PAC.

One final note: I used to like Obama quite a bit, but he's lost me. But I'm just one guy.

[Ralph]

I think you lost Obama because he's turned into just another aggressive politician who wants to be president. That takes ego. That takes some ruthless tactics. You gotta break a few eggs. Of course Obama has been treated nicer by the press - people like him on both sides of the aisle (like Reagan to an extent, and yes...JFK. You are jealous that Hillary has never had that cross-party appeal. I sympathize. I used to like Hillary Clinton quite a bit, but she lost me when she didn't ask the tough questions about Iraq (umm, like Edward Kennedy did, and Barak Obama)... You see where this is going? Sexism is only one part of why Hillary Clinton is no longer riding shotgun on the "inevitability train ". She may still win the nomination, and I will support her, because I think she'd make a decent president. We all knew that Hillary would have a tougher time charming the voters than her husband. Obama doesn't have that problem. Ahh, well. All this sound and fury. Let's just focus on the issues, and get the Republicans out of power for a long, long time.

[bruce b.]

TW says:

You know, sometimes I go silent for a while. I usually post when something charges me up; thanks for the Bill Clinton compliment, by the way. I'm not really assisting my candidate's cause here (that seems pretty clear!) just speaking my mind and enjoying the back and forth. You know, this place is a conversation not a PAC.

I agree that your friends and fans would never want you to go silent. I consider myself one of them.

I also enjoy the "back and forth" -- perhaps a little TOO much. As for this being a "conversation and not a PAC", it really is something in between, isn't it? It is a public conversation with distinct -- albeit very small, on the scale of things -- political ramifications. The blogosphere matters, and you are one of the most prominent of the "pro-Hillary" bloggers.

Like TK, I am mainly pointing out inconsistency. You said you weren't "trashing Obama." I believe I have established that you DID go through a bout of Obama-trashing. It was as if a fever possessed you.

By the way, Maureen Dowd almost mimicked word for word some of your arguments (even phraseology) today. I don't mean that as a low blow, but I am sure you will take it that way.

[Tom W.]

JFK never had any cross-party appeal, Ralph - he barely beat Nixon. In death perhaps...but listen, I not jealous of Obama and his "movement" at all - I merely challenge it publicly. Also, it's clear that Obama doesn't charm everyone...

Now Bruce, I think "trashing" isn't the right word, for it suggests a lack of viable ammunition. I'm not hurling garbage or refuse, in my view.

Also, never forget who started the schoolyard stuff in Philly...

[bruce b.]

TW says:

Now Bruce, I think "trashing" isn't the right word, for it suggests a lack of viable ammunition. I'm not hurling garbage or refuse, in my view.

What IS the right word or phrase? "bashing"? "feverishly bashing"? "eviscerating"? "disemboweling"? "eye-gouging"?

[Tom W.]

"Hits"
"Tweaks"
"Questions Divinity Of..."

[Tom W.]

"Hits"
"Tweaks"
"Questions Divinity Of..."

[Tom W.]

"Hits"
"Tweaks"
"Questions Divinity Of..."

[bruce b.]

wow! i hope I never get into a cage-match, virtual or otherwise, with you. Imagine if you went beyond giving Obama a few tickles under the ribs.

[Tom K]

Evidently, Tom W (who I believe identifies himself, inter alia, as an Irish Catholic) believes that a black man is elevated to the status of "divinity" through comparison to a Kennedy.

This is so, it seems, even where the black man has achieved more than the Kennedy in question, and has done it without the benefits assumed as birthright by the members of that martyred and reckless clan.

To any reasonable person, the suggestion that Tom is guilty of racist thinking based on the above points should be absurd. But if we set the senstivity meter to the level at which Tom has it for the HRC campaign on issues of gender, this would be more than enough to set it a-clanging.

[Ralph]

Well, according to my understanding of history, Kennedy was the hawk, Kennedy was one of Senator McCarthy's anti-commie crusaders, Kennedy was a war-hero, Kennedy was not the civil-rights candidate at all (Nixon was, believe it or not) and so Kennedy DID have appeal for more liberal Republicans. The fact that it was a close election only shows that Nixon was also popular among Democrats who supported Eisenhower's administration. The cross-party appeal meant that the only really hard attacks against Kennedy came from Protestant ministers who questioned whether his loyalty to the Pope would trump his loyalty to the Constitution. But the more they harassed him, the more public opinion changed and people realized how unfair it was to bring religion into the equation. Kennedy won some sympathy from voters who may never have supported him to begin with. I mean, since Nixon was so ahead early on since he was the VP of a very popular Republican President, how could Kennedy have won without cross-party appeal?

[bruce b.]

Ralph, I hope you don't mind if I challenge some of the statements that you made, on a factual basis.

Ralph said:

Kennedy was not the civil-rights candidate at all (Nixon was, believe it or not)

This was prior to the Republican Party adopting the "Southern Strategy" that aligned it with the right wing and racist elements in the south, who were still for the most part in the Democratic Party (with the exception of Strom Thurmond). And while many Blacks had switched from their historic affiliation with the Republican Party during the FDR administration, the Democrats did not enjoy the near monopoly of Black support that they do today.

HOWEVER, Kennedy made a key and widely recognized intervention in support of Martin Luther King in October, as described below (source)

When Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested in Georgia for leading civil rights protests, Kennedy, against the advice of several key campaign strategists, called Mrs. King on October 26 to offer help in securing her husband's safe release. Kennedy was subsequently endorsed by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Sr., father of the civil rights leader. The black vote went heavily for Kennedy across the nation, providing the winning margin in several major states.

Of course, the Black vote was very small in the South, prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But it no doubt provided the margin of victory in some very close northern states that Kennedy carried: Illinois, NJ, Missouri, and possibly Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Ralph said:

I mean, since Nixon was so ahead early on since he was the VP of a very popular Republican President, how could Kennedy have won without cross-party appeal?

Nixon was ahead early on, but not by a lot. Nixon, recall, was not a popular Vice President, and Eisenhower had famously belittled his effectiveness at a press conference during the election ("give me a week and I'll think of [a contribution he made]"). Kennedy also gained ground after the first debate, when Nixon's upper lip was infamously sweaty and he looked like hell, compared to the cool, polished JFK. Towards the end, Nixon was coming on strong, as the popular Eisenhower started barnstorming with him.

As for the need for cross-party appeal by JFK, there probably was a good deal of that, but the Democrats were truly the "majority party" in those days, and party affiliation was much stronger. Interestingly, party affiliation has made a comeback in the last 4 years, in large part due to the blogosphere.

[Tom W.]

I think what Bruce is saying is that not only is Obama no JFK, JFK was no JFK - hagiographically speaking, of course...

[Ralph]

"Senator, I served with Dan Quayle. I knew Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Dan Quayle"