Prometheus 6

At this point, Billary are on the verge of irrelevance - with one foot on a banana peel and hurricane force winds at the rear. They hardly need to work together for November. At this point, Obama no longer needs to engage her. He can actually ignore her completely and focus his efforts on voters and the Republicans. Now ignoring her in public is not the same as ignoring her in private. I don't mean he should be dismissive or cease to know what her actions are - hardly...it's just that he need not give her anything whatsoever to latch on to. She is twisting in the wind right now and will grab anything that has the remotest chance of providing anchor. She's like a punch drunk fighter looking for a good clinch. Now is not the time to fight in close. Now is not the time to give America's many referees an opportunity to slow down the pace of the fight or to decide the outcome. Now is the time to jab her silly and then deliver the death blow in Ohio or Texas - if possible. Either way, time and money and all that you've highlighted recently are on his side.

"King and chief probably had a big beef;
'Cause of that now I grit my teeth." - Chuck D.

"Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee."

Bundini Brown

He insisted, February 6th, that Obama begin acting like Billary wasn't even there anymore and focus on McCain. Made a lot of sense to me, as does your response.

The problem, as I see it, is that you cannot have an honorable peace with the Billaries and Clintonistas. It's like trying to reach a business accommodation with the Barzinis and Tattaglias.

Only way. I liken this to storming the Bastille. We're out there, battering ram in hand; we're pounding away...everyday, we get more people to help us batter. Instead of getting tired, we get more determined. We WILL storm the Bastille. Time is NOT on her side.

I completely agree that the Clinton campaign has acted badly. However, I don't like it when writers improve on the facts to smooth their path to outrage.

Ms. Clinton did not "fire the first divisive shots" in this campaign. Mr. Robinson is either writing imprecisely or he's improving the facts to make a better story. Volunteers within Ms. Clinton's campaign were the ones who fired the opening volleys, and they were rather promptly excused from their assignments.

Now before anyone jumps in to remind me that these surrogates were acting on Ms. Clinton's behalf, let me concede the point ahead of time. Bill Shaheen was, indeed, acting on her behalf. The campaign staffers who forwarded the "Muslim rumor" emails were acting on her behalf. So, yes indeed, she has to answer for them. But I'll need more evidence than one can provide by reading minds before I'll conclude that Ms. Clinton ordered these actions.

Eight years of Karl Rove trench warfare politics seems to have made progressives more combative--and not necessarily in a good way. We have become so accustomed to fighting off divisive attacks that we face a powerful temptation to frame every battle as Good vs. Evil.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are competing for the same position. Both must try to convince voters that they are the better candidate. People in Ms. Clinton's campaign have made low, stereotype-driven comments. All that is true. However, for Mr. Robinson, that story isn't quite good enough, so he has improved it.

Sorry.

I bungled up Mr. Robinson with the unsigned work of the NYT editorial board. It is they, not he, who has "improved" the facts.

Volunteers within Ms. Clinton's campaign were the ones who fired the opening volleys

Volunteers like Mark Penn?

Nah...he got paid over $5 million.

Are you referring to his appearance on Hardball? Or something else?

I just replayed the YouTube clip of the Hardball session (posted on a different thread). I really don't see very much in that clip to get excited about.

Penn didn't raise the issue of drug use in that session. Chris Matthews asked several questions about Bill Shaheen's statements. Penn tried to deflect them and talk about something else entirely, but finally responded directly.

Yes, he was the first in that four-way exchange to say the word "cocaine." I don't see anything wrong there either. Mr. Obama wrote in "Dreams from My Father" that he had used cocaine long ago.

Joe Trippi jumped on the reference, but (in my estimation) not because Penn made an error. Instead, Trippi needed a way to elbow his way into the conversation so he could talk about his candidate, Mr. Edwards.

In the entire segment, I think Mr. Obama's spokesman, David Axelrod, got it entirely right. He refused to guess about motives, accepted the apology, and turned to promoting his candidate.

The really slimey part of Bill Shaheen's speculations was the expansion from drug use to drug sharing and then to drug dealing. That's what plays to fear-based stereotypes. I may have missed it, but I don't think Penn tried to defend that.

It's coming.

Now it's "the media" that made up everything. Let's see if we can restore some context. It will be imperfect, but...

The story at the time was The Inevitable Clinton Machine. We were regaled with tales of its presence and power, its precise execution. And from the heart of this precision we got Shaheen, Kerrey and Penn.

And the problem folks are having getting rid of this memory (I mean, besides me) is that people saw it. Live. See, this may be the most watched political contest ever. People are paying attention. This means they've had their reaction by the time you try to explain.

And one more thing.

If you want to see what playing the race card looks like, watch the Willie Horton ad.

And it isn't racism if they aren't wearing bedsheets.

Do you understand the problem here?

I have friends who are not convinced by all this. I'm not trying to convince you. You don't need my concurrence. I have friends who are quite convinced by all of this. You don't have to convince the world you're right to act on your own judgement.

And that's where I'm at.

You had to be there.

I'm REALLY not going to reconstruct the full context of every decision I make when someone asks "why."

The story at the time was The Inevitable Clinton Machine. We were regaled with tales of its presence and power, its precise execution. And from the heart of this precision we got Shaheen, Kerrey and Penn.

Oh yeah. Absolutely. A rare few media outlets actually noted this in real time. At the time the "first divisive shots" were fired, some actually noted the surprising fumbles by the supposedly precision campaign team. That, I think, was a correct reading.

And it isn't racism if they aren't wearing bedsheets.

Do you understand the problem here?

I think I do, but I may be seeing it from a different perspective than you do. Most white people in this country rarely think or talk about race except in those parts of the south where some people obsessively inject race into every aspect of daily life. When we do, we're often very clumsy about it and almost always thin-skinned when confronted about that clumsiness. (What you said a couple of weeks ago about the word "racist" driving white people crazy? Totally right.)

When I look back on the New Hampshire emailers, Shaheen, and Kerrey, I mostly see blundering, not malevolence. (Penn? Maybe him too. My remarks on the Hardball fiasco above included here by reference.) I see white political actors so accultured to compartmentalizing black issues apart from everything else that they fail to speak accurately and justly when they have to compete against a black candidate. They just don't know how to do it.

As a result, people like Kerrey and Shaheen stumble into surprising blunders because they can't correctly evaluate their own remarks in the context of race. This is a massive blind spot for white people. In calling it a blind spot, I'm not trying to minimize or excuse it. I'm just saying the failure arises from an absence of awareness, not a response to awareness.

I see white political actors so accultured to compartmentalizing black issues apart from everything else that they fail to speak accurately and justly when they have to compete against a black candidate. They just don't know how to do it.

And what motivation do they have to learn?

In the entire segment, I think Mr. Obama's spokesman, David Axelrod, got it entirely right. He refused to guess about motives, accepted the apology, and turned to promoting his candidate.

But did he tell the truth, even about his own perceptions? Because when you say "he got it right" you mean he took the position that let that campaign proceed without an intractable dispute arising.

What motivation? Winning.

Because when you say "he got it right" you mean he took the position that let that campaign proceed without an intractable dispute arising.

That's certainly a benefit. But also, Axelrod didn't guess at motives. That's the most defensible position both logically and strategically.

I think that Quaker in the Basement and a larger (although shrinking) group of folks simply do not understand is that for many of us our opposition and disdain for the Billaries and Clintonistas is NOT of recent origin. Speaking for myself, I would be opposed to Hillary's candidacy even if Barack Obama never existed!

Quaker in the Basement and others may feel that in Billary "flows the milk of human kindness, a quart in every vein" but I suspect that what truly flows in their bodies is a lethal mixture of ambition and a desire for power no matter the costs. At a certain point it really does not matter, given their outsized desire for whatever they want when they want it, whether their behavior is attributable to blundering or malevolevence. We cannot afford to grant them any benefit of the doubt because our gestures are seen as signs of weakness and stupidity by them. Who died and appointed them in charge of us?

See, for example, Lise Funderburg's piece Fool Me Once...

What motivation? Winning.

Which means if they don't we must make them lose.

You're catching on.

That's the most defensible position both logically and strategically.

Nonsense. Strategically, the 'most defensible' position is the one that works. And 'logically' can only mean "most consonent with what I already know." You've got to understand that's not going to figure into my reactions at all.

In calling it a blind spot, I'm not trying to minimize or excuse it. I'm just saying the failure arises from an absence of awareness, not a response to awareness.

On re-reading, I see I can do better. What I'm saying is, I think they're more dumb than mean.

Why should I differentiate between the stupid and the mean? Both should go.

I see white political actors so accultured to compartmentalizing black issues apart from everything else that they fail to speak accurately and justly when they have to compete against a black candidate.

Their failure, QB, is not only about their inability to run against blacks seeking elective office. They are simply not able to even see that many of these so-called black issues are, in point of fact, deeply American issues. The incarceration of black men, which first became enshrined in public policy in the aftermath of Reconstruction primarily as a regional phenomenon in the south, has now become a national policy that, in part, is used to promote so-called economic development in rural northern communities. Bill Clinton and his administration were the chief architects of this policy.

See, for example, Lise Funderburg's piece Fool Me Once...

Which means if they don't we must make them lose.

I'm totally on board with you there. Please excuse me while I return to my initial comment for a moment:

I completely agree that the Clinton campaign has acted badly. However, I don't like it when writers improve on the facts to smooth their path to outrage.

There are plenty of good, valid reasons to oppose Ms. Clinton's bid for the nomination. I have several of my own. My only point is that one need not parse a handful of statements by campaign functionaries (or abuse ordinary logic) to find such a reason.

The media and many in the blogosphere have relentlessly picked over the MLK/LBJ controversy and Mr. Penn's appearance on Hardball to find evidence of Ms. Clinton's secret bigotry. (One web site even sees a Clinton attack on Obama when Star Jones gives her opinion on television). These tempests are pretty thin soup. Some of the other events, usually ignored, offer far more substance.

Quaker in the Basement and others may feel that in Billary "flows the milk of human kindness, a quart in every vein"

Far from it. But neither do I see lethal villainy. Ambition for power? Of course. That's a requirement of the job. That's just what I mean when I say we seem to have weathered the Bush/Rove years poorly. "Wrong" doesn't necessarily have to equate to "evil."

They are simply not able to even see that many of these so-called black issues are, in point of fact, deeply American issues.

Quite right. I should have used irony quotes on "black" issues.

The media and many in the blogosphere have relentlessly picked over the MLK/LBJ controversy and Mr. Penn's appearance on Hardball to find evidence of Ms. Clinton's secret bigotry. (One web site even sees a Clinton attack on Obama when Star Jones gives her opinion on television).

Has any of that...ANY of it...been seen here?

And let's don't forget my being piised at the media for disappearing the original events, pretending that all the anger arose from the MLK comment. They're trying to say it never happened. Like so many other 'gestures'.

But neither do I see lethal villainy.

That's not necessary.

Why do U-People always think everyone is a racist?
Well, everything in America is looked at through, measured in terms of, categorized and stored by race. So we know you have thoughts and opinions about us. Then we look at everything the society produces that depicts us. We consider that to be tangible evidence of the collective attitude. So now we know that the collective opinion of our race is negative.

This is a competitive disadvantage, and when our abilities are immediately discounted to the degree that we can be made to fit people's preconceptions as a tactic, we feel the tactitician and the one who executes the tactic is racist. When the tactic succeeds, we feel those who hold the preconceptions that were played on are racist.

Why don't U-People want to just accept the way things are and work to get ahead?
I need to use a metaphor for this one. Euro-American economic development has depended on extracting the value of the efforts of others. In the USofA, this has meant leveraging Black people. It's very much as if you had to get over a chasm using one of those teeter-totter arrangements Wile E. Coyote uses. . . you know, where you stand on one end of a lever, toss a heavy weight on the other end and you are catapulted forward. The USofA has used Black people as that heavy weight. The weight, in this case, has been the forced and spontaneous products of Black activity.

What we are offered now, at best, is an opportunity to toss some of our own people on the other end of our lever, to fuel our progress at the expense of others of our people.

This is not acceptable.

Has any of that...ANY of it...been seen here?

It has been observed here, but not necessarily asserted. When the NYT talks about "the first divisive shots" being fired by Ms. Clinton, they may be referring to the MLK/LBJ thing. Or maybe something else entirely. Also in that context, you raised the name of Mark Penn--and he is sometimes faulted for the Hardball appearance.

Why should I differentiate between the stupid and the mean?

You are asking me to explain the importance of describing the world precisely? P6, what have I ever done to make you believe I would act with that kind of presumption and affrontery?

It has been observed here, but not necessarily asserted.

An answer like that can only annoy me.

If you're annoyed, don't blame me. Your initial post included observations on the "Hillary fired the first divisive shots" content from the NYT. Seriously, I'm staying on the tracks.

Just don't expect challenging other people's assertions to have any impact on what I think or say.