The End of the Sound-bite

Matt Compton argues that one of the things we're seeing with the success of Barack Obama's speech on race is the declining significance of the sound bite as we're now in a world where people can watch the whole thing on YouTube or read a complete transcript online.

That seems right to me, though it also seems like the demographic of older working class people who are the main audience that Obama needs to worry will be freaked out by Rev. Wright is also the demographic that's least likely to watch a long YouTube clip.

Comments

I wouldn't write premature obituaries for the soundbite. As more information becomes more widely available, attention spans and interest shrink accordingly.

Posted by blah | March 19, 2008 4:38 PM

I loved the speech, but what makes you think it was effective? We're just starting to see the substantial damage that the Wright story has done to Obama in the polls. It'll be at least another week before we have any sort of idea of whether the speech does anything to repair the damage.

I'd like to be optimistic, but I fear that the damage may be far too great to overcome, even with as magnificent a speech as Obama's. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by Jeff | March 19, 2008 4:39 PM

"Matt Compton argues that one of the things we're seeing with the success of Barack Obama's speech on race is the declining significance of the sound bite as we're now in a world where people can watch the whole thing on YouTube or read a complete transcript online."

Narrowcasting is not the same as broadcasting, which is why the Obama strategy has serious limits.

If Obama continues to lose the air war, as has been the case for the past few weeks, no amount of targeted communications in the world will make up for it.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2008 4:40 PM

I agree Petey, this is great news - FOR CLINTON!

Posted by Andy | March 19, 2008 4:42 PM

Number of people who watched the Youtube clip: 1 million.

Number of people who watch nightly news: roughly 20 million.

Now, a number of people have seen the speech, or segments of it, through things like their local Newspaper's site. But not many.

And I'm with Jeff; there's no way to know how effective it is, except in so far that it has moved journalist coverage away from "Wright is weird" to "race in America is complex".

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 19, 2008 4:43 PM

One of the things that struck me as I surveyed all the pundit commentary about Obama's speech, was the universal complaint that it was too long.

Maybe the global consciousness has shifted sometime while I was at lunch this afternoon, but it seems to me that we still live in a world of short attention spans. After all, the flourishing of blogging, youtube, and remix & sampling culture reflects a fundamental preference shift in modern aesthetics and basic consumer instincts -- pith is king.

Posted by dry_fish | March 19, 2008 4:45 PM

Anotehr thing to remember is that low infromaiton voters tend to get their opinions from the media elites, to a limited extent. So part of the question is how the village reacts to the speech, not just now, but in the long term. Do they treat the Wright matter as settled? Do they criticize Clinton for bringing it up? How that plays out is critical.

On a larger front, "post soundbite" or not, I think Obama is fine. In the real world he was always going to come back down to earth, and politician as talented as he is can use the eternity that *any* electoral campaign represents to regain his groove.

Posted by Jorge | March 19, 2008 4:49 PM

All Obama has to do is write a revised, 15 second version of that speech and he can get the message out there in a really convenient, easy to carry, delivered in 30 minutes or less value format pack.

Posted by El Cid | March 19, 2008 4:50 PM

"One of the things that struck me as I surveyed all the pundit commentary about Obama's speech, was the universal complaint that it was too long."

I think that complaint had much more to do with the structure and delivery of the speech than with its actual length.

There was a rambling quality to the entire event that led observers to the "too long" conclusion.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2008 4:50 PM

If the general election electorate were made up the the editorial board of the New York Times, the national press corps, and the mailing rolls of Harvard Alumni then I think the speech Obama made yesterday would smashing success. Unfortunately for him the wider audience he needed to reach were not liberals with post-graduate degrees. He needed to send the message that he is in no way beholden to radical elements within the black community represented in this case by his Pastor, Rev. Wright, and that he wants to move beyond questions of race... not become the candidate of racial reconciliation.

Most Americans would like to have racial reconciliation, but I think most also instinctively realize that won't be an easy task. More importantly, the voters want a president who is going to focus like a lazer beam on the economy, not focus like a lazer on America's racial problems or racist past.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 4:50 PM

Throw me in with the skeptics, and not just about my fellow elderlies. I had a student in my office earlier this week, and I happened to bring up the Wright affair--only to discover that she was completely unaware of it! And she's a *divinity* student, at a very liberal divinity school with strong historic ties to the black church. Yes, this election cycle has generated an unprecedented number of political junkies--but you should always remember that in modern America most people will regard that as a curious hobby, even if it's one that's more popular than usual.

Posted by David in Nashville | March 19, 2008 4:55 PM

Tim K, that was precisely the audience that the speech was intended for, because Obama's goal was to shift the media narrative.

The way to reach "regular voters" is to make sure that the press says good things about you when they report to "regular voters."

Posted by Tyro | March 19, 2008 4:58 PM

Nicholas -- the 1/20 comparison may be true, but when was the last time that 1 MILLION Americans actively sought out the opportunity to watch a political speech?

I'm 29, and part of the youtube demographic... which is why my 54 year old white republican mother called me up to send her the youtube link to the speech. She might not be comfortable enough going out to find it for herself, but she knows that I've probably already got it...

Wonder how many other older working class Americans watched the video on youtube yesterday thanks to the viral networking skills of their kids? My guess: a LOT!

Posted by Elena | March 19, 2008 4:59 PM

Any evidence that Obama's focusing like a "lazer" on America's racial problems, Tim, outside your febrile imagination?

Posted by Zephyrus | March 19, 2008 5:00 PM

I didn't watch the whole speech, but I read the whole text, and it was too long. A good edit could have cut about 20% to 30%, and it wouldn't have suffered at all. Other than that, great speech.

I wouldn't sneeze at 1 million people watching on youtube. Sure, it's not as many as watch the national news, but 1 million ain't nothing. And I'm sure there are other people who watched the whole speech elsewhere, or read the text in NYT like I did.

Posted by too many steves | March 19, 2008 5:03 PM

I would think that the target audience for this speech was (1) the superdelegates and (2) reporters and pundits and (3)his own supporters. I would guess that the speech was a smash hit with all three.

Now he has to get out and do the campaigning in Pennsylvania and onward in order to get through to the voters. The speech will help immeasurably by energizing his supporters and by virtue of the favorable free media it will bring him. And it will keep the fence-sitting super-delegates up there on the fence.

Posted by Bloix | March 19, 2008 5:04 PM

Also all future comments should be limited to 10 words.

Posted by El Cid | March 19, 2008 5:05 PM

Tim K's clearly focused like a "lazer" on his war with straw. How is discussion of race to the exclusion of discussion on the economy? And did Obama not say that focus on trivial controversies distracts us from focusing on the economy?

Obama spoke directly to white working class resentment, saying that although he may feel differently, he understands it and wants to channel those feelings of resentment and bitterness into constructive, unified work on bigger issues like the economy and Iraq.

What's especially interesting is why Tim K would assume without evidence that Sen. Clinton would be any better at the economy? Because of her work at the Rose Law Firm? The campaigning for NAFTA in her first lady schedules? Because part of her marriage to Bill Clinton coincided with the tech stock bubble? Or because she proposes election gimmicks that are designed to ensnare the stupid like 5-year caps on interest rates and 90 day moratoria on foreclosures -- in 2009.

The distinction between "moving beyond race" and "being the candidate of racial reconciliation" also escapes me. Obama is supposed to stop being black? To cease being aware of his race while Clinton and her friend Murdoch try to cabin him as the "black candidate?" And precisely to whom is Obama "beholden?" I would think that as the candidate who has raised the most money in small donations and takes no money from lobbyists, he's beholden to no-one. He made it very clear not only that he disagrees with Wright's comments, but WHY. (Specifically, the part about Wright not seeing America as changeable for the better.) But that would require watching the speech with some measure of intellectual honesty.

Jon Stewart's right -- he spoke about race as if we are adults, and as he is. That's Presidential leadership. This is not a game to Obama. That's why he's the best candidate running.

Posted by David B. | March 19, 2008 5:07 PM

The speech was inadequate to explain away his attachment to the antisemitic Israel basher Reverend Wright. Senator Obamas' campaign is as dead as a doornail,.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12727.htm

Posted by SLC | March 19, 2008 5:09 PM

"he spoke about race as if we are adults, and as he is. That's Presidential leadership. This is not a game to Obama."

Much like Adlai Stevenson, he'd rather be right than be President.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2008 5:10 PM

Anotehr thing to remember is that low infromaiton voters tend to get their opinions from the media elites - Jorge

In my experience, not only "low information voters" but even some not-so-low-information but still a bit ignorant voters (who you'd think would be high information, but due to a rather disdainful attitude toward "politics", the legislative process and even government in general, born from their adopting of the Pauling critique of legalism, rather do not put too much effort into understanding the nuances and context of candidates statements) get their opinions from media elites, with the filter that these voters assume the opinion of the media elites represents liberalism as a whole.

So if the media elites are being obvious wankers, then these voters deem wankery to be an attribute of all us liberals. If the media elites dismiss a candidate as a "moonbat", then "wow, even the liberal media elites think Candidate X is so liberal as to be outside the mainstream -- so Candidate X must really be a dirty hippy for whom I never would vote". But if the media elites praise a liberal/Dem or dismiss a conservative/GOoPer, that praise/dismissal gets dismissed as "well, of course the liberal media ain't gonna like a conservative and of course they'll praise liberals".

To the extent that, to low information and even not-so-low-information but still ignorant voters, Obama is a dirty hippy liberal elitist black panther whose middle name indicates he's un-American ... if the media elites react negatively to Obama, the low information and/or ignorant crowd will take this reaction to heart and further disdain Obama. However, to the extent that the media elites react positively to Obama, it'll just be dismissed as media bias.

Remember, the whole liberal media meme is, to the GOP, the gift that keeps on giving. And once the meme is established, it has a life of its own -- enhanced by the tendancy of many Americans, due to our Calvinist heritage, to assume that you can judge the fruits of a tree by knowing whether the tree is of the elect or otherwise ... instead of deciding the media is "liberal" or "conservative" based on any evidence, you decide the media is "liberal" and then use whatever the media says to define liberalism. C.f. this point about terrorists vs. the rest of us and the comment I made following up on the linked comment.

Posted by DAS | March 19, 2008 5:15 PM

The speech was inadequate to explain away his attachment to the antisemitic Israel basher Reverend Wright. Senator Obamas' campaign is as dead as a doornail,.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12727.htm

Posted by SLC | March 19, 2008 5:15 PM

The transcript was the most emailed article on NYT.

(Nine words, El Cid! Oh, shit.)

Posted by Monster | March 19, 2008 5:19 PM

What surprises me, David, is that his handlers let him talk to Americans as if they're adults.

Certainly, judging by some of the reactions I'm reading, the Republicans wouldn't dare.

Posted by Demosthenes | March 19, 2008 5:27 PM

You know how you can tell that the speech hit home?

The palpable desperation from people like Petey and SLC there. They're not willing to engage anything he actually said, but only play that classic Republican game of moving the goalposts of "repudiation".

Satisfying them is literally impossible. Why even bother?

Posted by Demosthenes | March 19, 2008 5:36 PM

Obama did acknowledge white working-class resentments, how magnanimous of him. He seemed to challenge "White America" to understand, and even excuse, the radical, incendiary, hateful, racist remarks that sometimes emanate from black churches and the black community, and to move beyond the racist past.

So we know he has no problem challenging Whites. Yet, what exactly did he demand of African Americans in that speech. What did he say that can be interpreted as challenging to Black America, or as a departure from traditional liberal positions?

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 5:37 PM

His speech was a success? Wow, it's fun in your little echo chamber, I guess.

As for the value of YouTube, I suggest you count up how many times MSNBC, CNN, Fox, and the various network newsmagazines juxtapose these two clips:

Wright: GOD D*** AMERICA!

Obama: I could no more disown Wright than my wonderful grandma who took care of me when my dad abandoned me and my mom dumped me.

It goes over real well.

Meanwhile, ABC News tallies up the contradictions, which you know is going to be on their evening news.

But yeah, it was successful.

Posted by Cal | March 19, 2008 5:37 PM

Obama wrote the speech himself. He didn't even need to hire a Michael Gerson to supply him with biblical literacy!

Petey, Adlai Stevenson went out of his way to avoid mentioning race in the '56 election, two years after Brown and when the Democratic party was full of Dixiecrats. But nice try.

Posted by David B. | March 19, 2008 5:39 PM

If the general election electorate were made up the the editorial board of the New York Times, the national press corps, and the mailing rolls of Harvard Alumni then I think the speech Obama made yesterday would smashing success.

And if the general electorate were made up of foreign Obamaphobes, the speech would not have mattered.

As it happens, Hillary cannot catch up electorally. All she can do is continue to try to drag Obama, and the Democratic party, down.

Clearly some people are rooting very hard for that outcome.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 19, 2008 5:43 PM

What did he say that can be interpreted as challenging to Black America, or as a departure from traditional liberal positions?

And as a "Hillary" supporter, you care about that why?

Or have you officially stopped pretending to be slamming Obama from a pro-Hillary standpoint?

Because not that that was ever a credible position for you, but it's clearly not anymore after making that claim.

Jesus.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 19, 2008 5:48 PM

To be fair, Petey has said he'd vote Nader rather than Obama, so I don't think Republicanism is his problem.

Posted by Cyrus | March 19, 2008 5:49 PM

SoCalJustice:

If indeed you are correct that Clinton has no chance and Obama will be the nominee, shouldn't the goal be for him to actually win the general election?

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 5:51 PM

"What did he say that can be interpreted as challenging to Black America, or as a departure from traditional liberal positions?"

he condoned or excused nothing, but simply would not condemn the person who said it for political gain (not that it would make any different to the professional Obama haters). And as for his comments to the black commuity, other than saying the bitterness was counterproductive and embracing self-help, and calling upon ALL Americans to see the country's fundamental goodness -- oh, will you just watch the speech!

(Btw, has Clinton ever disavowed the notion advanced by some "feminists" that women who don't vote for her lack false consciousness, while we are in the ritual condemnation phase of the campaign? I'm not being sarcastic -- I really don't know whether she's condemned her most looney identity-based cohorts.)

Posted by David B. | March 19, 2008 5:51 PM

"What did he say that can be interpreted as challenging to Black America, or as a departure from traditional liberal positions?"

he condoned or excused nothing, but simply would not condemn the person who said it for political gain (not that it would make any different to the professional Obama haters). And as for his comments to the black commuity, other than saying the bitterness was counterproductive and embracing self-help, and calling upon ALL Americans to see the country's fundamental goodness -- oh, will you just watch the speech!

(Btw, has Clinton ever disavowed the notion advanced by some "feminists" that women who don't vote for her suffer from false consciousness, while we are in the ritual condemnation phase of the campaign? I'm not being sarcastic -- I really don't know whether she's condemned her most looney identity-based cohorts.)

Posted by David B. | March 19, 2008 5:51 PM

shouldn't the goal be for him to actually win the general election?

Of course it is, Tim. But in America, we don't even let you try that unless you win your party's nomination. And she cannot win it, based on the numbers as they stand.

You have a lot of background reading to do, Tim.

Why don't you head over to your local Chapters and pick up a book on American politics.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 19, 2008 5:55 PM

I think Obama's next book will be called "The Audacity of Not Distilling Your Message Into Soundbites And Engaging The American People's Intelligence, Only We're Not Really Sure if That Actually Works Yet Or Is A Good Strategy."

Posted by How McCain Is Insane? | March 19, 2008 5:57 PM

David B:

I did watch the speech, but my failure to understand may just be a consequence of my "untrained ear." It was a really patronizing sermon, not a speech.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 5:58 PM

"To be fair, Petey has said he'd vote Nader rather than Obama, so I don't think Republicanism is his problem."

No, I'd argue that Republicanism is *precisly* his problem, in a meta sense, in that case.

I was an Edwards fan too, but Petey decided to take his ball and go home, or something.

Posted by Jorge | March 19, 2008 5:58 PM

Meanwhile, ABC News tallies up the contradictions, which you know is going to be on their evening news.

I think it's fair to point out these contradictions. Obama does have a problem here. Having said that, it's not the first time a politician has tried to downplay stories they know are controversial.

Sure would like to see the same vetting of HRC.

Posted by AKBY | March 19, 2008 6:00 PM

I just can't understand why someone would spend this much time obsessing in the primary election race of one party of a different country.

Posted by Monster | March 19, 2008 6:01 PM

Kidding aside, for me the barometer on this one was my girlfriend. She originally supported (and voted) for Hillary, switched over to Obama after listening to him speak (I think it was his Super Tuesday speech where he made the Obamacans joke that sold her). Then when the Wright thing happened, she basically said, "WTF? What is this??" and I thought it was back to Hillary.

The speech sold her on Obama even more than the Super Tuesday thing.

People who are in the bag for Obama and McCain are going to see what they want to see in the speech. At least one wishy washy woman was swayed.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 19, 2008 6:02 PM

Monster: yeah, it's bizarre. Tim K is Canadian; Cal is a Republican; Petey is an Edwards supporter. At least SLC I can understand.

Posted by Barbar | March 19, 2008 6:10 PM

SoCalJustice:

You're funny. Yes I understand the presidential nomination process. I probably have a leg up on you since I not only understand the US process, but I also understand the Canadian process of leadership selection. Americans are not usually in the best position to be criticizing others for being ignorant of other countries.

A central goal of any leadership selection process I have ever heard of - whether it be in the UK, France, Canada, Germany, or the US - is to choose a leader or nominee who can defeat the other party's candidate in the general election. You cannot govern if you don't win.

Survey USA released general election polls today in Ohio, Missouri and Kentucky.

Ohio:

McCain leads Obama 50%-43%
Clinton leads McCain 50%-44%

Missouri:

McCain leads Obama 53%-39%
McCain leads Clinton 48%-46%

Kentucky:

McCain leads Obama 64%-28%
McCain leads Clinton 53%-43%

Get your spinners ready,

OBAMABOTS ATTACK!

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 6:12 PM

How patronizing could it have been if it went over your head?

It must have been fun to find a totally different guy to run against, but now I guess McClinton are stuck running against Obama once more.

Posted by David B. | March 19, 2008 6:13 PM

I did watch the speech, but my failure to understand may just be a consequence of my "untrained ear."

No, it was more of a consequence of your being such a complete shill for Hillary that you went into the speech predisposed to hate it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, you seem to be the only person (except for maybe Petey) completely oblivious to that.

Posted by Seitz | March 19, 2008 6:15 PM

Seitz:

I know I was predisposed against the speech, but you were predisposed to love it. So what's the difference?

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 6:19 PM

Meanwhile, ABC News tallies up the contradictions, which you know is going to be on their evening news.

The only problem is, the article seems devoid of actual contradictions

"He has said some things that are considered controversial because he's considered that part of his social gospel; so he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that," Obama said on March 2.

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

Where is the contradiction, exactly? Earlier, he said Wright said controversial stuff. ABC then says that Obama acknowledges that he heard Wright go all anti-US, and cites as support for this... the part of the speech where Obama says Wright says controversial things sometimes.

This is lame stuff

Posted by Brad L | March 19, 2008 6:20 PM

Yes, use a poll from March after the absolute worst week in Obama's campaign that was done before he responded to argue that the election in 8 months will proceed as such. Remember the polls from just before this event that showed Obama mopping the floor with McCain? Didn't think so.

If he continues to slip after his speech, and it's evident over a long period of time (as in more than just one poll), then you have something. For now, you continue to be a giant tool.

Posted by ZednCu | March 19, 2008 6:23 PM

"Unfortunately for the rest of us, you seem to be the only person (except for maybe Petey) completely oblivious to that."

Given today's Gallup tracker, it seems the folks oblivious to the speech's charms are in the majority.

And FWIW, I thought the speech was just fine as social commentary, but relatively ruinous as Presidential political theater and strategy.

Obama spent his time explaining and justifying rather than defining himself, which is almost always suicidal politics.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2008 6:24 PM

Well, Rasmussen, which has been infinitely more reliable than Gallup, shows that the speech helped Obama: http://tinyurl.com/2mwc29

In other words, I was right, polls at this stage are stupid.

Posted by ZednCu | March 19, 2008 6:27 PM

Brad L:

I don't think Obama's contradictions are overt; subtle at best. But the media will continue to find a 'gotcha' moment, and I'm sure eventually they'll find something.

This is one reason why I think the speech might have been a mistake. The press in relentless with finding gotcha moments, and now they have a record to compare and contrast, which will keep the story in the news cycle for a long time.

People could get sick of hearing and talking about it however. We'll see.

Posted by AKBY | March 19, 2008 6:29 PM

I'm a democrat and I say the speech wasn't a success by any means. I don't know how you can remotely call it a success. The people alienated by Obama's lack of judgement won't come back to him because of a speech. The cliche about his words holds true. Nice speech, now what. He lost all credibility to talk about race when he refused to step away from Wright who was race baiting for years. This wasn't one visit, or passing support-it was years and years of support, exposing his children to it and supporting it financially. Very un-presidential. We don't elect presidents who associate with anti-american hate mongers like Wright.

Posted by Rachel G | March 19, 2008 6:31 PM

And you thought Reverend Wright was bad?

Here - check out Hillary's "cult"!

You're not gonna believe this one!

Hillary's Nasty Pastorate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html

Money Quotes:

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet
them in diners -- alone.

In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has
continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:

During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial)
elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was
presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the
U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and
Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.

Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James
Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse
leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing
"religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to
guard abortion clinics.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 19, 2008 6:33 PM

Hey, Petey knows how to cherry pick polls! Congratulations! Unfortunately as ZednCu has pointed out, it only works when you're arguing with people who don't know how to, ya know, check other polls.

I know I was predisposed against the speech, but you were predisposed to love it. So what's the difference?

Really? Care to point to any comments where I raved about the speech? Go ahead, I'll give you some time. Let me know when you find something.

Posted by Seitz | March 19, 2008 6:34 PM

This is one reason why I think the speech might have been a mistake. The press in relentless with finding gotcha moments, and now they have a record to compare and contrast, which will keep the story in the news cycle for a long time.

But if they are just going to invent the gotcha moment anyway, why shouldn't Obama make his case as well as he can anyway? Shutting up might slightly reduce the odds of creating a gotcha moment (though probably not), but it would also take away Obama's oratorical strength. Bad trade.

Posted by Brad L | March 19, 2008 6:36 PM

He could have used the opportunity of that speech to prove he's not a so-called "black candidate" by putting some distance between himself and people like Al Sharpton in a substantive, issue-oriented way. He could have taken a firm stand against racial quotas and discussed shifting affirmative action from race and gender-based tests to socio-economic based tests.

Or he could have echoed remarks of truly courageous African American figures like Bill Cosby, who said in 2004:

"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day. It's cursing and calling each other 'nigger' as they're walking up and down the street. They think they hip -- can't read, can't write -- 50 percent of them."

Instead he basically said Jeremiah Wright's views were excusable and completely understandable.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 6:38 PM

"Unfortunately as ZednCu has pointed out, it only works when you're arguing with people who don't know how to, ya know, check other polls."

Given that I trust non-partisan pollsters more than I trust Republican pollsters, Rassmussen isn't the equal of Gallup to me.

Rassumssen tend to get a noticeably more Republican sample than the median poll, which is why Obama does better in Rassmussen's "Democratic" samples than he does among other pollsters' samples.

Perhaps ZednCu thinks Fox News gives the infinitely most reliable news reports too...

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2008 6:45 PM

"The people alienated by Obama's lack of judgement won't come back to him because of a speech." The more relevant term would be "Clinton idelogue. Assuming a "lack of judgment" kind of gives the game away. How's that war coming?

Tim, if the goal is to win, as you put it, how's it going supporting Stephane Dion? Or are you a Jack Layton man? Parti Quebecois?

There are those of us supporting Obama who happen to agree, and see that as a point in his favor, cream rising to the top and what have you.

Posted by David B. | March 19, 2008 6:54 PM

"Or he [Obama] could have echoed remarks of truly courageous African American figures like Bill Cosby, who said in 2004..."

He's echoed the same sentiments as Bill Cosby on many occasions, albeit not quite as harshly. Like this one:

" Any African-Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don't also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers--whites, Latinos, and Asians."

Posted by AKBY | March 19, 2008 6:57 PM

AKBY:

What does that even mean? That's not a direct criticism, that's the vaguest of platitudes. I want him to say something that could get him in some trouble with Al Sharpton.

David B:

Well Dion was a great example of the Liberal Party choosing the least electable candidate in a leadership race. Either Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae would have been much better choices. The Parti Québecois is one of the two main governing parties in Quebec at the provincial level. The NDP has never won a federal election for reasons I won't bore you win - they are a third party so electability isn't the main concern. Unlike presidential elections - which are completely zero-sum contests - party's can play a role in a parliament without actually winning the most votes.

It's a totally different system, as I'm sure you know.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 7:04 PM

Re barbar

SLC was also an Edwards supporter.

Re Demosthenes

I take great exception to Mr. Demothenes classifying me as a Rethuglican.

Posted by SLC | March 19, 2008 7:15 PM

Michael Ignatieff!

So much for the man-of-the-people, economics trump foreign policy, liberal educated elites are bad!

I miss Belinda Stronach.

Posted by David B. | March 19, 2008 7:22 PM

What does that even mean?

I guess it's way over your head.

That's not a direct criticism, that's the vaguest of platitudes.

He is criticizing African Americans who use racism as THE reason for not becoming successful. And he's reminding African Americans that there are people, of all races, who face similar barriers to success.

Posted by AKBY | March 19, 2008 7:22 PM

The difference is Canada is a country where the most successful party is called the LIBERAL Party of Canada.

If there was a party called the Liberal Party of the United States of America it would get 5% of the vote.

Obama would do great in Canada... if he had some experience. Canada didn't have slavery, Canada didn't have Jim Crow, segregated schools and poll taxes. It's a different country with a different history.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 7:26 PM

Canada didn't have slavery, Canada didn't have Jim Crow, segregated schools and poll taxes.

Hit the library the next time you leave the house. There was slavery in Canada.

Posted by AKBY | March 19, 2008 7:33 PM

Well actually there was never slavery in Canada. Canada became a country in 1867, while slavery was banned in the British Empire in 1807... so not only was there never slavery in Canada but there was a full 60 years where slavery was abolished in British North America, while it was still pervasive in the United States.

Hey, Canada has plenty of human rights abuses in its past. The treatment of First Nations people and the imposition of the Chinese Head Tax are just two examples. Slavery isn't one of them.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 7:42 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Previously, Mr. Hack claimed that Senator Clinton was going down due to a lesbian relationship with an aide. Now he claim that she is going down because of a relationship with a religious group of dubious identity. Mr. Hack cites an article in the Huffington Post, the same web site that hosts the mercury militia, among other pseudoscientific whackjobs. Not a very reliable source. Now that Senator Obamas' religious views have been aired and Senator Clintons' religious views have been hinted at, could we somehow look into Senator McCains religious views. I understand he is a former Episcopalian who now worships at a Baptist church. How about looking into the minister at that Baptist church. Maybe he's as screwy as the Reverend Wright and the clowns at the Family.

Posted by SLC | March 19, 2008 7:50 PM

Yes, Canada became independent in 1867, but slavery was still a part of Canada's history. Slaves were legally emanciapated in 1834.

Posted by AKBY | March 19, 2008 7:54 PM

Anyways, nit-picking aside... it's clear that the US has had more of a problem with the race issue than Canada has had.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 7:57 PM

Americans are not usually in the best position to be criticizing others for being ignorant of other countries.

Then thank you, Tim K, for making the unusual more possible. But since I know your purpose for living is not to make Americans feel better about themselves - rather just a side benefit of your silly track record - at least you can sleep easy knowing that when Obama is elected President, you won't have to leave the United States.

Instead, you can stay at home and prepare the welcome wagon for Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 19, 2008 8:00 PM

After reading several articles concerning the negative criticism of Obama's speeach such as the ABC "truth detectives" and other stories from Newsmax and Fox news. I have to say that I am confident that this will not affect Obama as negatively as first perceived. The articles take on a predictable tact, nitpicking and inferring, desperately trying to project their view of "who Obama really is". Many times contradicting each other.

It wasn't so much the speech or the specific topics that Obama talked about. It was the gutsy, courageous move to take the issue head-on like a real man. There was absolutely nothing "politically correct",no hiding behind press aides, no calculated terse 1 sentence answers. He simply took on the most explosive topic in our country and carefully dissected it in an honest and human fashion. Something very few, if any other politicians would even dare to do.

He didn't back away from his pastor, or from acknowledging white's concerns. To hear the now leader of Black america (many in the past whom have rammed the race issue down our throats) acknowledge white frustration with affirmative action and whites unfairly being judged as "racist" for fearing violent urban neighborhoods....is simply astounding.

Words like these stick with you and repeat themselves over and over. The honesty and candid words will drown out the shrill and empty calls of hypocrite.

I think its time to look into Obama critics, to see if there is any substance to what they say. Critics on the left and the right are always shifting criteria for their approval at their whim and discretion and always in a subtle move to crown themselves as the sole beacon of truth.

The reality is, I haven't seen any one article review that captured every topic in the speech.

Posted by Matt | March 19, 2008 8:12 PM

There was a TNR piece, I think, comparing Obama with Trudeau. Pretty solid, although Michelle > Margot. What Obama has to say about race seems similar with what Trudeau had to say about urging the Quebecois to adopt a measure of "Canadian values," and, indeed, Trudeau's conception of "Canadian values" is a pretty lasting legacy -- probably what causes the Liberal Party to be the Loyal Opposition.

No doubt Trudeau'd heard some separatist talk in his time. Ever be in Montreal, along Rue Rene Levesque on Jean-Baptiste day?

Posted by David B. | March 19, 2008 8:26 PM

I want him to say something that could get him in some trouble with Al Sharpton.

Well Jesus Christ Tim K. why the fuck didn't you say so before?!

How's this---

Obama: Al Sharpton is a racist and race-baiting charlatan who created the Tawana Brawley incident out of whole cloth to advance his career and then get angry at whites because Al Sharpton hates teh whitezzzz.z.z.z.z.!!AAAAAAAAAAAAahhhhhhhhhhh

Is that fucking better? Idiot.

Posted by drjimcooper | March 19, 2008 8:29 PM

If the median voter were reading what Obama supporters have to say in these comments his support would be halved instantly.

The MoveOn.org/Daily Kos wing of the Democrats is going to destroy the party.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 8:37 PM

David B:

Re: Trudeau

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 8:41 PM

Gosh, Tim K, I hope that all my thoughts and comments go by the awesome standard of what is likely to please the "median voter"! Man, what a staunch advocate for free though, given that I myself am not running for their vote!

Hey, here's another statement unacceptable to the median voter: If you don't believe in evolution, f*** you. Also, if you're some idiot rejecting the science of climate change based on crap you've heard on radio talk shows, f*** you.

Hey, how's that sit with the median voter?

I'll go further: if you didn't like Bush Jr. but you didn't vote for John Kerry because he was for the war before he was against it, or because he had a long face, or talked boring, and his wife was weird, or you think something was fishy with his service in Vietnam, f*** you.

Ooo, should I run that by the median voter committee too?

Posted by El Cid | March 19, 2008 9:04 PM

El Cid:

Well your tantrum notwithstanding, if you want the Democrats to win this election they need to win the votes of a significant number of the people you are insulting.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 9:23 PM

The MoveOn.org/Daily Kos wing of the Democrats is going to destroy the party.

The MoveOn/Daily Kos wing of the Democrats supported John Edwards by a clear margin until the non-MoveOn/Daily Kos Democrats knocked him out of the race in favor of Obama.

Posted by J.B. | March 19, 2008 9:31 PM

Well, Tim K, your vapid generalisms aside, politicians are properly to think of things that will get the voters to vote for them.

I, however, am not a politician running for office, and I will balance the role of PR flack with that of arguments over actual issues, whether or not the discussion on a blog purposely about discussion of ideas not approved by politician' PR machines.

For example, even though I prefer Obama to win, I won't view myself restrained from talking about things with which I disagree with him on.

In addition, most of what was said by supposedly wise insiders on what John Kerry needed to say or do or spin during the leadup to and his actual campaign in order to not scare the median voter ended up losing many of the median voters.

Most of the supposedly wise advice that Democrats have listened to for 30 years about tailoring their message to the precious median voter has proven astoundingly wrong, so that's a standard I'm really skeptical of anyway.

Posted by El Cid | March 19, 2008 9:33 PM

El Cid: You rock.

I'll remember the Tim K "Canadian history didn't exist before 1867" formulation the next time a Canuck claims they beat us in the War of 1812.

Also, I happen to own an Ontario Public Schools geography textbook from 1921 (no kidding), which is all full of fascinating assessments of the character of the different peoples of the world, telling us all which of the world's peoples are more inclined to thievery, how the Negro has no cares in the world, etc. It's a eugenicists' dream.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 19, 2008 9:33 PM

If the median voter were reading what Obama supporters have to say in these comments his support would be halved instantly.

Additionally, any voter who spends his time poring over comments in blogs such as this is about as remote from the median voter as it is possible to be. And my guess is that such voters are overwhelmingly likely to be supporting Obama and posting just the sort of comments that Tim K so despises.

Posted by J.B. | March 19, 2008 9:39 PM

Adam Villani:

Forget 1921, there are public school textbooks in the United States in 2008 that teach intelligent design.

El Cid:

The only Democrat to win a presidential election in 32 years is named Bill Clinton. Do I think the Democratic party would do better listening to the DLC rather than Daily Kos and MoveOn.Org? Yes.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 9:47 PM

JB:

I agree with you... I think.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 9:51 PM

Tim K: "Buh Bill Clinton wun!"

Well, that's all cool that Bill Clinton won, and then the party did listen to him, and outside his vanishingly narrow victory, the Democratic Party went on to lose the Congress for 12 years, lost most state & local governments, allowed the Republican agenda to pretty much dominate, and usher in the Bush Jr. absolute power triumvirate.

Yeah, but other than that they totally rawked!!!

Posted by El Cid | March 19, 2008 10:16 PM

El Cid:

Exactly, you summarized the ultra-liberal Daily Kos/Michael Moore/MoveOn.Org take on the Clinton years very nicely.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 10:22 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau#Legacy -- pretty transformative, eh? Even if there are elements of separatism and Western Canada's abandonment issues, without Trudeau, things would be much worse. Obama, like Trudeau, understands that reconciliation is a process, contrary to your caricature of Obama's views. You're right, though. Trudeau's wife's name is Margaret, not Margot.

In all fairness to you, outside of a few neighborhoods in Montreal, and possibly Vancouver, Canada sucks considerably more than Americans give it credit for.

Posted by David B. | March 19, 2008 10:28 PM

Well, Matt read Obama's 442 page autobiography, thought about it for months, and the only thing he came up with to say about it was that it was well-written.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 19, 2008 10:30 PM

or because he had a long face,

John Kerry walks into a bar and the bartender says, "hey buddy, why the long face?"...

Thank you, thank you. You've been a wonderful audience. Be sure to tip your waitress.

Posted by Just Karl | March 19, 2008 10:39 PM

Well Trudeau doesn't have a wife, since he's passed away, and he hadn't been married to Margaret since the mid-1970's but that's beside the point.

Trudeau's legacy is mixed. That shouldn't be surprising since history isn't linear and change never comes easily even when it comes at all. Trudeau did negotiate the patriation of the Canadian constitution from Great Britain, and included in it a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has become a model (along with the US Constitution) for rights documents world-wide. On the other hand, Quebec didn't sign that constitution and Trudeau's Liberal party has not won a majority of seats in the province since that time (the Liberals had dominated the region for decades previously). The 1995 referendum on sovereignty for Quebec won 49.6% of the popular vote. So it's a mixed record.

Ironically (considering Obama's invitation to have a discussion about race in America) Quebec separatist sentiment has waned in large measure because it hasn't been talked about.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 10:41 PM

Thank you, Tim K, I'm glad you acknowledge my accurate recollection of history and that you consider me an unacceptable fringe-y extreme liberal type who should pass his comments by a DLC-approved PR department of a major politician for review.

And Michael Moore is fat!!! Har har har!!! You so funny! Ha!

Posted by El Cid | March 19, 2008 10:50 PM

El Cid:

Did I ever say you should say anything other than what you believe to be true? No. The point I was making was that Barack Obama would not do well to run a campaign directed at people like you.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 10:57 PM

That isn't what you said, Tim K. What you said was "If the median voter were reading what Obama supporters have to say in these comments his support would be halved instantly."

Now, if what you meant to say was that "Barack Obama would not do well to run a campaign directed at people like you", fine, and of course, I agree.

And obviously the exact same principle applies to Hillary Clinton or John McCain. The median voter who for whatever reason has concluded that John McCain is some sort of cool moderate regular guy "maverick" would probably be pretty shocked to see the commentary on actual conservative websites, and that's true even if it were the "saner" commentary, not the 'nuke Iran now' and 'end Social Security' types.

I fully admit to being an atypical American, many of whose views -- although correct -- might be found as objectionable or offensive to the "median voter".

Posted by El Cid | March 19, 2008 11:16 PM

El Cid:

Well I think both are true. I think if the "median voter" (and of course that's an abstraction) were reading what Obama's stronger supporters had to say it would be a turn-off, because I don't think the two sets of values converge on many of these issues.

I think it's a mixed bag when it comes to how the views of among the majority of folks here stack up. From what I've read many of the views on Iraq war and foreign border on fringe, extremist and irresponsible. I think the views on economic and other domestic issues seem a lot more reasonable, although not necessarily where the majority of voters are.

Posted by Tim K | March 19, 2008 11:28 PM

To be fair, Petey has said he'd vote Nader rather than Obama, so I don't think Republicanism is his problem.

Petey's problem is that he's utterly convinced that he knows more about politics than anyone else in the room, when he doesn't actually know any more than any other random schmuck on the internet. His predictions fell so far from reality that he simply can't accept that Obama - who he swore up and down had "no path to the nomination" - is about to get the nomination, much less the presidency. For Petey, being right really is more important than picking the best candidate; back in December he was insisting that Clinton was a nightmare and that he'd happily settle for Obama if Edwards's candidacy failed. But of course, he also assured us that Edwards's candidacy wouldn't fail - and I'm sure he believed it. As Edwards tanked, and his internet support swiftly went to Obama, Petey found himself arguing that Obama was the enemy now, and that everyone had to rally around Edwards's dying campaign. Now he's turned into one of those Japanese WWII soldiers, hidden away in a bunker, determined to keep fighting a war long since lost.

Posted by Christmas | March 19, 2008 11:45 PM

Back at the actual post... :)

My seventy-ish mother loves to use her new Mac to look up the full texts of speeches, videos of lectures, and the like. And it sounds like a fair number of her friends and neighbors do the same. Those who follow the news at all are quite likely to be looking for more than the network news will give them.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | March 20, 2008 12:21 AM

For those not impressed by Mother Jones running an article about Hillary and her cult, how something a little closer to...uh, this blog?

Like this Atlantic article:

How Hillary Clinton turned herself into the consummate Washington player
by Joshua Green
Take Two: Hillary's Choice
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary

Money quotes:

Of the many realms of power on Capitol Hill, the least understood may be the lawmakers’ prayer group. The tradition of private worship in small, informal gatherings is one that stretches back for generations, as does a genuine tendency within them to transcend partisanship, though as with so much that is religiously oriented in Washington, the chief adherents are the more conservative Republicans.

But among the prayer groups, one holds special status: a tight-knit gathering of about a dozen senators which still meets every Wednesday morning for prayer and discussion, led by Douglas Coe himself. Each week, someone starts the meeting by giving personal testimony, secure in the support of the audience. Once, Senator Dan Coats stood before the group and sang “Jesus Loves Me, This I Know.”

The roster of regular participants has included such notable conservative names as Brownback, Santorum, Nickles, Enzi, and Inhofe. Then, in 2001, just after the new class of senators was sworn in, another name was added to the list: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Since then, Clinton has teamed up on legislation with many members of the prayer group.

Hillary Clinton’s proficiency in this innermost sanctum has unnerved some of the capital’s most exalted religious conservatives. “You’re not talking about some tree-hugging, Jesus-is-my-Buddha sort of stuff,” says David Kuo, a former Bush official in the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, who worked with Clinton to promote joint legislation and who, like Brownback, has apologized to her for past misdeeds. “These are powerful evangelicals she’s meeting with.”

What she might do next vexes many in the Democratic Party. As Hillary Clinton has worked to establish her place in the Senate, she has also been central in the effort to build up a new party infrastructure. Democrats now seem poised for a comeback—perhaps as soon as this month’s elections. But many worry that Clinton will soon go further and decide to seek the presidency. Should she win the nomination but lose the election, they believe, the party could suffer incalculable damage.

Like any other senator, she is attended to by a press aide and a “body person,” cell phone to ear and BlackBerry to hand, who sees to her limitless horizon of engagements.

[And we now know who that "body person" is!]

The article isn't really about the "Family", but it includes this lovely little tid-bit about Clinton and McCain, which some may remember surfaced a while back:

"Some of these odd-couple partnerships have their roots in symbiotic benefit: Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Frist all made common cause with Clinton as a means of moderating their partisan image, just as she has used alliances with previous conservative critics to moderate hers. But Clinton has also displayed a subtler touch in the Senate than anyone could reasonably have expected, making especially good use of the ever-dwindling opportunities for casual commingling of members of the opposing parties. The Wednesday-morning prayer group is one. Another is the congressional delegation (“CODEL,” in Hill jargon), on which members travel together and wind up spending lots of time in close proximity. The story of one such trip, to Estonia, recently brought to light by The New York Times, gives a flavor of what Clinton is like in these settings. At a casual dinner with Senate colleagues Graham, John McCain, and Susan Collins, all Republicans, the waiter followed local custom by bringing a bottle of vodka and shot glasses, whereupon Clinton reached over and began pouring; a drinking contest ensued. McCain’s staff seemed pained by the revelation, and declined my request for an interview, because the last thing a Republican presidential hopeful wants floating around in the media is word that he’s becoming booze pals with Hillary Clinton. And McCain denied the story to Jay Leno. But when I recently intercepted him walking through the Capitol, McCain lit up at the recollection. “It’s been fifty years since I’d been in a drinking game,” said McCain, who as a former naval aviator knows whereof he speaks. He added, admiringly, “She can really hold her liquor.”"

Here's another little tid-bit:

"A number of mid-level Democratic operatives—the kind who could expect a good job in any Democratic administration—told me they didn’t believe she could win a general election, especially against a popular Republican like McCain. But at the same time, they did not entertain the possibility of working for another Democratic candidate. “It’s simple, really,” one of them explained to me. “Bill Clinton made my career—I wouldn’t be who I am, in the job I’m in, if he hadn’t made me. There’s no way I could ever work against Hillary.” He was conflicted about this, as are many others. It sounded as though he and his colleagues would rather cede the race than work against Bill Clinton’s wife."

For your further edification, here is the Mother Jones article referenced elsewhere:

Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics

News: For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating - or living her faith?

By Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet
September 1, 2007
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

Money quotes:

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

Clinton declined our requests for an interview about her faith, but in Living History, she describes her first encounter with Fellowship leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars, the Fellowship's majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, "is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

The Fellowship's ideas are essentially a blend of Calvinism and Norman Vincent Peale, the 1960s preacher of positive thinking. It's a cheery faith in the "elect" chosen by a single voter—God—and a devotion to Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers....The powers that be are ordained of God." Or, as Coe has put it, "we work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."

When Time put together a list of the nation's 25 most powerful evangelicals in 2005, the heading for Coe's entry was "The Stealth Persuader." "You know what I think of when I think of Doug Coe?" the Reverend Schenck (a Coe admirer) asked us. "I think literally of the guy in the smoky back room that you can't even see his face. He sits in the corner, and you see the cigar, and you see the flame, and you hear his voice—but you never see his face. He's that shadowy figure."

The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God—leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit." According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular visitor to Coe's Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance.

That's how it works: The Fellowship isn't out to turn liberals into conservatives; rather, it convinces politicians they can transcend left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics. Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move rightward.

Democrats in the group include Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, who told us that the separation of church and state has gone too far; Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is also a regular.

Unlikely partnerships have become a Clinton trademark. Some are symbolic, such as her support for a ban on flag burning with Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and funding for research on the dangers of video games with Brownback and Santorum. But Clinton has also joined the gop on legislation that redefines social justice issues in terms of conservative morality, such as an anti-human-trafficking law that withheld funding from groups working on the sex trade if they didn't condemn prostitution in the proper terms. With Santorum, Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act; she didn't back off even after Republican senators such as Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter pulled their names from the bill citing concerns that the measure would protect those refusing to perform key aspects of their jobs—say, pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions, or police officers who won't guard abortion clinics.

Clinton has championed federal funding of faith-based social services, which she embraced years before George W. Bush did; Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, says that the Clintons' approach to faith-based initiatives "set the stage for Bush." Clinton has also long supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that has become a purity test for any candidate wishing to avoid war with the Christian right.

The libertarian Cato Institute recently observed that Clinton is "adding the paternalistic agenda of the religious right to her old-fashioned liberal paternalism." Clinton suggests as much herself in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village, where she writes approvingly of religious groups' access to schools, lessons in Scripture, and "virtue" making a return to the classroom.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 20, 2008 12:25 AM

Back to the post- only someone who believes Obama is electable could believe the soundbite is dead. Keep dreaming and remember: B
lame Hillary!

Posted by phg | March 20, 2008 9:33 AM

"back in December he was insisting that Clinton was a nightmare and that he'd happily settle for Obama if Edwards's candidacy failed"

Yup. Obama was my second choice candidate for most of 2007.

Clinton's enthusiastic adoption of the Edwards universal healthcare plan and Obama's slimy running of Harry & Louise ads attacking universal healthcare for his short-term political gain flipped me.

I didn't foresee in 2007 that Clinton would act so courageously and that Obama would act so cowardly.

"As Edwards tanked, and his internet support swiftly went to Obama, Petey found himself arguing that Obama was the enemy now, and that everyone had to rally around Edwards's dying campaign."

Au contraire. Obama remained my second choice candidate well into January, and I was hoping Edwards stayed in the race post-IA in no small part to help Obama.

"But of course, he also assured us that Edwards's candidacy wouldn't fail"

I'll defy you to find any cite where I claimed Edwards to be the favorite for the nomination. I feel pretty confident that I never asserted such a thing because I never believed such a thing, and I generally don't assert things I don't believe.

You may not agree with me that Clinton's willingness to defend Democratic policy and Obama's willingness to trash Democratic policy is correct motivating behavior for deciding whom to support. There are many conceivable valid criteria that differ from individual to individual. But I'll put my predictive record up against the CW any day of the week.

Posted by Petey | March 20, 2008 2:43 PM

Rachel G:
"We don't elect presidents who associate with anti-american hate mongers like Wright."

c.f. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson

Unfortunately, we most certainly do.

Posted by AG | March 20, 2008 3:34 PM