Matthew Yglesias (April 24, 2008) - The Next McGovern? (Politics)

In this analogy, Hillary Clinton is Hubert Humphrey? Because that does not quite ring true.

Posted by The Modesto Kid | April 24, 2008 9:22 AM

Good point. If the party in power manages to be returned to office at a time when rice is being rationed in the stores, then American exceptionalism takes on a whole new meaning.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 24, 2008 9:24 AM

Oh wait, strike that -- learn some history, Modesto Kid! Clinton would of course be Edmund Muskie. Maybe that's not as far off as Humphrey.

Posted by The Modesto Kid | April 24, 2008 9:25 AM

This is very insightful. Also, Obama is a much better politician with a better team than McGovern. There won't be any Eagleton situations. Also, as George Packer noted, McCain is a much nicer guy than Richard Nixon. That is, there are lines he will not cross, which you could not say of Nixon or either Bush.

Posted by Will | April 24, 2008 9:33 AM

"if ... Americans keep dying in a war that offers no light at the end of the tunnel"

Yeh, there was nothing like that going on in 1972.

Posted by ostap | April 24, 2008 9:34 AM

Don't forget that John McCain has a secret plan for ending the war in Iraq in 100 to 1,000 years, as long as it's going well.

Posted by El Cid | April 24, 2008 9:34 AM

"McGovern!" is...probably an analogy we should all just agree to do without.

Word. Boooo-rrrring. And lazy.

But if anyone wants to mount a case that McCain is Nixon, and make it stick before the election, that's cool with me.

Posted by ed | April 24, 2008 9:34 AM

The administration controls certain things, like the terror alert level system, and whether we can be dragged, against our will of course, into military skirmishing with Iran.

Posted by Steve V | April 24, 2008 9:36 AM

I agree that because of the war, the recession, and general hatred of George Bush and his supporting cast, Obama will win in November unless McCain can persuade al-Qaeda to kidnap his wife.

But I don't agree that the McGovern analogy is useless. America is a rightwing country because of its global dominance, British heritage, history of racism, and recent frontier traditions. Obama is getting a chance because Bush/Cheney have caused such spectacular disasters; but I promise, it will not be long before American voters go right back to electing the most macho idiots they can find.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 24, 2008 9:37 AM

This McGovern analogy is just a symptom of boomer narcissism. I highly doubt that people sat around comparing the 1972 election to the 1936 election (though they did play out electorally similar, though one could say that same about 1964).

Heck, no one compares Obama to Mondale. Why? Because 1984 wasn't a defining moment for baby boomers. 1968 and 1972 were.

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 9:40 AM

If we're tossing around political analogies, why can't Hillary Clinton be William Jennings Bryan? Or is she better thought of as Chiang Kai Shek to Obama's Mao?

Posted by Helter | April 24, 2008 9:41 AM

I see a big difference between the Dem candidates. Here it is: How depressed would African-American turnout be if Clinton somehow wangled the nomination? And what would that do to her chances of winning ANY contested state? "A lot" and "kill them stone dead" would be my answers.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 24, 2008 9:41 AM

I think one of those great 'what-ifs' in politics is What if Tom Eagleton never had shock treatments? The severe damage his mental health issues (certainly mild by today's standards) did to the McGovern campaign are hardly ever mentioned today.

George may not have won, but I bet the race would have been a lot closer without the Eagleton disaster.

Posted by Will Divide | April 24, 2008 9:42 AM

In a certain sense, I agree. Obama as nominee would be more Jimmy Carter '76 than George McGovern '72.

He'd likely win narrowly in a year with a brisk Democratic wind at the back, accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of progressive policy, and pave the way for ascendent right wing politics in the future.

That said, the Obama coalition is largely the McGovern coalition, which is the point of the Judis piece that trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias are so eager to dismiss. The upscale goo-goos love Obama for many of the exact same reasons the upscale goo-goos loved McGovern.

And the folks who actually need a robust Democratic Party oppose Obama for the exact same reasons the folks who actually needed a robust Democratic Party opposed McGovern.

-----

"But if the economy continues to be weak and Americans keep dying in a war that offers no light at the end of the tunnel, it's very hard for McCain to win."

Matthew really ought to review the history of the '76 election. That year had an "objective reality" favoring the Dems even stronger than '08 will, and had Ford not had a major gaffe on the eve of the election, Carter may well have ended up losing.

That's what happens when you have the politics of "standing for nothing" practiced by Carter and Obama.

Also worth noting is that perhaps Matthew's belief in his subjective "objective reality" mattering more than, y'know, actual politics is why he's willing to lie to support Obama. After all, if campaigns and politics don't matter, why not lie to support the guy who'll help out your own career more? If elections really don't matter in Matthew's view, there's no moral downside.

But I guess it's easier to think politics don't matter when you know your rich daddy will take care of you in the absence of universal healthcare if you get sick, if you know your inheritance will take care of your retirement in the absence of Social Security.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 9:48 AM

This kind of thing -- the inherent unknowability of things like the Q3 GDP growth rate and the future course of inflation, the possibility of new foreign crises or dramatic changes in Iraq -- is what makes the outcome uncertain.

Don't we have a pretty good idea alrady(unless you are Arthur Laffer or Larry Kudlow)? Gas is racing towards $4/gallon and Wal-Mart is rationing rice. John Fogerty better be warming up his guitar.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 24, 2008 9:54 AM

Did baby boomer nostalgia stab Caesar and crucify Jesus? If you look closely, the ones who turned the McGovern campaign into the most excessive symbolic indulgence in literary history weren't those were part of it, either people like Bill Clinton or many less famous people I knew personally, who learned from it and went on their way, it was the right wingers like George Will and William F Buckley who invested McGovernism, a historically conditioned phenomenon if there ever was one, with an essentialist significance that met their needs, even if it had no real relation to the reality.

May I point out that, prone to nostalgia as they may be in their different ways, neither Buckley not Will is a baby boomer?

Posted by Gene O'Grady | April 24, 2008 10:04 AM

Petey didn't like McGovern? What kind of "leftist" are you anyway? If you expect Democrats to kow-tow to regressive working class attitudes on race, abortion and unconditional support of every military action our leaders choose to pursue, then why have a Democratic party at all? We can just have a Pat Buchanan/Huckabee anti elite neo populist party (presumably Petey's party) and a McCain/Romney party for the business elites and the trust-fund scumbags.

Posted by vanya | April 24, 2008 10:06 AM

That's what happens when you have the politics of "standing for nothing"

And what exactly does Hillary stand for besides more war?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 24, 2008 10:09 AM

Why do people always feel a need to grab some analogy from the past, when in reality the complex circumstances of human life change in so many ways so rapidly? I mean, how many elections and candidates have some perfect parallel in the past? Not many, once it all plays out.

Obama is no McGovern, and the circumstances are far far different.

And remember...many people thought Reagan was another Goldwater and predicted he would lose in a landslide. It turned out that times had changed to the extent that Goldwater's ideology was then ready to be made popular, given the right candidate. And Reagan was that candidate: smooth, articulate, friendly, likable, etc...who could take Goldwater's philosophy and put a soft enough edge on it to sell well.

Posted by cm | April 24, 2008 10:10 AM

Predictions based on historical analogies make for good parlor games but they are useless for evaluation of the current situation.

The overriding uncertainty in this election will be about the American attitude on race (or gender, in case of apocalypse). It is yet to be seen if we as a people are ready to elect a black President. From the sterilized atmosphere of Harvard or of a national news magazine race may seem to be a non-issue, but my sense is that most Americans will think twice about it if Obama is the nominee. I am not claiming that Americans are still largely racists, but that it is hard to believe, on the basis of history, that the majority will not use race as the overwhelming factor in making their decision to vote for the President.

Posted by gregor | April 24, 2008 10:13 AM

What exactly is Matt talking about when he refers to "Munich!"?

Posted by Denis | April 24, 2008 10:15 AM

Steven LaBonne makes a great point above. Hillary and the MSM are all agog about what the pickup-driving set will do if she's not the nominee, but I think that's peanuts to what will happen to the black vote if she snatches the nomination from Obama, who has more popularly chosen delegates (the only way she can possibly win). If she does that, the real Democratic base will cave.

Especially since, if you think about it, the Clintons didn't do a damn thing for the African-American community during their last tenure. Except for kicking them in the teeth with welfare reform (not to mention Sister Souljah, etc.). I think she's got real trouble on the off-chance she wins by super-delegate coup.

Posted by David in NY | April 24, 2008 10:17 AM

"probably an analogy we should all just agree to do without."

Oh the irony. To use is to validate.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | April 24, 2008 10:17 AM

"why have a Democratic party at all?"

So conservative Dems can insist that they own my liberal scumbag vote and then have temper tantrums when one time in my life I get to vote for someone who doesn't make me sick.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 24, 2008 10:18 AM

Petey makes a few fine substantive points, but it sure takes a lot of effort to sift through all the needless aspersion ("upscale goo-goos," "politics of 'standing for nothing'"), accusation ("willing to lie to support Obabma," trust fund mentality), and baseless prediction ("likely...accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of progressive policy").

Nevertheless, analogies are only useful to the extent they can help us learn from previous mistakes. I see very little evidence from this primary season that we have learned much of anything.

Posted by aba23 | April 24, 2008 10:19 AM

Re: This kind of thing -- the inherent unknowability of things like the Q3 GDP growth rate and the future course of inflation

Recessions are always lagging indicators in the public mind. Recall that in 1992 the actual recession was well over with by November but the public thought otherwise when they cast their ballots. The public's view of the econonmy is being determined today. Short of outright catastrophe very little will change that view before November.

Posted by JonF | April 24, 2008 10:22 AM

A Handy Style Sheet For Media Pundits, On Or Off The Internets

1.) 2008 is not 1972, though some might like it to be because it gives them a whole new straw-man theory to sell to their editors, friends, significant others, and pets, who are frequently the only real audiences these people have (Visualize David Brooks, talking earnestly to his pet hamster).

2.) Obama is not McGovern, though some wish he was, because they really hate Freedom.

3.) Iraq is not Vietnam, though it bears some resemblance.

4.) Bush is the worst President, and the most toxic influence upon the United States of America, in our history -- but he's not Richard Nixon, though some wish he was.

Pundits: Please feel free to write these down. Keep them handy -- in your wallet, right next to the organ donor card, and that snapshot of Megan McArdle's kids and Michelle Malkin's dog. Refer to it often.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | April 24, 2008 10:23 AM

IMHO, if the economy starts growing again, people will be comfortable enough to think about "how do we prevent the BushCO years from happening again?" and vote Dem.

However, the impolitic nature of Obama's "bitter" remarks has caused us to overlook their inherent truth. How Obama should have put it (and you'd think, being such a good speaker generally, he would have) is "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". If people are really nervous about their jobs because of a recession ("it's a recession when your neighbor looses his job"), then they will vote, out of fear, for the candidate who promises to cut their taxes so they have in their pockets a greater fraction of what little money they make -- viz. (sorry, it's still Pesach and the seders were not that long ago), they'll vote for McCain.

Of course if, Hashem forbid, there is a depression, people won't be afraid of loosing their job because they've already lost it ("it's a depression when you don't have a job") and they'll vote Dem.

So unless it gets much worse, Dems. will actually benefit, IMHO, if it gets better -- at the very least, if it gets worse, the Dem. congress will be blamed for blocking the Chimperor's agenda and "wanting it to be bad so they can win in 2008" (I think people still engage in wishful "Green Lantern" thinking).

Posted by DAS | April 24, 2008 10:26 AM

"Petey didn't like McGovern? What kind of "leftist" are you anyway?"

I'm a lefty who thinks that whether or not the left gets to play a part in governing actually matters.

Trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias would rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton, just as they would rather have lost with McGovern than won with Humphrey.

For them, it doesn't actually matter whether or not the left gets to play a part in governing. Their trust funds will take care of them no matter who is in power. They like the Adlai Stevenson style of Democrats who'd rather be "right" than be President.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 10:28 AM

It seems to be the conditions exist in 2008 for a misinterpreted Democratic mandate. If Obama is the nominee and wins the election, the margin will likely be something like 51%-48% if the campaign goes fairly well (although he could easily lose 50-49% as well). Progressives will no doubt take this as an endorsement by the American people of every Democratic agenda item and proof that the country is turning to the Left. Considering the "objective reality" Matthew alluded to, nothing short of a 60-40% blow-out would demonstrate any such paradigm shift. This is quite simply a "throw the bums out" election after a disastrous two-terms of George Bush.

I do not believe the centre of American politics has shifted appreciably in any fundamental sense, and there is no doubt in my mind that Obama stands squarely to the Left of that centre. The Clintons know where that centre is and move to it time and again. That's why I trust Hillary Clinton to win and govern in an effective way. After all, if a Democrat doesn't win or can't govern effectively, it doesn't matter how progressive they are.

Posted by Tim K | April 24, 2008 10:31 AM

Petey, you might want to actually address Chait and Kilgore's criticisms of the Judis piece, notably that the McGovern coalition of 1972 is a lot closer to a governing majority now than it was back then. (This is the thesis of a book that Judis cowrote.)

Also, the McGovern primary coalition of 1972 was weak in its demographics in the general election, losing the youth vote, having a lower share of the minority vote than previous Dem candidates, etc. Obama is gaining in the demographics outside the McGovern coalition, while he's also solidifying his hold on the demographics within.

Finally, Carter didn't almost lose save for a Ford gaffe at the eve of the election. Ford stumbled about a month before the election with his gaffe on Eastern Europe, and still climbed in the polls to within a hair of beating Carter. Carter had a huge lead at the start of the race, but there were larger splits in the Democratic coalition than there are today, splits that Carter exacerbated with his own mistakes.

Posted by Clark | April 24, 2008 10:32 AM

One thing about the McGovern stuff. He got nominated, with the significant help of Nixon's dirty tricks squad, fundamentally as an anti-war candidate. But by then, the US involvement in the war was significantly winding down and Nixon was regularly withdrawing troops. Congress had expressed its disapproval of continuing the war, and by the next May cut off funds for it. In 1972, only 300 servicemen were killed in action, down from a high of nearly 15,000 in 1968. This doubtless reduced the urgency of the anti-war movement and thus support for McGovern.

Posted by David in NY | April 24, 2008 10:33 AM

What exactly is Matt talking about when he refers to "Munich!"? - Denis

Whenever a dictator does something moderately aggressive and the military-industrial complex stands to benefit from going to war, the position of anyone who opposes going to war will be compared to that of Chamberlain at Munich.

IOW, it's a trite and abused historical analogy like comparing a Dem. politician to McGovern.

BTW -- if anyone was McGovern '72, it was Kerry in 2004 (although McGovern seems to be a better person than Kerry): you had a bona fide war hero who lost an election because the incumbent was seen as "tough" whilst the bona fide war hero was seen as "effete".

Posted by DAS | April 24, 2008 10:34 AM

Tim K, that assumes the center is static. Clinton keeps chasing the center as it moves rightward. Obama wants to shift the center closer to him.

In any case, if Clinton hadn't voted for the Kyl-Lieberman bill, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. It matters little whether there's a "mandate" in the electoral score. Both parties will try to spin a narrow win by the opposition as "not really a mandate." It's a mtter of who can take advantage of the opportunities to serve the best interests of his or her policy ideas to make them the "norm." I just happen to think that Obama is that candidate.

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 10:35 AM

If Obama is the nominee and wins the election, the margin will likely be something like 51%-48% if the campaign goes fairly well (although he could easily lose 50-49% as well). Progressives will no doubt take this as an endorsement by the American people of every Democratic agenda item and proof that the country is turning to the Left. - Tim K

And why not? Whenever the GOP has won by similar margins (think the 1994 congressional elections) or even has lost (2000) but gained power anyway, the so-called liberal media treats it as some sort of GOP mandate.

Posted by DAS | April 24, 2008 10:38 AM

Petey: For them, it doesn't actually matter whether or not the left gets to play a part in governing.

Petey: Sure a Hillary administration will screw over organized labor, but I'm sure if she's elected, she'll make sure to take care of the leaders who've endorsed her, even if those leaders' rank and file get screwed.

Posted by hlah | April 24, 2008 10:39 AM

Clark:

Are you actually arguing in favor of trying to win a general election with the McGovern coalition? Even if that coalition constituted a majority (which it does not, since being "close to" or "closer to" a majority doesn't mean a majority) that could win an election, it certainly is not a stable GOVERNING coalition.

David:

I wouldn't necessarily call Obama a fundamentally anti-war candidate like McGovern, but he's certainly a confirmed dove on foreign policy compared to Clinton. His firm commitment to meet with American adversaries and his braggadocio over being opposed to the Iraq war from the start are cases in point. His Pakistan comments can be ignored (like most of his trade rhetoric) as they were simply to appear tough.

Posted by Tim K | April 24, 2008 10:45 AM

You seldom see a new terrorism incident on U.S. soil addressed as a game changing event. I think it's akin to talking about your spouse unexpectedly dropping dead. Additionally no one wants to be seen as either wanting it or speculating how it would help or hurt their electoral chances. A "bad taste" aversion maybe. Personally I think it would benefit McCain. Dems would counter it pointed to failures by Republicans to protect us. That could be successfully confused though, a flurry of talking points about failed funding votes, obstructionist Dems. Dems in control of Congress recently, blah, blah, blah. The electorate seems prepared and willing to believe the worst as far as Dem security credentials. So, what say our contributors? New domestic terrorist event helps which party?

Posted by steve duncan | April 24, 2008 10:53 AM

"Petey, you might want to actually address Chait and Kilgore's criticisms of the Judis piece, notably that the McGovern coalition of 1972 is a lot closer to a governing majority now than it was back then. (This is the thesis of a book that Judis cowrote.)"

The problem is that a Democratic Party that loses the rural vote by 65 - 35 can never hold a real governing majority no matter how well it performs in the McGovern/Obama strongholds due to the way we elect the federal government.

As an illustration, look at the 2000 Presidential election where Gore won more popular votes than Bush. Despite this popular majority, Gore only won in 194 Congressional districts while Bush won 241 Congressional districts. and Gore only won in 20 states (40 Senate seats) while Bush won in 30 states (60 Senate seats).

This is due to Gore getting killed in the rural vote, which is dramatically overweighted in how we elect the federal government.

The problem with the McGovern/Obama coalition lies specifically in how it concedes overwhelming majorities to the Republicans in the rural vote, where voters cling to economic concerns that trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias seem to have trouble grasping.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 10:53 AM

I'm confused. I thought Obama was the next Dukakis?

Posted by right | April 24, 2008 10:55 AM

I've been reading John Judis for a while. What happened to him???

Not only is there the economy and the war, conservatives don't like McCain b/c of immigration and campaign finance reform.

And because of Obama the democratic base is motivated and turnout has been astronomical.

If Hillary cared about the Democratic party and the "American people" she would have dropped out when it became apparent she couldn't win. Instead she's doing McCain and the Republicans' work for them. If Obama loses it will be because of Hillary and the Hilbots.

Posted by Peter K. | April 24, 2008 10:59 AM

Petey: I'm a lefty

Petey: But her (Clinton's) Presidential candidacy is a disaster in the making for both progressives and for the Democratic Party in general.

Posted by hlah | April 24, 2008 11:01 AM

She wasn't my first choice, hlah.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 11:07 AM

If we are drawing analogies to the 1970s, 2008 is actually a lot more like 1976 than 1972. And Clinton is like a blend of Scoop Jackson (one of the ideological grandfathers of the neocons and Lieberman-style Dems) with Jimmy Carter (well, Bill Clinton is like Carter, and Hillary is his proxy, so close enough). Meanwhile, Obama is kinda like a combination of Mo Udall and Frank Church, except he is also black (not a lot of opportunities for historical analogies to that particular attribute in the 1970s), and adds in his Midwestern background.

And basically that is why he is going to beat Hillary's Jackson/Clinton combo. Indeed, if the "Anybody but Carter" vote in 1976 hadn't been divided up between multiple people, and if that single alternative had a little more support in the Midwest (Udall lost Wisconsin to Carter by around 7500 votes, but Carter got a big media victory as a result), and among black voters (Udall lost Michigan to Carter thanks to Detroit Mayor Coleman Young accusing him of racism for being a Mormon, which gave Carter an overwhelming share of the black vote), and we would likely have gotten a different winner in 1976.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 11:09 AM

Beyond the fact that McGovern is inexplicably supporting Hillary, this business of McG = Obama is sheer nonsense. And manages to be insulting to both men. The 60s and early 70s in this country were so vastly different in tone and atmosphere from what we have going on now that this kind of specious BS just enrages me. All this retro navel gazing depresses the hell out of me. Ayers, Wright, McGovern, etc. What next? Obama is closet hippie? He listens to C,S,N & Young when no one's around? Those days were painfully electric on all fronts. You could feel it on the streets. We've got nothing in the air right now that's even close to that. I wish we did. Obama is tough as nails as far I can tell. You have to be to put up with kind of ridiculous crap 24/7.

Posted by charlotte | April 24, 2008 11:11 AM

Tyro:

Obama may wish to "shift" the centre, but that's not really how things work. Liberals would like to think you can shift the political ideology of an entire society with rhetoric and speeches, or what they would artfully call "persuasion." That's just not going to happen. What good politicians can do is take advantage of the already-existing political currents in society as opportunities to advance certain policies, tailor their policies to fit those currents, or re-frame debates around issues in more favorable terms considering the political environment.

I know progressives are very ambivalent about the Clinton years because they see them as a huge missed opportunity to push a comprehensive progressive agenda. Certainly his personal misbehavior did squander some chance to get certain legislation passed from 1998-1999, but most of the scandals were part of a de facto right-wing coup attempt to over-turn a legitimate election. Overall, however, the Clinton years had a positive impact on the Democratic party and the country. Incomes were rising and inflation and interest rates were low. Military spending was on the decline and social spending was increasing modestly. Social Security was on the road to permanent solvency (or at least for 3 generations) and the budget was balanced. In other words, in evaluating the Clinton years, liberals have made perfection the enemy of the good. It's not realistic to expect a President Obama to do any better by the country than President Clinton did. He certainly isn't going to change the political system.

Posted by Tim K | April 24, 2008 11:11 AM

The problem with the McGovern/Obama coalition lies specifically in how it concedes overwhelming majorities to the Republicans in the rural vote, where voters cling to economic concerns that trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias seem to have trouble grasping.

Yeah like how Edwards conceded the rural vote to Obama in Iowa.

The biggest disappointment in the primary has been Edwards. He should have endorsed Obama, instead he held back like a wimp. Now it's too late, because it will look like he's jumping on the bandwagon. But being a rich trial lawyer, the primary probaly just seemed to be a game to him. His historical footnote will read "bitter pussy." Maybe he had some good ideas, but he wasn't Presidential caliber at all.

Posted by Peter K. | April 24, 2008 11:14 AM

Right, Petey, but has Obama shown any sign of conceding rural votes 65-35? He wins a hell of a lot of rural votes in overwhelmingly rural states, like Idaho and North Dakota. Even in rural Missouri, Obama outperformed the combined Republican primary field in some counties.

Posted by Clark | April 24, 2008 11:15 AM

Tim K, you act like his bragadoccio about being right about the Iraq war would hurt him electorally. Americans don't like the war and they don't like Bush, and that's really wiping out McCain.

I think one good lesson about Pennsylvania and, for that matter, many of the primaries is that it is hard to overcome fundamentals. Eg, Obama was down in Pennsylvania, and he stayed down in Pennsylvania. There wasn't much, really, he could do about it, except force Clinton to spend millions keeping it in her column. There are certain tactical advantages to be gained here and there, but the fundamentals drive the voters. And in this case, the fundamentals are all on the Dems' side. Talking about how some statement made by Obama here or there about which leader he would talk to when isn't going to change the electoral outcome.

We're reduced to discussing two things: which candidate will produce more gains for the Dems in the Congress and which candidate will accomplish more party goals while in office. Those are legitimate issues to consider. Who's more likely to beat McCain is not, because neither candidate is particularly weaker than the other.

Finally, Tim K, I believe that there are political currents involved that make Obama better placed to shift the center to the left than Clinton is. I think he sees opportunities for that, and she doesn't. Personally, in the Bill Clinton years, I think he did what he could with what he had. Unfortunately, I think that the Clintons have decided that the grand lesson is that what was best in the 1990s is what is best now. Plus, I think that Hillary Clinton is fundamentally more hawkish and more conservative than her husband, and that's precisely not what we need right now.

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 11:16 AM

Petey: She wasn't my first choice, hlah.

Petey: Senator Clinton needs to be politically slaughtered with extreme malice. I think we all agree about that.

Posted by hlah | April 24, 2008 11:20 AM

"Trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias would rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton, just as they would rather have lost with McGovern than won with Humphrey

That’s beside the point.
1) There is no good reason to think Obama is more likely to lose then Hillary.
2) We are going to win or lose with Obama, he’s overwhelming likely to the nominee.

You’re right the MY has started treating Hillary like a Republican, but that’s how you would expect a left of center blogger to behave when a Democrat starts becoming an impediment to the expected nominee of the party winning the general election.

Stop worrying about who some blogger’s hypothetical preference between an Obama lose and a Hillary win, and start worrying about non-hypothetical people trying to tear down the person that the party has chosen to be the nominee.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | April 24, 2008 11:22 AM

Petey, I have to wildly disagree that '76 was a worse electoral environment for incumbents than this year. All the things that made Nixon's second term a horror -- Watergate, stagflation, and the collapse in Vietnam -- were fading by '76: the mere replacement of Ford for Nixon made Watergate less salient, the economy was finally growing by healthy amounts throughout the election period, and the last-helicopter scene was a year and a half in the past by the time the Ford/Carter choice was made. Lastly, that election occurred at a time when the country had clearly broken from the Roosevelt coalition and was moving, by fits and starts, to what we now think of as the Reagan coalition.

Now is totally different. Iraq is not quite as white-hot as it was a year and a half ago, but it's certainly not disappeared and remains vastly unpopular. The economy is now in its WORST period of the entire Bush reign. (And Matthew, I have to dispute your "anything can happen economically between now and November" -- the remotest improvement, which theoretically possible, is up there with Hillary winning NC by 20 points two weeks hence) Finally, we're in a period where the nation has been gradually weaning itself off the Reagan coalition -- first by the halfway house method of voting Perot, then by voting for Gore in 2000, finally by giving Kerry an eyelash-loss against a wartime president with a growing economy and a united party.

Ford's close call in '76 is in fact far more analogous to what Kerry achieved in '04, which is why I think the references to the '72 election are utterly off-base. This is far closer to 1980, when a previously-unelectably-far-right candidate took advantage of a general move toward his party and the abject failure of an opposition party's president to shift the center of political gravity. I do think Obama's race could cost a few points in the end (as Kennedy's Catholicism likely did in '60), and supported Edwards at least partly for that reason. But I think the metrics for this election are still likely to give the Dems their widest victory margin (and strongest popular vote total) since 1964 -- and they have just as much right to proclaim that as endorsement of a more liberal philosophy as Reagan did to claim the opposite in 1980.

Posted by demtom | April 24, 2008 11:22 AM

"Right, Petey, but has Obama shown any sign of conceding rural votes 65-35? He wins a hell of a lot of rural votes in overwhelmingly rural states, like Idaho and North Dakota. Even in rural Missouri, Obama outperformed the combined Republican primary field in some counties."

Obama has been getting killed in the rural vote throughout the primaries.

PA is a decent illustration: Obama won big cities 66 - 34 while losing small towns 63 - 37 and rural areas 64 - 36. With some understandable exceptions, that's been the composite picture of the entire nomination race.

The entire problem with the Obama/McGovern coalition is that it only exists in big cities, wealthy suburbs, and college towns. You might be able to get to 50% nationally with that coalition, but you're always going to be operating at a sizable disadvantage in federal representation with that coalition.

The Obama/McGovern coalition is simply not a coalition that can establish a stable governing majority given how we elect the federal government.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 11:33 AM

Tim K -- A cogent analysis. Kudos. I don't expect Obama, if he survives this nightmare season, to change the political system either. What I would expect and would love to see brought to bear is some good old fashioned common sense in dealing with what ails us. Lost in all the charisma, elite, is he man enough analysis that passes for discourse these days is an appreciation for the young Senator's steady mid-Western sense of balance and proportion. That's what we've come to, I guess. The person who looks the sanest to me this election cycle is getting my vote. It sure ain't Medea looking to kill her children out of desperate revenge and it ain't McCain either. " ... in evaluating the Clinton years, liberals have made perfection the enemy of the good" is a great insight. Thanks.

Posted by charlotte | April 24, 2008 11:34 AM

DTM:

I like your comparison of Clinton with Henry "Scoop" Jackson, but not with Carter. Carter is synonymous with "weak." That's not an adjective that can be associated with Hillary or Bill Clinton. I also think Clinton can be compared with Muskie as the candidate of experience, and Humphrey as the "happy warrior." The comparison between Obama with Udall/Church is apt.

Tyro:

In this particular instance being against the Iraq war from the beginning is an asset to Obama. I was against the Iraq war from the start, as well. Had either Clinton been president in 2003 I have no doubt the US would not be in Iraq either. Notwithstanding his position on Iraq, however, I think he appears to have a soft attitude on defense and foreign policy issues. Democrats simply cannot afford that.

I don't think the country can afford to learn the wrong lessons from Iraq by being soft on Iran's nuclear program, practically ruling out the elective use of force, and treating diplomacy as an end in itself. That strategy will not lead to success. In the Middle East, the next president will have the very difficult task of extricating the lion's share of US forces from Iraq, leaving there a stable and reasonably democratic government independent of Iranian control, and preventing the ascent of Iran as a nuclear power; he or she will also have to make progress on the Israel-Palestinian front. If the next president seems so dovish and gun-shy he would almost never contemplate force, US diplomacy will completely lack credibility.

Posted by Tim K | April 24, 2008 11:39 AM

There is a lot of literature available about shifting the political middle. Basically, the most effective technique is not to try to move the middle itself, but rather to try to re-establish the outer boundary of what is considered acceptable as far out on your side as possible. That is because if you can get that outer boundary re-established, eventually the middle will tend to shift in that direction.

By the way, Petey wrote: "Obama has been getting killed in the rural vote throughout the primaries."

Petey is completely wrong. See here:

http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=countiesqc0.gif

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 11:45 AM

Tim K, I simply dispute your assertion that Obama is "soft." He's a rational leader who seems to view force as sometimes worthwhile and sometimes not. Clinton has a combination of being a reflexive hawk along with trying to overcompensate to prove how "tough" she is, which almost ruins her genuine hawkish credentials, because they come across as being made for political gain.

I think you're trying to hard to claim that Obama is a reflexive "dove." It's like trying to paint bill clinton as a "left liberal." You can keep saying it, but it won't "take," because there's nothing to back up the assertion.

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 11:48 AM

Tim K,

Carter was a "strong" primary candidate, of course, seeing as how he actually won. I also happen to think he gets a bad rap for governance, but in any event I see no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is "strong" when it comes to governance: her only major policy effort was an unmitigated disaster, and since then she has generally blown with the political winds and achieved nothing of note.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 11:50 AM

Charlotte:

Thanks, I appreciate that. I can understand why people would vote for Obama: it's a very hopeful message, in an attractive package, eloquently delivered. I just think a lot of people are setting themselves up for disappointment. If Obama loses (to either Clinton or McCain), progressives are going t o blame it on a cynical and racist society. If Obama wins, and when he fails to live up to the expectations (both inflated by him and projected onto him by supporters) he is going to be accused of being a sell-out or Republican-lite. The bottom line is, no matter how much I prefer Clinton to Obama, if he's the nominee I will be hoping against hope for his success. Why? It's pretty simple: the president nominates supreme court justices and yields the veto pen, and I want those powers in the hands of a Democrat.

Posted by Tim K | April 24, 2008 11:51 AM

Petey is a lying troll who should be ignored.

from yesterday's Hendrik Hertzberg blog entry (he worked for Jimmy Carter)

"Obama has never served on any corporate boards. Hillary Clinton, however, was a member of the board of Wal-Mart for six years, ending in 1992, when her husband ran for President. Her service on the board coincided with that of John Tate, who summed up his views on labor relations as follows: “Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off of the productive labor of people who work for a living.” These views were not youthful follies, left behind long before Tate joined the board. On the contrary, they reflected the long-held attitudes of Wal-Mart itself, which has been credibly accused of fighting unionization with such nominally illegal tactics as firing union supporters and spying on employees.

Although, according to the New York Times, Clinton “largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions,” she did use her position to push for the advancement of women employees and for the company to improve its environmental profile. These facts are in keeping with her reputation as a moderate reformer. Unlike the Ayers-Obama “association,” they are at least arguably relevant to what sort of President we might end up with."

Posted by Peter K. | April 24, 2008 11:52 AM

We are attempting to do something that is profoundly difficult. We are trying to elect an anti-war president during a war. I strongly consider both candidates determined to end the war. That makes this year like 68 and 72. America was against the war in 68 and really against the war in 72. the draft was in place and that made the war environment more intense.
But Americans were not able to vote for the anti-war candidate. That's why barack might be mcgovern and dukakis: he's not good at the symbols becuase he believes he is above symbols
and so we will be easy to defeat.
Hillary has built a history that makes her immune to many of these doubts. Most lefties hate her for it but it's what makes me love her and her husband. to me it doesn't look cynical or slick or whatever. To me this careful positioning looks wise and necessary and precise.

Posted by Michael C. | April 24, 2008 11:52 AM

Tyro:

Bill Clinton isn't a "Left Liberal." It's a good thing, too, or he wouldn't have won two presidential elections.

DTM:

By "weak" I didn't mean a weak campaigner, I meant a weak leadership profile. Jimmy Carter was a nice man who wanted to do well, but a complete disaster for the party and did not do well by the country. The legacy of the Clinton years is that the party is now competitive in all arenas of electoral politics: presidential, gubernatorial, congressional and state legislatures. Before Bill Clinton the Democrats controlled were doing very well with the latter three, but disastrously in the former, and arguably most important one.

Unlike Obama, Hillary has attempted a major policy initiative at the national level. Yes, she failed. But it's better to have loved and lost then never to have loved at all. I think we learn more from failure than success, and I appreciate Clinton's scars. Obama might think she's learned the wrong lessons from Washington, but that's his conceit based on a naive lack of experience. Maybe if Obama had been grilled in front of a Grand Jury or Congressional committee, he'd have more respect for the perils of the Capitol.

Posted by Tim K | April 24, 2008 12:04 PM

Petey: trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias

Petey: The Clintons seem to feel the Democratic Party is a wholly owned corporation of theirs, and that they are allowed to blatantly sleaze and slime other Democrats

Posted by hlah | April 24, 2008 12:06 PM

Michael C,

If people know you are positioning for political gain, you aren't very good at politics. And the consequence is that in the end you get very little political gain from your positioning, because people won't trust you, and specifically won't trust your promises that once in office you will act in accordance with your current positions.

And that is why Clinton is losing. If she came across as sincere and principled, she probably would have won handily. But she isn't sincere and principled, and she doesn't have the political skills necessary to at least seem sincere and principled, so she is going to lose.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 12:06 PM

I think hlah is my favorite commenter.

Posted by blah | April 24, 2008 12:09 PM

Tim K,

Bill Clinton isn't the one running.

That said, I would agree at least half, and maybe more, of Hillary's support is from people who see her as a proxy for Bill. And Bill would in fact have been a very tough opponent for Obama to beat. So, the fact that Obama has beaten Hillary handily is a testament to how weak a proxy she is for Bill.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 12:11 PM

DTM:

Obama never would have beaten Bill Clinton in his prime. It's sad to say because I like him, but Hillary was a stronger surrogate for him than he has been for her.

I think your dismissive attitude toward Hillary Clinton is arrogant, and it's pretty transparent that you have an irrational hatred of her.

Posted by Tim K | April 24, 2008 12:16 PM

"By the way, Petey wrote: "Obama has been getting killed in the rural vote throughout the primaries." Petey is completely wrong. See here:"

I'd love to know how that map contradicts what I'm saying.

Here's Clinton's rural advantage in a few bellwether states:

PA: 64 - 36
MO: 65 - 31
OH: 70 - 26
NM: 54 -41

Obama's strongest constituency has been urban areas in almost every state.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 12:18 PM

The legacy of the Clinton years is that the party is now competitive in all arenas of electoral politics: presidential, gubernatorial, congressional and state legislatures. Before Bill Clinton the Democrats controlled were doing very well with the latter three, but disastrously in the former, and arguably most important one.

This is an odd telling of the shape of the Democratic party during the Clinton years.

After only two years of his presidency, the House had their first Republican majority since the 50s, which they held until the last election cycle. They also captured a majority in the Senate. His presidency should have led to an easy transition to the incumbent VP, but didn't for many reasons, only some of them to do with dirty tricks. Following his presidency, in fact, the Republican party was at the most powerful point in almost a century, if not its history.

Posted by Brad L | April 24, 2008 12:18 PM

"I think hlah is my favorite commenter."

He's going to write my authorized biography.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 12:24 PM

Bill Clinton isn't a "Left Liberal."

That was precisely my point. However, plenty of people claimed he was, but the assertion just wasn't believeable. Same with your attempt to claim that Obama is some kind of week reflexive dove. You can keep asserting it, but isn't not a plausible claim.

Plus, your accusation of DTM having an "irrational hatred" of Hillary simply because DTM correctly diagnosed her electoral weakness is really out of line. I think you take it too personally when someone points out that Hillary's campaign simply hasn't been that great and that she positioned herself poorly.

Honestly, I think she's running a great campaign for 1996, 2000 or 2004. However, she is running in 2008 and seems out of touch with the circumstances. To claim that acknowledgement of this basic fact is "irrational hatred" just neglects the "facts on the ground": what Hillary Clinton was selling, lots of people aren't buying.

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 12:24 PM

Here we go again. McCain is hard to win because of Iraq and the economy.

What about IRAN, Matt?

Oh, wait, I forgot. Matt can't talk about Iran.

Bush puts Betray-Us in charge of CENTCOM and Matt can't talk about Iran.

Matt can't talk about Josh Bolton who said in 2006 that "The Dems will lose over Iran."

Matt can't talk about a Republican war bounce and the fact that neither Clinton nor Obama can denounce an Iran war when they've been hawkish on Iran from Day One.

Matt can't talk about Iran. Period. It'll fuck up his book sales.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 24, 2008 12:32 PM

Brad L:

I said the "legacy" of the Clinton years. You cannot judge the impact of a new political strategy after 2 or 5 years. What's the point of having control of the House for 50 years if you can't get a new social program past in 30 of those years? Without the presidency a party has little impact on foreign affairs or defense. Following his presidency the Republicans held the presidency, congress and governorships by the slimmest of margins, and all are on the verge of being Democratic this year. In 1976, even Watergate was barely enough to hand the Democrats the presidency. The 1980's were a total rout.

Posted by Tim K | April 24, 2008 12:32 PM

Petey, you're making the mistake of confusing primary with general election results. Like I said before, even in rural Missouri, which Clinton dominated, Obama outperformed the entire Republican field in some counties. He won't do that in the general election of course, but with rural Dems and Hillary Clinton all campaigning on his behalf, he's not going to lose 65-35 in rural areas.

Posted by Clark | April 24, 2008 12:42 PM

Tim K, the Clinton years were the last gasp of a Democratic strategy intended to shore up the southern flank. In that sense, he was very carter-esque.

In that sense, Clinton was a "last gasp" to help the party "stop the bleeding." However, the long term solutions were left to others: namely, convert from a system of cultivating big money donors (the DLC and Terry McAuliffe strategy) to converting to small-money fundraising, and the final abandonment of the south as a presidential and legislative strategy (note that for the first time in a century, the congressional committees are chaired by non-southerners) in favor of the midwest and rocky mountain states. Plus, there was more grassroots party building done years after Clinton was gone and everyone realized that the party was "weak on the ground."

Clinton was a tourniquet. The thing is, a tourniquet isn't a permanent fix. In fact, a tourniquet does damage if left in for too long. Hillary is trying to go back to the old tactics which were the price ones that left the party so weak.

Another analogy is the time-teller vs. the watch-maker. Bill was great at telling us what time it was. But you can't depend on a new bill clinton coming along any more than once every 20 years. You have to put a structure in place so that people can build on your legacy, and clinton didn't do that... that very weakness is what basically caused the democratic party to collapse in 2002. If anything is a testimony to the breakdown of the party in the wake of the Clinton presidency's aftermath, the 2002 mid-terms were it.

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 12:43 PM

Petey, you're making the mistake of confusing primary with general election results. Like I said before, even in rural Missouri, which Clinton dominated, Obama outperformed the entire Republican field in some counties. He won't do that in the general election of course, but with rural Dems and Hillary Clinton all campaigning on his behalf, he's not going to lose 65-35 in rural areas.

Posted by Clark | April 24, 2008 12:43 PM

I said the "legacy" of the Clinton years. You cannot judge the impact of a new political strategy after 2 or 5 years.

Well, in that a legacy can be judged from this short term a perspective (it has, after all, only been 16 years since he was first elected), I think noting the actual changes during his term and immediately after are certainly fair game. If you are arguing that we need to have a longer term perspective to understand his legacy, that's fine as far as it goes, but it would then be awfully presumptive to start making claims about what that legacy actually is. Call me in 20 years.

Posted by Brad L | April 24, 2008 12:44 PM

Petey,

That map contradicts your lie because it marks all of the many, many rural counties in which Obama has beaten Clinton, some by huge margins.

Tim K,

Interestingly, I don't actually hate Hillary Clinton at all. In fact, I suspect that under the right circumstances I could easily consider her a friend.

The problem is that she just isn't at all good at being an elected official. She has no real aptitude for politics, is not good at management, and finds it too easy to rationalize unprincipled and unethical behavior.

Interestingly, I think she could have made a good federal judge: without elections to worry about I think she would not have been tempted into the unethical behavior, and federal judges do not need to manage anything larger than their own chambers. But unfortunately, rather than following a path that could have led her in that direction after her graduation from law school, she decided to hitch her wagon to Bill. And by the time Bill reached the end of his political career, he could only help her launch a career in electoral politics. So that is how she finds herself trying to do something she isn't very good at doing.

Accordingly, all told I actually feel pity for her, not any sort of hatred. And who knows? Maybe once all this is over, she will find herself a new and more suitable path.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 12:48 PM

Petey, you're making the mistake of confusing primary with general election results. Like I said before, even in rural Missouri, which Clinton dominated, Obama outperformed the entire Republican field in some counties. He won't do that in the general election of course, but with rural Dems and Hillary Clinton all campaigning on his behalf, he's not going to lose 65-35 in rural areas.

Posted by Clark | April 24, 2008 12:50 PM

I've been re-reading a lot of the literature from the McGovern campaign, and researching contemporary reporting from the NYTimes archives, and I have to disagree with Matt. There are some striking similarities between the assumptions Democrats were making at the time (that the unpopularity of the war and the sitting president meant that ANY Democrat was likely to win in the general) and between the strategies of both the McGovern and Obama campaigns. McGovern ran as a "reform" candidate against important elements of his own party -- lumping "big labor" together with "big business" as equal evils (and offending rank and file union voters in the process). Obama is running as a "change" candidate against important elements of his own party and his party's most recent history of success on the national level -- lumping the Clinton Administration together with the Bush Administration as equal evils (and offending rank and file working class voters -- especially working class women, who are today as essential to Democrat victories as Labor was in the 70s).

McGovern sought to put together the same coalition as the one Obama is seeking now -- anti-war youth, minorities and upscale social (rather than economic) liberals drawn from the ranks of independents and moderate Republicans (people labor leader George Meany referred to as "$25,000 a year men"). In the primaries this coalition worked for him especially well in the heavily Republican states of the West (he won just about every state West of the Mississippi.) (Interestingly, he also picked up the Wallace vote in those states where Wallace wasn't on the ballot). Obama has had a similar success (in states that have little chance of going Democratic in the general election). In the primaries, McGovern was weakest in the most traditionally Democratic states. Same is true of Obama this time around.

McGovern also enjoyed significant media support and approval throughout the primary season. But it didn't prevent them from turning on him in the wake of a few initial blunders in the general.

Obama may eke out the nomination. But once Clinton is out of the picture, I think the real weaknesses in his candidacy, his campaigns erroneous assumptions and inherent weaknesses in his strategy and the inexperience of the candidate himself, will become more and more apparent. This is a very different time, it's true -- I don't think the conditions are such to create the blow out McGovern suffered in '72. But I do think the weaknesses of the Obama campaign strategy, and perhaps the candidate himself, are enough to make defeat very likely.

Posted by Anonymous | April 24, 2008 1:13 PM

Anonymous,

First, criticizing the nature of politics during the Clinton Administration is not the same thing as criticizing the people who then, or indeed today, support the Clintons.

Second, Obama has asked for, and often received, support from unions.

Third, Obama won Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, Illinois, and Hawaii--all relatively "blue" states in recent Presidential elections. He also won Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Washington, and likely will win Oregon, which were relatively close in 2004 but still remain crucial states within the Democratic coalition. He also won traditional swing states, like Iowa and Missouri. He also won Virginia and Colorado, which are not traditionally swing states, but trending that way in part thanks to recent migration.

The fundamental truth is that Obama has won every sort of state, and gotten strong support from all sorts of people, in many different parts of the country. Clinton, in contrast, has run well in certain limited regions, and the regional limits of her support is the reason she is losing.

Of course, none of this really tells us much about how either would fair against McCain in the general election. But we might as well get the basic facts right.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 1:35 PM

the circumstances of the 1972 campaign were very much circumstances of 1972 (see Rick Perlstein's Nixonland if you don't believe me)

Personally, I'd go with Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, but I haven't read Nixonland yet.

Posted by washerdreyer | April 24, 2008 2:09 PM

"Obama may eke out the nomination. But once Clinton is out of the picture, I think the real weaknesses in his candidacy, his campaigns erroneous assumptions and inherent weaknesses in his strategy and the inexperience of the candidate himself, will become more and more apparent. This is a very different time, it's true -- I don't think the conditions are such to create the blow out McGovern suffered in '72. But I do think the weaknesses of the Obama campaign strategy, and perhaps the candidate himself, are enough to make defeat very likely."

I don't think the war is as popular as some make it out to be. The economy is hurting, gas prices up, etc. Waving the bloody shirt over 9/11 isn't as effective anymore, nor is drumming up fear and playing to the lowest common denominator. The incompetence over Iraq and Katrina and corruption cost the Repugs in 2006. I think it will again. The Obama campaign has been tremendously effective. He wouldn't be beating Hillary if it hadn't been. It is almost statisically impossible for Hillary to win now, so I don't know why you'd write"eke" out a victory.

This primary, the biggest determinant in predicting who people will vote for is age. Old-timers in Pennsylvania voted for the familiar and like a third of the voters are over 65. The youth moved away. Before Iowa the naysaying pundits such as yourself said the youth wouldn't turn out. They were wrong and they've been wrong ever since. Pundits and polls are wrong as often as not. Perhaps more.

The democratic base is fired up, the conservatives aren't for various reasons which are unique to 2008 - we can go into them if you'd like since you apparently havn't been paying attention. The McGovern analogy is way off base. I don't see McGovern dusting off his shoulder and being as comfortable in his skin as Obama. Obama is more like Reagan than McGovern, which will drive the Right nuts. It's really a battle between the future and the past, hope and fear. (And America has a youth-worshipping culture for better or worse, so I'd wager on Obama over McCain).

*dusts off shoulder*

Posted by Peter K. | April 24, 2008 2:15 PM

Re: there is no doubt in my mind that Obama stands squarely to the Left of that centre.

You may (or may not) be right about this, but even with much larger Dem majorities it's unlikely that Congress with be to the left of the country's center. Any progressive wish-list whether endorsed by Obama or not will have to survive the grist-mill of Congress.
One factor though that may soften support for the Democrats in a few years: if a president Obama can nominate more than one (or better more than two) centrist Sureme Court justices fears about a GOP return to the White House or even Senate control will be much reduced.

Re: He got nominated, with the significant help of Nixon's dirty tricks squad, fundamentally as an anti-war candidate.

In what way did Nixon's people help McGovern gain the nomination? Were there GOP moles among the Democratic delegates? Drugged punch bowls?

Posted by Jonf | April 24, 2008 2:50 PM

Even if you insist on using the McGovern analogy (which, for openers, ignores the vast charisma gap between McGovern and Obama -- and I say that as someone who was proud to cast my first presidential vote for McGovern), two important things have to be noted:

1) The McGovern coalition was in its infancy in 1972; it has now expanded (racially, socially) to the point where McGovern would have done 7-10 points better. Assuming no change in the electorate would have led someone to conclude Reagan '80 was just as much a goner as Goldwater.

2) Nixon was, in polling, a VERY popular president in 1972. He'd done China and held a Russian summit. His wage and price controls had temporarily pushed the economy into boom-mode. And Henry K announced "Peace is at hand" a few weeks out from voting. The opposition had no cards to play. Today, we have the least popular president ever, with failure on multiple fronts.

Why do people persist in over-complicating presidential elections? They're not existential exercises where voters act on whim (though the press will always try to pretend that's the case). They're considered judgments based on preponderance of the evidence. The evidence today says, Throw the bums out, and it would defy all American electoral history for that not to happen.

Posted by demtom | April 24, 2008 2:53 PM

Peter K --

What cost McGovern the election in '72 wasn't a surge in popularity for either the war or Nixon. It was apathy among the Democratic ranks. '72 turned out to be an extremely low turn out year -- in which rank and file Democrats just didn't show up, and, when they did show up, often left the top of the ticket blank (but did vote down ticket -- Democrats made legislative gains, despite McGovern's lack of popularity with the party's base). And, of course, the young voters, independents and moderate Republicans the campaign had based their strategy on (and trashed their own party's most important constituency to court) didn't show up for McGovern either.

McGovern ran against his own party in the hope of building a new coalition in which Labor wasn't so important. (That notion was popular with McGovernite theorists at the time -- similar to today's Obama supporters who are hoping to create a new coalition in which the working class won't play any part.) But, in the end, he didn't get a new coalition -- his divisive campaign strategy just led to apathy instead.

Posted by Anonymous | April 24, 2008 3:07 PM

similar to today's Obama supporters who are hoping to create a new coalition in which the working class won't play any part.

Are you saying that the bevy of unions that Obama has lined up don't constitute the "working class"? You argument is like claiming that Clinton is trying to put togteher a coalition in which African Americans do not play a part.

McGovern ran explicitly *against* the unions (trying to make an against-big-business-and-unions argument). Both Obama and Clinton are running campaigns whose domestic policies are designed to aid the respective bases that they are losing. What's killing Hillary? Her mindless support for the war, inability to attract new voters, and having extremely poor management in her campaign and dependence on poor-quality staff.

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 3:19 PM

McGovern ran against his own party in the hope of building a new coalition in which Labor wasn't so important.

I would put it differently. Labor leaders like George Meany hated McGovern, partly because of McGovern’s role in reforming the Democratic nomination process (which reduced the power of labor leaders), partly because McGovern had voted against labor on certain key issues as senator, and partly because Meany was an unrepentant hawk. Meany even lobbied the AFL-CIO to remain neutral in 1972, the only time the AFL-CIO has ever declined to endorse a Democratic presidential candidate.

Anyway, I don’t think you can compare Obama to McGovern in that regard. Obama has gotten a lot of labor support already; and he’ll get the support of unions that’ve endorsed Hilary if (and when) he gets the nomination.

What cost McGovern the election in '72 wasn't a surge in popularity for either the war or Nixon.

Again, I disagree. Certainly, the war in Vietnam wasn’t popular, but Nixon become much more popular during 1972, with the trip to China, détente with the Soviet Union, the signing of the SALT Treaty, pumping money into the economy, etc.

Posted by Peter H | April 24, 2008 3:41 PM

DTM is probably the patronizing and presumptuous commenter here.

I think you should find a more suitable role for yourself here, because clearly your political analysis is pretty weak.

Posted by Tim K | April 24, 2008 4:13 PM

Tim K -

We've been through this before but your political analysis is fatally wounded by your obsessive need to attack people personally. DTM is patronizing and has an irrational hatred of HRC, you called me sexist and God only know what other barbs you send out to other people as I don't check these blogs every day. If you have any faith in the correctness of your arguments, you really shouldn't feel a need to try and dismiss people by calling them names. Such things are beneath me and if you fancy yourself an intelligent man, should also be beneath you.

Posted by Raindog | April 24, 2008 5:45 PM

To be fair, I've been pretty patronizing with Tim K lately, more or less because I have grown tired of him repeating the same provably false descriptive claims over and over again in each new thread as if they hadn't been proven false in each prior thread.

But as I noted before, I don't hate Clinton. For that matter, I don't hate Tim K. But pity? That I do feel for both of them.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 6:48 PM

My point is Tim doesn't seem like a bad guy, at least compared to some posters here. But his insults really detract for any points that he might try to make.

Posted by Raindog | April 24, 2008 7:34 PM

Tim -

You know, I’m trying to figure out where your championing of Hillary Clinton comes from. If you were over 60, a woman over 40 or just a plain racist, it would be easy enough to explain. Not that all of HRC supporters are one of these things of course. But the level at which you express your constant support for her would seemingly give you a label of “die hard” supporter. But I’m going to assume that you aren’t any of these things. I’ll be polite and give you the benefit of the doubt that you support Hillary for logical, defensible reasons.

Ironically enough, I would agree with most of your description of Bill Clinton’s presidency. He managed a strengthening economy very well and had some foreign policy triumphs, with his greatest sin being his self-destructive nature that nearly gave the crazed GOP of the time the rope in which to hang his entire administration. Had I been old enough to vote, (I was only a few months too young for ’96), I would have happily voted for him both times. Our differences can be grouped together into a few major topics.

I don’t see Bill Clinton as the originator of some brilliant political strategy that showed the Democratic Party “THE WAY” for electoral victory until Judgment Day. He was a late ’60, early ‘70’s boomer college liberal, who entered politics and was shocked and traumatized by Ronald Reagan’s electoral massacre in 1980. The scariest part of Reagan was that he had a philosophy. (Nixon destroyed McGovern but Nixon’s administration also saw the creation of OHSHA, the EPA and a national health care plan that got voted down by liberal Democrats.) Old school liberals like Ted Kennedy couldn’t change their stripes even if they wanted to. But Clinton could.

When it was time for his WH run, he ran as a “centrist” Democrat. Basically he moved the party to the right, plain and simple. Obama was correct when he said Clinton was not a transformational figure like Reagan was. Clinton did what he did for his own personal ambition of course. But he was the first Democrat in 12 years to get elected to the WH and was the first Democrat in 52 years to get re-elected. So I’m not going to question his judgment for his ’92 and ’96 races.

But if the country really is a right or even a center-right country, how they hell do you move it to the left? If Bill Clinton did such a great job of inching it towards that direction, why did “W” sweep to victory as Reagan’s heir? Is it so impossible for the left to do what the right did in 1980? Ok, let’s say the country is too conservative for that; why not try a “liberal” 1980 revolution half-way. Or at least, let us acknowledge that we should be working towards that direction. To me, the restoration of the Clinton dynasty is basically saying, “we can’t do much good, all we can do is gain power and stop the GOP from doing evil.”

Posted by Raindog | April 24, 2008 7:50 PM

Tim -

You know, I’m trying to figure out where your championing of Hillary Clinton comes from. If you were over 60, a woman over 40 or just a plain racist, it would be easy enough to explain. Not that all of HRC supporters are one of these things of course. But the level at which you express your constant support for her would seemingly give you a label of “die hard” supporter. But I’m going to assume that you aren’t any of these things. I’ll be polite and give you the benefit of the doubt that you support Hillary for logical, defensible reasons.

Ironically enough, I would agree with most of your description of Bill Clinton’s presidency. He managed a strengthening economy very well and had some foreign policy triumphs, with his greatest sin being his self-destructive nature that nearly gave the crazed GOP of the time the rope in which to hang his entire administration. Had I been old enough to vote, (I was only a few months too young for ’96), I would have happily voted for him both times. Our differences can be grouped together into a few major topics.

I don’t see Bill Clinton as the originator of some brilliant political strategy that showed the Democratic Party “THE WAY” for electoral victory until Judgment Day. He was a late ’60, early ‘70’s boomer college liberal, who entered politics and was shocked and traumatized by Ronald Reagan’s electoral massacre in 1980. The scariest part of Reagan was that he had a philosophy. (Nixon destroyed McGovern but Nixon’s administration also saw the creation of OHSHA, the EPA and a national health care plan that got voted down by liberal Democrats.) Old school liberals like Ted Kennedy couldn’t change their stripes even if they wanted to. But Clinton could.

When it was time for his WH run, he ran as a “centrist” Democrat. Basically he moved the party to the right, plain and simple. Obama was correct when he said Clinton was not a transformational figure like Reagan was. Clinton did what he did for his own personal ambition of course. But he was the first Democrat in 12 years to get elected to the WH and was the first Democrat in 52 years to get re-elected. So I’m not going to question his judgment for his ’92 and ’96 races.

But if the country really is a right or even a center-right country, how they hell do you move it to the left? If Bill Clinton did such a great job of inching it towards that direction, why did “W” sweep to victory as Reagan’s heir? Is it so impossible for the left to do what the right did in 1980? Ok, let’s say the country is too conservative for that; why not try a “liberal” 1980 revolution half-way. Or at least, let us acknowledge that we should be working towards that direction. To me, the restoration of the Clinton dynasty is basically saying, “we can’t do much good, all we can do is gain power and stop the GOP from doing evil.”

Posted by Raindog | April 24, 2008 7:52 PM

One of the biggest mistakes the Democratic Party ever made was thinking it could simply hold up the banner of FDR forever and expect to compete for the WH. They basically assumed that the great things the party did for America and the world in the 1930’s and 1940’s as liberals would buy them credibility for their new liberal policies evermore. They didn’t bother to try and construct a new narrative for their policies. Many white people became working to middle class and with varying degrees of comfort, and began to look at poor people as lazy; thusly the New Deal social justice ethos lost its effectiveness. Also, the fact that liberals of the New Deal era were often more hawkish than their GOP opponents was forgotten in the 1970’s by everyone but Bob Dole. And the fact that liberals often had wildly varying levels of commitment towards civil rights for blacks was forgotten in the 1960’s. Liberals and by extension, the Democratic Party, became identified with minorities, those unconcerned with national defense and those very concerned with lazy poor people. Perhaps this was inevitable, perhaps not.

And the thought that the country is basically a conservative country, where a liberal can not win the WH and govern effectively, ignores the fact that liberal Democratic presidential candidates also run crap campaigns. McGovern and Kerry were genuine war heroes who came from less than wealthy backgrounds, yet they let their opponents characterize them as uber-rich pansies. Dukakis blew an 18-point lead and let a rich senator’s son obscure the fact that he was the son of immigrant parents who rose in world of bloody Boston politics solely because he was an honest, hard-working civic leader. Gore pretty much did Bush’s work for him, turning a rather conservative Pro-Life Democrat who enlisted into the army to try and save his anti-Vietnam War father’s US Senate seat, into a uncomfortable effete.

Perhaps Bill Clinton won because he fought a tough campaign? He had people like James Carville, who in my opinion has revealed himself to be a rather disgraceful person. JFK won in 1960 with the help of some rather nefarious characters, and I don’t mean those myths about the Mob either. I’m talking about the political operatives that came up with this flyer showing Nixon with a group of NAACP leaders. Kennedy’s crew distributed the flyer all throughout the south, identifying the scene in big, bold lettering.

Basically, when the Dems are willing to fight as dirty as the GOP, they win, when they don’t, they lose. Perhaps the question is not whether Obama is too liberal but is he tough enough. We don’t know, we also don’t know if Hillary Clinton is tough enough either. Dealing with right-wing attacks as first lady is not the same thing as dealing with them as an elected official. Neither Obama nor Clinton has run a tough, prime-time election race until now. You break in an election and you lose. You break as someone’s spouse and what??? You get divorced? Really, one can look at the ’94 Republican landslide as Hillary being broken. Americans rejected the “Co-Presidency” and Hillary became a more traditional first lady.

Posted by Raindog | April 24, 2008 7:55 PM

All of this leads me to argument #2. No matter how you would like to spin it, Hillary can not be credited with the successes of Bill Clinton’s presidency to any large degree. There is no evidence. In fact, there is significant evidence to the contrary in the cases of the Irish peace process, the Oslo accords and anything to do with the Balkans. Hillary is running away from NAFATA, so what else is there? Does she want to claim welfare reform or the passage of DOMA? She tried to steal the credit of SCHIP’s passage away from Ted Kennedy but the evidence stops her cold. In reality, the one piece of legislation that she had a central role in was health care reform. And it failed! Why? Because she arrogantly insisted it had to be her way or the high way. Other plans offered by Democrats were rejected; no accommodations or modifications could be made. And the bill was composed in secret and pushed though without any regard to the typical procedures. Thus her own party, rightly offended, killed it.

Of course, most of the MSM won’t touch any of this, too boring for them. So when Hillary talks about 35 years of experience, they just lap it up. But for me, as a history teacher, I don’t mind doing research. So for me, if Hillary wants to claim 35 years of experience, she should have put her name on a ballot instead of marrying Bill Clinton and riding his coat-tails. Maybe I’m just too much of a feminist? I want to see the first female President make in on her own efforts, like Nancy Pelosi did when she became the first female Speaker of the House.

So Tim, if you have any evidence of HRC’s actual contribution towards the betterment of America, (in particular, the time between 1993 and 2001), please let me know. And please tone down the insults, in particular the “sexist” comments. There are plenty of other reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton, beside the fact that she’s a woman seeking power. There is her GOP-like phoniness, her GOP-like cynicism, her GOP-like dishonesty, her GOP-like campaign tactics…etc. Pretty much everything about her, except for SOME of her policies, is GOP-like. So as a left-leaning Democrat, I’m not too fond of her right now. I liked her a lot, this time last year. And there are still female pols in America I like very much; some of them even support Hillary!

Posted by Raindog | April 24, 2008 7:59 PM

Damned double post, it’s like a huge scratch on the hood of a black ’67 Olds Toronado in cherry condition.

Posted by Raindog | April 24, 2008 8:02 PM

Raindog:

It's pretty clear from day one that in this comment section there is one high standard of political discourse expected of Clinton supporters, while Obama supporters can get away with murder and be defended for it, even while ejecting the most vicious bile you can think of. For this reason your attacks on me have zero credibility, and hence mean nothing. Any personal insults I do hurl at others are only in response to offensive or dismissive comments from others. Is it pretty? No, but I will not allow people like DTM to say whatever they want and expect me to be polite to them.

Now, why do I defend and support Hillary Clinton so fervently, and attack Obama so consistently? To be blunt, I think his message is non-sense. To be charitable, I think he is selling progressives a dream. If I were trying to be unkind, I would call it peddling snake oil to win an election. There is not going to be fundamental change in Washington. Lobbyists are not going to lose power. Corporations are not going to lose power. Trade unions and students and liberal activists are not going to sit at "the big table" with entrenched and powerful interests and work out a left-wing agenda of progressive transformation. Everyone is not going to just come together and solve the countries problems. That's never, ever happened, and it's not going to happen now no matter what Obama thinks he's going to do once inaugurated. Souls aren't going to be healed and some amorphous, omnipotent force of "change" is not going to sweep the nation. That's a fairy tale worthy of the Brothers Grimm, not a genuine political strategy.

Real change is hard, comes a piece at a time, and it doesn't come from national unity. It comes from out-maneuvering and dividing your political opponents and allying yourself with enough interest groups on any given issue to push through some - inevitably compromised - version of whatever reform is being sought. Whoever attempts this is going to make powerful enemies and they will try to destroy that person politically and probably even personally. That not only happened to Bill Clinton, but to Andrew Jackson in the 19th century. If Obama attempts to get things done that powerful interests and the political opposition do not like, it will happen to him as well. Nobody is "coming together." Partisanship has been with us since the beginning of the Republic (and in every modern democracy forever) and will be around for the imaginable future.

Since I don't believe in the central promise of his candidacy what reason do I have to support him? His specific policy proposals, such as they are, not solid but relatively unimpressive, boiler-plate Democratic proposals.

Posted by Tim K | April 25, 2008 1:48 AM

Per the above:

"A cynic knows the price of everything. But, the value of nothing."

Oscar Wilde

Just having Obama in The White House might create a spirited new paradigm for positive change. *Hope - it's a strenuous habit, but it's better than selling your soul for 99 years in Iraq.

Posted by Trevor | April 25, 2008 3:17 AM

Raindog --

I'm not even a Democrat but I'll give you two ways in which Clinton improved my life and the lives of thousands, if not, over time, millions, of others;

1.) During the brief time she was in charge of health care policy she made sure that, for the first time, significant amounts of research money were devoted to women's health care issues. This led directly to the huge advances in, among other things, treatment for breast cancer which, over the last 15 years, has greatly increased the survivability of that disease. According to my doctor (an Obama supporter), it led directly to the treatments I am undergoing today that are expected to provide a total cure. (And, of course, since then, she has been the major force behind SCHIP and efforts to expand health care to uninsured children.)

2. Clinton has long been a proponent of micro-financing and innovative programs designed to foster small business creation. Although mostly done on a small scale, and immediately cancelled after Bush took office, these programs, instituted during her husband's administration, helped many people, including minorities and people in economically depresssed areas (the constituencies they were most aimed at) get financing that would not have been available through banks or even traditional SBA programs. In fact, such a program provided the small amount of financing ($7,000) that, at a critical time, provided the boost that greatly magnified the possibility for profit for my own successful small business, by providing low-interest, quickly repaid cash that allowed me to take advantage of an unexpected opportunity to buy out a supplier. There was a huge explosion in small business creation during the Clinton years precisely because of the administration's willingness to experiment with programs like this.

Now, you may not consider the people being helped by such measures worthy constituencies -- in fact, you may think that any programs that might solve problems or create a greater quality of life for such constituencies as simple "pandering." Personally, conservative though I am, I think that this kind of thinking represents a much better use of my tax dollars than most of what gets proposed and enacted in Washington. This isn't, in my book, pandering -- these are basic, pragmatic ideas for improving the "welfare of the nation" -- something that our constitution suggests is a major purpose of government. And Clinton has a lot of other equally pragmatic and interesting ideas.

Why not put your hate aside, and your ideological preening, and take an objective look at them?

No politician, Obama included, is going to change your world or even the basic conflicts inherent in our system of government. More important is this -- are we fortunate enough to have at least a few politicians who see clearly, have a some good, pragmatic ideas (and the persistence, strength of character and smarts to pursue them) who can, along with others, help us deal with the problems most impacting the lives of a majority of our citizens, and the welfare of the nation as a whole, at this moment in time?

Hope is something Americans have in abundance -- it's part of our national DNA. No one needs a politician to provide hope. And change, of course, is inevitable. But good ideas and competence appear to be in extremely short supply at the moment. In both parties. And among the citizenry in general (who appear to "hoping" for the distraction of grand emotion more than for actual solutions to problems -- perhaps because problem solving requires actually facing up to problems.)

I wouldn't suggest you vote for Hillary. But I might suggest you not expect so much from Obama. It's not fair to him, and will ultimately be greatly disappointing to you.

Posted by Anonymous | April 25, 2008 8:55 AM

Tyro --

But very few of today's "working class" are union members (the unions of most importance to Democrats today are, in fact, most likely to represent educated government workers).

Non-union working women are the constituency today that bear the most similarity, in terms of loyalty and importance to Democratic victories, to the "Big Labor" unions of the past.

Precisely the constituency that the Obama "movement" most disdains and has most alienated.

Posted by Anonymous | April 25, 2008 9:11 AM

Anonymous,

What makes you think the Obama campaign "disdains" non-union working women? And please do not cite comments by self-described Obama supporters on the Internet--every candidate has nominal supporters who post nasty things on the Internet.

Generally, the supporters of one candidate are always going to feel somewhat "alienated" by a rival candidate precisely because that rival candidate is trying to beat their preferred candidate. And I don't see much evidence that Clinton's supporters are notably more "alienated" than the supporters of any other losing candidate after a close and lengthy nomination contest.

In other words, what exactly has Obama done to alienate Clinton supporters other than to beat Clinton? Because any alienation resulting from beating Clinton obviously wasn't avoidable.

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 11:29 AM

Tim K can safely be ignored because 1) he seems to think the purpose of US foreign policy is to defend Israel and ignore al-Qaida where it actually is and 2) assumes that Obama supporters must believe everything he says, including any hyperbole. He will start making a fair point and then just turns into a jackass when someone challenges him. He also mistakes the aesthetics of toughness with sound foreign policy judgment (which somehow always seems to translate into "defend Israel to our own detriment"). From what I can tell, his problems with Obama vis-a-vis Clinton come down to Israel.

"In what way did Nixon's people help McGovern gain the nomination? Were there GOP moles among the Democratic delegates? Drugged punch bowls?

Posted by Jonf | April 24, 2008 2:50 PM"

While CREEP wasn't trying to help McGovern directly from what I know, McGovern benefited from the "Canuck letter," a forgery of CREEP that suggested that Muskie was racist against the Quebecois. When he was responding to this and slurs against his wife while campaigning in NH, he appeared to start crying on camera (which he then claimed was snow turning to water on his face). This helped McGovern to do better there then was expected.

What makes any two-way race incomparable to the 1972 campaign is the fact that in 1972 three candidates captured around 25% of the primary vote each: McGovern, Muskie and George Wallace. It's easy to see how in such a situation any of the three candidates would end up with 50-75% of the party against them from the outset because they were so different culturally and on policy. In addition, it's worth remembering that without Clinton getting Latino support, she wouldn't be able to rack up many of her major wins (CA, NJ, TX, etc.), so by the "gets minority support" criteria either of them could be McGovern.

It's also worth mentioning that McGovern was planning on making major changes that were just plain stupid and a danger to national security, like withdrawing troops from Korea, which would have lowered the danger to North Korea if they wished to be more aggressive to the South (after all, NK only stopped sponsoring terrorism and kidnapping people in South Korea in the late '70s-early '80s). Nixon, meanwhile, had showed he could use diplomacy rather effectively in places like China. The people who were attacking Nixon on diplomacy and for being too much of a realist (after all, realists like Kissinger worship Metternich, a diplomat) were marginal figures back then, neocons and Scoop Jackson supporters (like staff member Richard Perle) without a home. These idiots have since seized power, making the re-assertion of diplomacy a necessity just to show the world we aren't crazy. The fact that we don't even have an embassy and diplomatic relations with Tehran doesn't make us tough; instead, it makes us look infantile because it is infantile, much like our outdated embargo on Cuba.

Posted by Reality Man | April 25, 2008 11:33 AM

Reality Man:

Tim K can safely be ignored because 1) he seems to think the purpose of US foreign policy is to defend Israel and ignore al-Qaida where it actually is and 2) assumes that Obama supporters must believe everything he says, including any hyperbole. He will start making a fair point and then just turns into a jackass when someone challenges him. He also mistakes the aesthetics of toughness with sound foreign policy judgment (which somehow always seems to translate into "defend Israel to our own detriment"). From what I can tell, his problems with Obama vis-a-vis Clinton come down to Israel.

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. The Arab states in the region repeatedly attempted to push Israel "into the sea" since WWII (in historical terms that's very recent). Iran has zero cause to threaten aggression against that country. Of the the United States should be Israel's ally and promise to defend her as he would many other major allies.

What is being witnessed here is very typical of foreign policy left-wingers: Blame America, Blame Israel, Apologize for everybody else.

The issue on which America should be influencing Israel in a positive direction is an eventual resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US, and other western powers, would have no ability to influence that if it cut off support for Israel and appeared indifferent at Iranian death threats against the Jewish State.

Posted by Tim K | April 25, 2008 12:04 PM

T"Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. The Arab states in the region repeatedly attempted to push Israel "into the sea" since WWII (in historical terms that's very recent). Iran has zero cause to threaten aggression against that country. Of the the United States should be Israel's ally and promise to defend her as he would many other major allies."

Turkey is a bit of a liberal democracy, as are parts of Lebanon not controlled by Hezbollah. However, progress in Lebanon in terms of liberal democratization were put back by Israel's bombing campaign which destroyed key parts of Lebanon's infrastructure that did not need to be destroyed. Why is Israel's security and political liberalization so much more important than Lebanon's? The Lord's Resistance Army has killed more people than Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaida combined, yet do you support making Uganda as it tries to democratize as close an ally as Israel?

I have no problem with wanting to defend democracies against aggression. However, when I ask you about other democracies that have problems you don't want to help them with such zeal or at all. In addition, there is nothing to be gained for either Israel nor the US by going pursuing aggression with Iran. When you lack decent military options, you can either pursue diplomacy or sit in a corner. We did fine throughout the Cold War having an embassy open in Moscow, after all. In addition, it serves the US's national interests in places like Iraq to engage Iran because that will recognize the facts on the ground that we pretty much are on the same side in Iraq.

"The issue on which America should be influencing Israel in a positive direction is an eventual resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US, and other western powers, would have no ability to influence that if it cut off support for Israel and appeared indifferent at Iranian death threats against the Jewish State."

This is a false dichotomy and fundamentally dishonest. If you don't recognize there is a difference between supporting an ally just like any ally and our relationship with Israel, you are an idiot. I agree we should be engaging that process. However, Israel also does things against our national interests and indirectly against our national security like doing things like making settlements in the Palestinian Territories based on a fundamentalist reading of a religious text, which is not exactly the type of action a liberal democracy is supposed to take. Did I suggest we cut of all ties to Israel and close our embassy? Nope. However, privileging Israel over all other non-European allies is just silly. In addition, many of the hawkish stances the US takes vis-a-vis various Arab groups are only popular with Likudniks in Israel and unpopular with the average Israeli. You seem to have swallowed much of the Likudnik viewpoint.

Also, you have had it pointed out to you repeatedly that A-jad has no control over nuclear nor military policy in Iran, yet you use "wipe Israel off the map" as a crutch. MY posted a link during the war with Lebanon to a website run by the Israeli military showing that the between Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and the summer war with Hezbollah had caused about 12-28 or so deaths. Those 12-28 people should never have been murdered, but 12-28 deaths over a period of about six years shouldn't be an impediment to recognizing reality vis-a-vis Iran. Anything else is just masturbation.

Posted by Reality Man | April 25, 2008 12:34 PM

It's also rather odd to claim the US should be belligerent to Iran because of Iran's support of Hezbollah, which has caused a few dozen deaths in Israel in recent years, while saying we should do nothing about the men sitting in Pakistan who killed around 3,000 Americans not too long ago. It just seems you value Israeli security over American security. You also sound like the idiots who claimed through the 1960's that the Sino-Soviet split didn't exist and was all a ruse.

Posted by Reality Man | April 25, 2008 12:50 PM

One final thing: Iran logistically depends on its relationship with Syria to funnel supplies to Hezbollah. Diplomacy is the best tool available for driving a wedge between Iran and Syria. Instead, our belligerence gives the Iran-Syria relationship even more reasons to become stronger.

Posted by Reality Man | April 25, 2008 1:07 PM

One final thing: Iran logistically depends on its relationship with Syria to funnel supplies to Hezbollah. Diplomacy is the best tool available for driving a wedge between Iran and Syria. Instead, our belligerence gives the Iran-Syria relationship even more reasons to become stronger.

In addition, late in his term Clinton realized there was an inverse relationship between American belligerence and Iranian political reform. Clinton backed down his anti-Iran rhetoric and stances then, which caused the mullahs to become less paranoid and allow for the political opening for the student movement to take place. The Iranian public is rather pro-American and anti-mullah. If you want to see them gain more power in Iran vis-a-vis the mullahs, then belligerence becomes counter-productive.

Posted by Reality Man | April 25, 2008 1:11 PM

Why is Israel's security and political liberalization so much more important than Lebanon's?

Countries are not equal in strategic importance in terms of US national interests. Is it more important for the US to have a stable and secure Israel or Lebanon? There is no doubt that Israel is a more important ally by far. I am not for treating every country, or every democracy, equally. That's naive and impractical.

In addition, there is nothing to be gained for either Israel nor the US by going pursuing aggression with Iran. When you lack decent military options, you can either pursue diplomacy or sit in a corner. We did fine throughout the Cold War having an embassy open in Moscow, after all.

There is no real evidence Israel or the US is "pursuing aggression" against Iran. So far the Iranians are the one making threats concerning aggression. US statements have only concerned retaliation. There's a difference. As for the USSR, although the US maintained diplomatic relations with them throughout the Cold War, there was never any doubt that any attack by the Soviet Union on the US or Western Europe would be met with fierce resistance and massive retaliation leading to the *obliteration* of Russia. It was diplomacy, which I fully support, but not a soft, weak diplomacy of appeasement.

However, Israel also does things against our national interests and indirectly against our national security like doing things like making settlements in the Palestinian Territories based on a fundamentalist reading of a religious text, which is not exactly the type of action a liberal democracy is supposed to take.

What do settlements have to do with US national interests? The only reason the Palestinians factor into US foreign policy in any way, shape, or form is because their plight has become a rallying cry for many on the Arab Street. I don't support Israel constructing new settlements in the Disputed Territories because an accommodation can be reached, but such construction is objectionable on humanitarian grounds, not in relation to national interest.

"Those 12-28 people should never have been murdered"

I don't believe for a second that you give a fig about the deaths of 28 Israelis. It's clear to me that anything positive you say in relation to Israel is little more than a debating tactic meant to make you seem less of an anti-Israeli extremist than you clearly are.

Posted by Tim K | April 25, 2008 2:07 PM

"Countries are not equal in strategic importance in terms of US national interests. Is it more important for the US to have a stable and secure Israel or Lebanon? There is no doubt that Israel is a more important ally by far. I am not for treating every country, or every democracy, equally. That's naive and impractical."

Israel has net negatives in terms of serving our strategic interests. Our financial support for them makes what would have been an otherwise unsustainable occupation of the Palestinian Territories more financially sustainable. Israel is unable to aid us militarily in the region, such as during the first Gulf War. Israel lacks oil. It isn't well-suited for providing a location for forward bases for us. What strategic benefit does Israel provide.

"There is no real evidence Israel or the US is "pursuing aggression" against Iran. So far the Iranians are the one making threats concerning aggression. US statements have only concerned retaliation. There's a difference. As for the USSR, although the US maintained diplomatic relations with them throughout the Cold War, there was never any doubt that any attack by the Soviet Union on the US or Western Europe would be met with fierce resistance and massive retaliation leading to the *obliteration* of Russia. It was diplomacy, which I fully support, but not a soft, weak diplomacy of appeasement."

The US has rebuffed diplomatic overtures from Iran, such as helping us in Afghanistan against al-Qaida and the Taliban. The actual Iranian foreign policy apparatus hasn't threatened Israel with nuclear annihilation and Hezbollah isn't our direct problem, just as the LTTE and the Lord's Resistance Army aren't our direct problems. The US, including Crocker and Petraus, have accused, Iran of aiding the insurgency in Iraq. The US has also taken the odd step of declaring the draftee-based military of Iran as a terrorist group, which combined with Kyl-Lieberman potentially allows the executive branch here to pursue military action against Iran on little evidence of anything.

"What do settlements have to do with US national interests? The only reason the Palestinians factor into US foreign policy in any way, shape, or form is because their plight has become a rallying cry for many on the Arab Street. I don't support Israel constructing new settlements in the Disputed Territories because an accommodation can be reached, but such construction is objectionable on humanitarian grounds, not in relation to national interest."

This is self-refuting. The very fact that the issue makes us so unpopular in the Muslim world makes it harder for us to move strategically and get things we want done because everything we do is met with increased resistance. Your rhetorical ploy here of just dismissing it is just lazy. Real statesmen and -women have to deal with reality as is, not just how it is on paper.

"I don't believe for a second that you give a fig about the deaths of 28 Israelis. It's clear to me that anything positive you say in relation to Israel is little more than a debating tactic meant to make you seem less of an anti-Israeli extremist than you clearly are.

Posted by Tim K | April 25, 2008 2:07 PM"

Fuck you. I have friends who often live in Israel, including friends who have been in the Israeli military. Not everyone who thinks protecting Israel should be the be-all and end-all of American foreign policy is happy that Israelis die. It makes me sick when innocent people are killed. However, we have to prioritize. By your logic, you don't care about the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 because you don't want to go after al-Qaida's leadership in Afghanistan. Hezbollah is not our problem, just as the LTTE, the Lord's Resistance Army, Naxalites in Nepal and so on aren't our problems. Your Manichean worldview goes a long way to explaining why you are so obsessed with the aesthetics of foreign policy and looking tough instead of actually being tough. You're just a little boy who is sad daddy didn't think he was manly enough.

Posted by Reality Man | April 25, 2008 2:28 PM

Reality Man:

Seems I'm struck a bit of a nerve. If you really don't want to seem like an anti-Israeli extremist, then maybe you should stop drawing moral equivalence between Israel and Iran. They aren't the same. They aren't equally good. I don't think protecting Israel should be the "be all and end all" but I certainly don't think taking a neutral stance vis-a-vis Israel and Iran should be the US position. I'm 100% for going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to the extent that is a possibility (and to the extent they are even in Afghanistan). The fact you keep employing misdirection in accusing me of favoring the opposite is testament to your intellectual dishonesty. The only way your position can stand up is by painting me as some kind of Neo-Conservative Hawk.

This isn't about aesthetics versus reality. Nothing you have said today demonstrates any degree of toughness or wisdom.

Posted by Tim K | April 25, 2008 2:58 PM

The Next McGovern?

Comments (111)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories