Matthew Yglesias (April 24, 2008) - The Quickening (Media)

Anyone read Slate's article on why Obama should drop out? Interesting thoughts.

Posted by Nicole | April 24, 2008 3:20 PM

I believe that the subjunctive is a mood, not a tense, no?

And that fulfills my pedantry quotient for at least a week.

Posted by Glenn | April 24, 2008 3:22 PM

I had been wondering how long it would take for the Highlander connection to be pointed out.

Posted by DP | April 24, 2008 3:22 PM

past tense, passive voice, subjunctive mood

Posted by mk | April 24, 2008 3:23 PM

If there were only rare uses of the subjunctive, we wouldn't need politics.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 24, 2008 3:24 PM

Wow, a Highlander reference. Nice.

And there I thought the cover was an homage to the NBA playoffs ads they've been running lately.

Posted by Al | April 24, 2008 3:25 PM

...you could easily imagine them deciding that consolidating all the Democratic elites behind the ticket is more important than the fact that a Clinton VP choice would wreak havoc with his message.

Huh? Their policy positions are very similar. Yes, she's more hawkish on foreign policy, but I don't think its enough of a difference to "wreak havoc with his message". I'm starting to think that having Hillary as VP would be the right thing to do because of the bitterness of her supporters, particularly in Florida and Michigan.

Posted by Jim W | April 24, 2008 3:26 PM

Matt - if this is what sunlight does to your thinking, suggestiong Obama/Clinton, please, please, please - go back inside!

Posted by MikeO | April 24, 2008 3:27 PM

VP makes no sense for Clinton, she'll be too old in 2016 and no way she has a Cheney like role in an Obama admin, if she really cares about health care as mcuh as she says she does the place to have the most impact is in the Senate.

Posted by Eric K | April 24, 2008 3:27 PM

Jim W: The reason she'd wreak havoc on Obama' message is that his message is that he's not politics as usual, and he's positive and unifying and uplifting, and Clinton epitomizes divisive career Washington politician. Not because of policy differences.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | April 24, 2008 3:30 PM

i like the oh so subtle editorializing of using a bad picture of HRC (how many chins does she have in that foto?).

Posted by dj superflat | April 24, 2008 3:30 PM

Did they intentionally mangle it so that it wouldn't be a Highlander reference? Either way, it looks kind of lame.

If this race could use anything at this point, it's definitely some Quickening. (Unfortunately, I fear it won't end until the time of the Gathering.)

Posted by Royko | April 24, 2008 3:30 PM

Would she want the job? Seems kind of unlikely.

Posted by Ryan | April 24, 2008 3:32 PM

Yeah, Obama should definitely take Hillary as his running mate. As long as his objective is to meet an early demise.

Posted by Stace | April 24, 2008 3:32 PM

The reason she'd wreak havoc on Obama' message is that his message is that he's not politics as usual, and he's positive and unifying and uplifting...

Its ok to say his message is that he's not politics as usual, but I hope its his manner that is positive and unifying and uplifting. I mean, if he goes around saying "I'm positive and unifying and uplifting" that doesn't really work.

At any rate, I don't really take that stuff seriously, but I suppose a lot of people other people do.

Posted by Jim W | April 24, 2008 3:36 PM

Glenn -- You're right. The subjunctive is a mood. Pedants of the world unite!

Posted by DNS | April 24, 2008 3:38 PM

What type of coloring do you think Hillary uses on her hair?

Posted by Maureen Dowd | April 24, 2008 3:38 PM

If Hillary were to by any stretch gain the nomination, she'd need Obama and Obama alone. Obama, on the other hand, could heal the wounds with other choices (like Sebelius or Strickland).

Nicole, I thought that Slate piece was wanker-ific even by DC pundit standards. Yeah, let's just throw away four years to the GOP -- what could go wrong in that time? And let's trash Pelosi and Dean because...well, because they're not considered chic in Slate circles.

The insulation DC pundits have from the real economy in which the rest of us labor is the prime reason they treat this whole process like a drinking game, and make absurd suggestions like in that article.

Posted by demtom | April 24, 2008 3:38 PM

Al -- I had the same thought. Perhaps there a video version somewhere with the two of them denouncing trade and talking about change.

Posted by Trieu | April 24, 2008 3:39 PM

Unity ticket or no unity ticket, there can be only one president. I don't see how the relatively meaningless VP consolation prize helps anything. No matter which candidate you support, it seems to me that if the candidate can't be president you should prefer that candidate to be a somewhat powerful Senator.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 24, 2008 3:40 PM

Reagan-Bush was an awkward inconvenient pairing and that didn't stop it from happening.

Reagan-Bush happened because Ford was holding out for too much in his negotiations to be Reagan's VP.

Posted by Antid Oto | April 24, 2008 3:42 PM

The problem with Hillary as VP is not with the effect on Obama's message -- it's that she and her appointed allies would deliberately sabotage Obama's Administration.

Every morning there would be another leak to the press, especially if anything Obama did was contrary to the wishes of Hillary's patrons. WHY do you think they gave her money -- for good government?

Posted by Don Williams | April 24, 2008 3:44 PM

Umm, no way. They cannot be on the same ticket. That ship sailed as soon as Clinton decided to go uber-negative and trash Obama. Just imagine the ABC debate in October...
Senator Obama, you now stand beside your former adversary, a person who once said that "as far as she knows" you aren't a Muslim. Some people say this makes you a flip-flopper. How do you respond?

Senator Clinton, you once suggested that Senator Obama didn't pass the commander-in-chief threshold in the same way that Senator McCain does. Do you still feel that way, and if not, why not? Why shouldn't voters vote for the person who, according to you, has more experience?

Posted by tinisoli | April 24, 2008 3:44 PM

Actually, there is no subjunctive in either version of the sentence, nor does the position of 'only' change the parsing. In both versions of the sentence, 'can' is a standard present-tense indicative verb and 'be' is an infinitive.

To be more precise/pedantic, 'can' is an modal auxiliary verb that takes a bare infinitive as its main verb.

The present-subjunctive form of the verb 'be' is also 'be', but this isn't that. An example of a subjunctive is "So be it!" or "Be that as it may...".

Posted by David Wachsmuth | April 24, 2008 3:45 PM

Jim:It's an amplification of Dean's campaign in 2004 re:People Powered Politics. Self-empowerment in political terms is the point of the whole thing, and Clinton yes does represent a lot of the hands-off approach taken by the DLC after Reagan changed the course of things.

For those who support Obama (at least a good portion of them), think that this is actually a big deal, and it's a way of getting things done. What happens is you create a public uproar for things like energy policy or health care, get EVERYBODY on the same page that this has to be done, and then go from there. It reduces of a lot of the Republican obstructionism....

Or at least that's the idea.

At one time I thought it was pie in the sky, I think now that it's not just possible, but plausible. It's almost likely.

Posted by Karmakin | April 24, 2008 3:46 PM

Senator Clinton, on numerous occasions in the spring you suggested that Obama merely talked about solutions and change, saying "that doesn't mean he WILL bring change." Clearly, the implication was that he was all talk and no action. You even mocked his oratorical abilities by suggesting that his fans expected the heavens to open up when he spoke. So, what has changed your mind? Or are you simply accepting the VP slot because you want to be president in 2016?

Posted by tinisoli | April 24, 2008 3:48 PM

It'd be like Kurt and Courtney. She'd have him killed.

Posted by godoggo | April 24, 2008 3:50 PM

I'm the most anti-Hillary of anyone (because she'll re-unify the Clinton-obsessed GOP and make governing impossible), and I used to shudder at the thought of a unity ticket .... but now it makes sense.

In the beginning of the Dem's campaign, a unity ticket made no sense. But because that this thing has dragged on forever, Obama and Hillary have been able to create and cement so many false differences between them in the minds of voters and the press (like idealism vs. pragmatism, newbie vs. experience, or other bs) that bringing them together would cancel out the badness in the general election. They'd no longer have their current political vulnerabilities, whatever their validity.

Posted by Chris_ | April 24, 2008 3:54 PM

Matt, you should probably just avoid posting on any topic related to grammar. David Wachsmuth at 3:45 has the goods.

Posted by guy | April 24, 2008 3:56 PM

And there I thought the cover was an homage to the NBA playoffs ads they've been running lately.

That was my assumption, too. Doesn't that end with "There can be only one," too?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 24, 2008 3:56 PM

a) You're right; they screwed up the quote.
b) The subjunctive is a mood, as others here have noted.
c) I am pretty sure that "be" is still an infinitive in "there can be only one".
d) Again, you're still right.

Posted by Dave Herman | April 24, 2008 3:56 PM

Unity ticket or no unity ticket, there can be only one president. I don't see how the relatively meaningless VP consolation prize helps anything.

Jokes about both Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney being chosen to prevent assassination of the president come to mind. That would apply to Clinton as well, but for different reasons. If there's anyone that a bigot or zealot would like to see in the Oval Office even less than a black man named Hussein, it's a woman named Clinton.

Posted by Cyrus | April 24, 2008 3:57 PM

Ever since I read a post about Clinton being on the Supreme Court, I have been smiling. She could serve 30 more years, right wingers' heads exploding all the way.

Posted by Th | April 24, 2008 3:58 PM

Es sei Obama nur Eins.

Posted by matt | April 24, 2008 4:00 PM

But the correct reference is "there can be only one" in the rarely used subjunctive tense so as to emphasize the mythic nature of the dictum.

I'm sorry Matt, this is the most ignorant piece of pretentious pap you have ever written. Moving the word "only" does not change an indicative mood into subjunctive regardless of whether Connor MacLeod is bellowing it or not. You clearly failed Linguistics 101.

"I believe there be only one" - that would be a use of the subjunctive.

Posted by vanya | April 24, 2008 4:02 PM

Why quibble over who's on the ticket? We can already feel the impact of Democratic governance in worldwide food shortages and leaps in domestic prices for foods. All of this has been brought about by a Democratic Congress and a far too compliant President, each eager to take the goodies out of your grocery store and stuff them into your gas tank.

Life under Democratic governance is already getting substantially tougher for middle- and lower-income folks.

Of course, we all know that Democrats and other leftists are full of good intentions. You know, the stuff paving the road to hell.

Posted by MarkG | April 24, 2008 4:03 PM

Nicole

I read the Slate article and didn't find anything interestind in it. What was interesting? The Cy Young reference?

Posted by ann | April 24, 2008 4:04 PM

Both JFK and Reagan were the targets of assassination attempts during the time that they had 'unfriendly' VPs.

Posted by Crazy Idea? | April 24, 2008 4:05 PM

The dude already has to sleep with one eye open.

Posted by 55 | April 24, 2008 4:06 PM

According to Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln benefited greatly by having his rivals on the cabinet

Posted by Chowderhead | April 24, 2008 4:12 PM

As others have mentioned, there is no use of the subjunctive in that sentence, and the subjunctive is a mood, not a tense. I know that, and I never took a linguistics course in my life. You didn't really go to Harvard, did you?

Posted by Abby | April 24, 2008 4:17 PM

Obama offers (not for public consumption) the VP job to Hillary. Deal is she can resign after 2 years for the Supreme Court (or anything else she may want.)

I have always wanted Obama to offer the same deal to Al Gore. But, given the endless nominating process, it is best now to deal with Hillary.

Posted by Wisconsin Reader | April 24, 2008 4:19 PM

Fine, Clinton can be vice president if she'll take the job, which I doubt. I'd prefer Warren Buffett, but whatever.

And I agree with David Wachsmuth.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 24, 2008 4:21 PM

Choosing HRC would impair the Obama brand. Plus, she might be close to ungovernable. There are other good choices. The one choice, though, that would send a massive huge positive shockwave through the Democratic electorate is Al Gore. I think he might have a strong enough sense of duty to say yes.

Posted by Matt | April 24, 2008 4:25 PM

Jeee-bus, Time can't tell the difference between "There can only be one" and "There can be only one." That's why we ended up in Iraq.

Posted by DCBob | April 24, 2008 4:28 PM

Superdelegates were created 25 years ago by the Democratic party elite to act as a emergency break during the Democratic nomination process. The process is structured in a way that a candidate can capture a majority of the delegates for the convention, yet not be a strong enough candidate for the Democrats in the general elections. Technically, the primary/caucus process can yield a nominee that is out-of-touch with the Democratic base and with potential cross-over voters.

http://clintonista.wordpress.com

Posted by Clintonista | April 24, 2008 4:28 PM

As it is I worry for Obama's safety, but especially with Hillary on the ticket. No need to worry in one regard, as she will not be on the ticket anyway. I want the Dems to make a deal with themselves that should anything happen to Obama during the campaign, someone other than Hillary (Gore?) be the candidate.

As a teenager, I campaigned for Gene McCarthy in '68; worked for George McGovern in '72; was a campaign coordinator and alternate delegate for Morris Udall in '76. But I will never, ever, vote for another Clinton again. And as a New York resident I will work to unseat her in '12, should she decide to run again. They are the Bush family of the Democratic Party.

Posted by maxgowan | April 24, 2008 4:29 PM

Well, like the Highlander, Obama is from lots of different places. Unfortunately for Hillary, Mark Penn pees his kilt all the time.

Posted by nitpicker | April 24, 2008 4:39 PM

Ricky Bobby: Wow. I feel like I'm Highlander!
Jean Girard: [Jean chuckles, confused] What is the Highlander?
Ricky Bobby: It's a movie. It won the Academy Award.
Jean Girard: Oh for what?
Ricky Bobby: Best movie ever made.

Posted by Peter K. | April 24, 2008 4:42 PM

I wonder if anyone has ever killed themselves to check if they were immortal?

If it were real I might try it.

Posted by MNPundit | April 24, 2008 4:46 PM

Once you've been on Pennsylvania Avenue, you don't settle for Massachusetts Avenue.

Posted by asl | April 24, 2008 4:47 PM

Subjunctive mood, MY.

Posted by Sanjay | April 24, 2008 4:56 PM

Subjunctive mood, MY.

Posted by Sanjay | April 24, 2008 4:58 PM

"I believe there be only one"? Did you just walk out of a Thomas Hardy novel? Go back in and pull the cover closed behind you.

Posted by Bloix | April 24, 2008 5:01 PM

I don’t think a joint ticket is a good idea. Hillary has become that really annoying person at the party who just won't leave when the party is clearly over. The American people are ready to go home with Obama, but Hillary isn't letting us. You know what that's called—a cockblock. Hillary Clinton is a cockblock.

Besides, there are plenty of other people who can appeal to the Appalachian hillbilly demographic that have higher favorability in the first place. The governor of Kansas who's a woman, etc.

Hillary Clinton takes a dump and thinks that's a sign that she's stronger in a general election. FYI Hillary: Just because your crap has corn in it, does not make you more appealing to Midwesterners.

Posted by John George | April 24, 2008 5:17 PM

If he wants to win in November he will need a united party. Which means he's going to have to stop running against the Clintons at some point. Trashing your party brand and dissing the only two term administration it has enjoyed in half a century is a lousy way to run a presidential campaign.

Whether he puts Clinton on the ticket or not, he is going to "wreak havoc with his message" -- and make his Clinton hating supporters howl -- because it is a much too divisive message for the general election. It will be really interesting to see exactly how he does decide to kiss some Clinton a**.

Posted by anonymous | April 24, 2008 5:17 PM

Bloix,

Did you even read the thread?

Posted by vanya | April 24, 2008 5:19 PM

Pointing out that Clinton did good and bad things- which is just a fact- as president isn't "trashing the party brand." Only the Clinton fans that would follow the couple to the deepest circles of hell (many of whom post here- hi EWard!) would call that "dissing" Bill Clinton.

Posted by 55 | April 24, 2008 5:23 PM

Slate is incapable of producing anything well-written or interesting.

Posted by 55 | April 24, 2008 5:25 PM

Re anon's comment "Trashing your party brand and dissing the only two term administration it has enjoyed in half a century "
-----------
You forgot " and the only Presidential impeachment in the Democratic Party's 227 hundred year history"

Posted by Don Williams | April 24, 2008 5:26 PM

Obama definitely should pick Hillary as his VP. That sounds like a great idea. That is, if he's Charles Fucking Bronson, motherfuckers!!

Posted by Tony | April 24, 2008 5:27 PM

The subjective is a mood, not a tense.
The subjective is a mood, not a tense.
The subjective is a mood, not a tense.
The subjective is a mood, not a tense.
The subjective is a mood, not a tense.
The subjective is a mood, not a tense.
The subjective is a mood, not a tense.
The subjective is a mood, not a tense.

Imagine MY as Bart Simpson having to write that 100 times on the blackboard before he goes home.

Posted by joel | April 24, 2008 5:52 PM

Obama should offer her the VP spot - which she wants no doubt - then call back two days later and say "nevermind, I changed my mind." The media would go bonkers.

"If he wants to win in November he will need a united party. Which means he's going to have to stop running against the Clintons at some point. Trashing your party brand and dissing the only two term administration it has enjoyed in half a century is a lousy way to run a presidential campaign.

Whether he puts Clinton on the ticket or not, he is going to "wreak havoc with his message" -- and make his Clinton hating supporters howl -- because it is a much too divisive message for the general election. It will be really interesting to see exactly how he does decide to kiss some Clinton a**."

The Clintons have so trashed their "brand" even if Hillary was nominated she would surely lose the general election. Tell me, why exactly is she still in the race? It's almost numerically impossible for her to get enough delegates. She won't win the popular vote. And her negative campaign - which even the New York Times has complained about - has completely alienated most Obama supporters. What is she thinking?

Posted by Peter K. | April 24, 2008 5:52 PM

I'm not a Clinton partisan. I'm not even a Democrat. I'm a marketing executive. (From a professional point of view, I've found the Democratic campaign interesting and amusing to watch.)

The Obama camp has made some serious long term mistakes in the effort to take advantage, in the short term, for the primary, of the Clinton hatred of many of their supporters. (As expressed by many posting here.)

Trashing your own brand is not a good idea, long term. It's a problem he will have to find some way to correct.

Posted by Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:01 PM

Surely you misspoke. I know you meant Hillary/Obama ticket. It is obvious to most that Senator Obama has much to learn to become President of the United States.

Posted by DemfromCT | April 24, 2008 6:19 PM

Anonymous,

Um, say what? Obama hasn't been particularly harsh with Clinton, and he does have to make the case for being the nominee instead of Clinton.

Moreover, much of his campaign has centered around a conscious effort to rebrand the Democratic Party. He has been cultivating the new brand he thinks the Party should adopt since at least his 2004 convention speech, and many elements of his media campaign have been about introducing this brand to the primary electorate. And all that has apparently worked, so why should he be particularly interested in undoing all that effort and reviving the Clintonian branding of the Party, which he just beat with his new brand?

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 6:35 PM

You can't put Clinton on the ticket without inheriting her skyhigh negatives, Bill's corrupt present and perverted past, and the fact that she is a Republican-lite candidate in the eyes of progressives. If you do it, you lose the liberal Democrats and the independents, and so the election. That's why Obama won't give Clinton the slot, and why he might offer her something more suited to her talents and level of political savvy. I believe that they are short of a rat-catcher in Punksutawny....

Posted by jaxartes | April 24, 2008 7:29 PM

I would be extremely displeased to see Senator Clinton anywhere on the ticket. It does, as you say, wreak havoc with the message. His appeal has been centered very heavily upon the politics of the new-- and Clinton, who actually inhabited the White House for eight years-- embodies "the old way of doing things" more thoroughly than anyone this side of Ted Kennedy.

Plus, it would be seen as rewarding her for brutally smearing him for months and dragging this campaign out well beyond the point where its conclusion became evident.

He's going to have to choose someone to ameliorate the Clintonistas-- but it shouldn't be Clinton herself. Pity Madeline Albright isn't eligible.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | April 24, 2008 7:37 PM

Fun! Knowing the Clintons, it's a given that Hillary will enter the convention demanding the headline slot on a joint Hill/Bam ticket. The arguments are already clear to make out: Clinton will have a lead in the popular vote. "Team Clinton" has experience in the White House and in national politics for a quarter century. Barry is a leader of the urban hard left with no experience beyond organizing communities (whatever the hell that means) and voting "Present" when in a decision-making position.

You Bama boosters better grab a paper bag and learning how to contain hyperventilation fits.

Posted by MarkG | April 24, 2008 7:49 PM

The subjective is a mood, not a tense.

No, the subjective is a case. But he didn't say "subjective," anyway. He said "subjunctive." The subjunctive is indeed a mood, but subjunctive expressions involve a tense. In this example, the present tense, hence the present subjunctive ("there can be only one").

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

"I believe there be only one" - that would be a use of the subjunctive.

We definitely need more pirates in politics.

-----

And that trailer for Highlander is fucking abysmal.

Posted by Sam | April 24, 2008 8:05 PM

No, there is no subjective case. There are subjects, which often are nominative case. As for the point that subjunctives involve tense, that's true of any finite verb form, so hardly significant.

The subjunctive in English is marked by "may", as in, "Hillary Clinton may be a racist, for all I know". "Can", as another commentator pointed out, is a present tense verb, indicative mood, and absolutely not a subjunctive. Consider the difference between, "Hillary Clinton may lie frequently" and "Hillary Clinton can lie frequently". One deals with possibility, the other with ability/capacity. The point here is that in English the subjunctive is marked by "may", while "can" is an indicative.

Posted by maxim | April 24, 2008 8:08 PM

Reading anon's comment one would think that Bill is running for a 3rd term. You Hillary people have to decide. I'd she her own woman or is she just a coverup for a 3rd term of Bill.

Posted by Bubba | April 24, 2008 8:10 PM

Bubba, shouldn't we ask whether "Hillary" is a woman? The creature we see prancing about on stage bears a suspicious resemblance to Giuliani in drag. That would also explain the fake laugh.

Posted by carpetbagging | April 24, 2008 8:14 PM

Surely you misspoke. I know you meant Hillary/Obama ticket. It is obvious to most that Senator Obama has much to learn to become President of the United States.

Posted by DemfromCT | April 24, 2008 8:31 PM

DemfromCt - Hillary Clinton and her corrupt pervert of a spouse belong in jail, not in the White House. She is unfit for any position of public responsibility, and defiles our political system by her presence.

Posted by ixax | April 24, 2008 8:36 PM

maxim,

No, there is no subjective case.

Yes, there is. The subject of a verb takes the subjective case.

As for the point that subjunctives involve tense, that's true of any finite verb form, so hardly significant.

It's significant because tense was raised in the objection.

The subjunctive in English is marked by "may", as in, "Hillary Clinton may be a racist, for all I know".

Many words and verb forms indicate the subjunctive mood, generally ones indicating dependent clauses ("if", "had," "would," "should," "were," etc.).

"Can", as another commentator pointed out, is a present tense verb, indicative mood, and absolutely not a subjunctive.

No, the verb was not "can," but "can be." It is a subjunctive form of the verb "to be." The corresponding indicative form is "is." ("there is only one")

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 8:38 PM

Surely you misspoke. I know you meant Hillary/Obama ticket. It is obvious to most that Senator Obama has much to learn to become President of the United States.

Posted by DemfromCT | April 24, 2008 6:19 PM

Surely you misspoke. I know you meant Hillary/Obama ticket. It is obvious to most that Senator Obama has much to learn to become President of the United States.

Posted by DemfromCT | April 24, 2008 8:31 PM

Laaaaaaaaaame.

Posted by scythia | April 24, 2008 8:41 PM

Mixner, don't be silly. "Can be" is not a substitute for "May be". "Is" is indicative, while "may be" is subjunctive. And no, there is NO subjective case. There are subjects, which have a function in the syntax of the sentence, and there is the nominative case, which is the form that the subject generally takes in English, although it is generally expressed by position, not morphology, since English has lost much of its inflection.

"If" emphatically does not mark a subjunctive. Consider "If you are so silly, you will be ridiculed". That's a general statement, but does not contain a subjunctive of any sort. Likewise, "had" is not a subjunctive marker. Consider "He had been a fool, and his ignorance was exposed". "Should", strictly speaking is a modal verb, often abused as an optative. "Would" marks a hypothetical, but as an optative, not a subjunctive. Similarly with "might". I repeat, the subjunctive marker in English is "may". Finally, please don't confuse "Can plus infinitive" with a subjunctive. Can is modal, not subjunctive.

Posted by maxim | April 24, 2008 8:51 PM

Hey! They stole this cover idea from The New Republic. TNR's was much creepier...a computer-generated "Clobama" figure. But still.

Posted by BP | April 24, 2008 8:54 PM

maxim,

Mixner, don't be silly. "Can be" is not a substitute for "May be".

You're the one who's being silly. Or, more accurately, irrelevant. I didn't say "can be" is a substitute for "may be." I said "can be" is a subjunctive form of the verb "to be."

"Is" is indicative, while "may be" is subjunctive.

More irrelevance. The verb was "can be," not "may be." "Can be" is subjunctive, as I explained. It denotes a possibility. The equivalent indicative form is "is."

And no, there is NO subjective case.

Yes, there are. As I said, the subjects of verbs take the subjective case. Note the similarity of the words. It's not a coincidence.

"If" emphatically does not mark a subjunctive.

More nonsense. You really don't know what you're talking about. "If" is probably the single most common marker of the subjunctive mood, because it denotes a dependent clause. For example, the statement: "If I were maxim, I would be ashamed of my appalling ignorance." Or, "If maxim had a brain, he might not be so dumb."

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 9:20 PM

I'll do it, since no one else will:

Here we are, born to be kings
We're the princes of the universe
Here we belong, fighting to survive
In a world with the darkest powers, heh
And here we are, we're the princes of the universe
Here we belong, fighting for survival
We've come to be the rulers of you all

I am immortal, I have inside me blood of kings - yeah - yeah
I have no rival, no man can be my equal
Take me to the future of you all!

==

That show was awesome, in a bad way.

Posted by Klug | April 24, 2008 9:27 PM

Mixner,

Bzzt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive#The_subjunctive_in_English

I don't have my CMS with me, but I imagine it would say much of the same.

Sometimes when you're wrong, you can just, you know, stop talking, instead of digging the hole deeper.

Posted by scythia | April 24, 2008 9:33 PM

scythia,

I am at a loss to understand how you think the Wikipedia entry conflicts with anything I have said. Did you read it? Did you notice all the examples it gives of subjunctive statements starting with the word "if?"

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 9:45 PM

Re: Every morning there would be another leak to the press, especially if anything Obama did was contrary to the wishes of Hillary's patrons.

Despite all the sound and fury, Obama and Hillary are two peas in a pod with only very minor policy differences. Neither is likely to do anything that would shock the other, or each other's supporters.

Re: If you do it, you lose the liberal Democrats and the independents

Some far out leftists maybe-- the same brain-dead, self-righteous jerks that voted for Nader back in 2000 and gave us Bush the Appalling. But independents are not a problem. There's a whole gang of them who liked Bill Clinton but are very wary of Obama.

Posted by JonF | April 24, 2008 9:50 PM

There's a whole gang of them who liked Bill Clinton but are very wary of Obama.

I've never seen any poll that has Hillary Clinton at an advantage over Obama with independents. For what it's worth I do know people who voted Clinton '96 and Bush 2000 and 2004 who know the country is going into the sewer but just aren't ready to admit they screwed up and reinstalling the Clinton's is doing that and voting for Obama isn't.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 24, 2008 10:01 PM

I knew I should have held on to that "hole-digging" comment for later...

I am at a loss to understand how you think the Wikipedia entry conflicts with anything I have said. Did you read it? Did you notice all the examples it gives of subjunctive statements starting with the word "if?"

1. To wit: "Can be" is subjunctive, as I explained. It denotes a possibility. The equivalent indicative form is "is."

2. As far as "if" goes, I'm not a great grammarian, but I seem to recall it goes like this: While all (or nearly all) subjunctives are hypotheticals, not all hypotheticals are subjunctive.

Look, I'm in a bad mood, sun was shining, and I wasn't even in on this thread, so I shouldn't have snarked at you in the first place.

But for real, before you fire off a knee-jerk response to this comment, take a breath. Pick up a reference manual. Look online. Consult several sources as to what "subjunctive" means. I think you might be surprised.

Again, I won't pass myself off as an expert. But the subjunctive is not merely the expression of a possibility. Take your time on this, and come to a good understanding of the subject. Then post back.

I'll hop back on this thread tomorrow. Plenty of time to double-check the facts, and come up with a reasoned, well-thought-out response, either logically explaining why we're mistaken, or issuing a mea culpa.

This is of course, assuming that the function of debate is for both parties to come to a more complete understanding of the subject at hand, and not just to score points to inflate one's own sense of superiority.

Posted by scythia | April 24, 2008 10:06 PM

The first film was good, in a B-movie sort of way,
(Russell Mulcahy's turn from MTV videos to the more expansive work in Ricochet)The second film; what exactly were they smoking? The series was pretty good, the successor films were increasingly weak. The cover is disturbingly evocative of the "Fly". fusion of brundle &
house fly; although the TNR cover is even more disturbing.

Posted by narciso | April 24, 2008 10:10 PM

...the same brain-dead, self-righteous jerks that voted for Nader back in 2000 and gave us Bush the Appalling.

Oh, well, clearly they're inconsequential then, and can be alienated without much ill effect.

And, I should add, it's not the number of votes that makes the base powerful. They're the ones doing your phone banking, walking your precincts, sending in their low-$ donations after big-$ donora have maxed out.

They are the unpaid, highly energized work force of the party, and if you lose their support, you start to have serious structural problems--especially downticket, where community involvement is crucial to success.

But independents are not a problem. There's a whole gang of them who liked Bill Clinton but are very wary of Obama.

Yeah, well I know plenty going the other way.

Irrational Clinton-haters who like Obama...usually for superficial, non-political reasons. But when McCain starts to slip down the trail--and he will, he hasn't run a competitive GE election in decades--and turns the swing voters off, several of them will come running O's way.

Just out of curiosity, Jon, where do you post from? I grew up Mountain West, and that's where my anecdotal evidence re: indys/Obama is coming from here. A lot of ex-Limbaugh listeners, which can make it tough for any Clinton to compete.

Posted by scythia | April 24, 2008 10:17 PM

scythia

1. To wit: "Can be" is subjunctive, as I explained. It denotes a possibility. The equivalent indicative form is "is."

You really didn't read your own citation, did you? Look at the table of verb forms in the section labelled The subjunctive in English. Note the present indicative and present subjunctive forms of the verb "to be."

2. As far as "if" goes, I'm not a great grammarian, but I seem to recall it goes like this: While all (or nearly all) subjunctives are hypotheticals, not all hypotheticals are subjunctive.

Another confused statement. The issue in question was not whether "all hypotheticals are subjunctive" but whether the subjunctive is generally marked by "if," and other words denoting conditional clauses. It is. See the many examples provided in your own citation. If that still doesn't convince you, try this reference. Quote:

A verb is in the subjunctive mood when it expresses a condition which is doubtful or not factual. It is most often found in a clause beginning with the word if.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 10:30 PM

TIME says it is in fact modeled on the NBA ad campaign- I have to admit I didn't catch it, but it's sort of surprising that NBA uber-fan Matt didn't either.

Posted by Ricky B | April 24, 2008 10:37 PM

Well, well, a Highlander reference - my favorite TV show before Terminator.

MNPundit: It's better to kill somebody else to see if they're immortal.

Narciso: The first film was good, as you say, in a low budget way. The second was a disaster along the lines of "Plan 9 From Outer Space", although allegedly it has been re-released on DVD re-edited to remove some of the crap. Still a loss. The third one was basically a rehash of the first one, thus a lousy sequel.

The fourth one was taken from the series, and was very good. Bruce Payne was superb as the villain. And everybody loves Methos.

The fifth one I have not seen as it was released to a TV audience on the Sci-Fi channel rather than in theaters. The impression I get from the Wikipedia entry is that it was not particularly good. The plot made no sense.

I think they need to do one wherein it is revealed that everything the Immortals think is true is in fact mostly a fairy tale promoted by much older Immortals. Methos is allegedly the oldest Immortal at five thousand years. In reality, in my scenario, Immortals as old as 20, 30, even 50 thousand years exist. They cannot even be detected as Immortals as they have learned to control the Quickening. They exist as the secret rulers of the Earth, but still competing with each other.

Now all I need is a script...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 24, 2008 11:46 PM

Mixner, seriously, STFU. You're an idiot. Go back to Reader's Digest or whatever scholarly materials you've educated yourself with. God, you're stupid.

Posted by Guy in Jersey | April 24, 2008 11:57 PM

New Jersey once again proves itself the dumbest state in the union.

Posted by Guy in New York | April 25, 2008 12:04 AM

pretty sure the saying was "there can be only one" soo highlander isnt really referenced anymore than more than meets the ears is transformers....

Posted by steve | April 25, 2008 12:12 AM

pretty sure the saying was "there can be only one" soo highlander isnt really referenced anymore than more than meets the ears is transformers....

Posted by steve | April 25, 2008 12:15 AM

Obama can't pick Hillary as VP, because it could lead to her being President. Simple as that. Furthermore, Obama couldn't fire her, and God knows he couldn't put her in charge of heath care reform and shouldn't put her in charge of anything to do with foreign policy, the military, or traveling with Sinbad. What would she do?

And no to the Supreme Court. I want my justices not married to disbarred lawyers and batting 1.000 on bar exams they've taken.

Posted by David B. | April 25, 2008 12:20 AM

Obama can't pick Hillary as VP, because it could lead to her being President. Simple as that. Furthermore, Obama couldn't fire her, and God knows he couldn't put her in charge of heath care reform and shouldn't put her in charge of anything to do with foreign policy, the military, or traveling with Sinbad. What would she do?

And no to the Supreme Court. I want my justices not married to disbarred lawyers and batting 1.000 on bar exams they've taken.

Posted by David B. | April 25, 2008 12:20 AM

Hillary is enough of a problem on a combined ticket, but it's Bill that makes it completely untenable.

Imagine ANY candidate putting an ex-Prez on the ticket with them...think it wouldn't undermine every move he made, every word he uttered?

Good grief...imagine Bill on the loose with even less accountability than being *first laddy* would afford? Would ANY candidate do that to their own administration?

But by all means lets all keep assuming the Clinton narrative as the truth. They put something out there and it's reported without question...mulled for days...credence piled on it...all without question.

Vote hope, not fear.

Posted by G Davis | April 25, 2008 1:42 AM

She brings absolutely nothing but negatives to any possible ticket. Hell, I could write the GOP commercials using Hillary's own words against Obama.

No way.

He doesn't need her.

She couldn't get elected without him.

He has a deep bench from which he could choose.

Posted by rikyrah | April 25, 2008 2:01 AM

Apparently this means that Matt is a bigger sci-fi nerd than he is NBA fan. Wizard!

Posted by Quietus | April 25, 2008 2:21 AM

Were there in fact a subjunctive in the quote Matt cites, he'd not now have egg on his face (though he know it not). Be that as it may, we the readers prefer that he limit himself to subjects he understands.

Posted by subdude | April 25, 2008 4:08 AM

Re: For what it's worth I do know people who voted Clinton '96 and Bush 2000 and 2004 who know the country is going into the sewer but just aren't ready to admit they screwed up and reinstalling the Clinton's is doing that and voting for Obama isn't.

If you voted for Bush then voting for any Democrat this time around is an admission that you screwed up.

Re: And, I should add, it's not the number of votes that makes the base powerful.

Karl Rove lives! But no, we need to break out of this "play to the base" mode of politics. The Democratic base is smaller than the GOP's and even the GOP's can't elect anyone on their own.

Re: Irrational Clinton-haters who like Obama

Anyone far enough to the right that they hate the Clintons is unlikely to warm up to Obama.

Re: Just out of curiosity, Jon, where do you post from?

I live in S. Florida but come from Michigan originally. I know a number of people both he

The Quickening

Comments (115)