Carville's comment was a Roveian piece of cynicism. Who knows what he really believes, moreover, who cares? The point was that it "controlled the narrative" regarding the Richardson nomination a bit. He correctly assumed that the boob-punditry would bite on the tabloid, mud-slinging dimension and give it equal airplay to the Richardson speech. Who cares about November? Who cares about doing a hatchet job on a recent Presidential candidate of your own party, if it controls the spin and keeps the Clinton fantasy alive? This is a desparate maneuver, which of course, none of the press idiocracy point out. Use of the politics of personal destruction is only one of many ways in which the Clinton machine has blurred the line between Republican and Democrats to the point where it is hard to say what the difference is, or what being a Democrat stands for. I don't fault Carville for astutely reading the pathetic state of what passes for "journalism" these days. One interesting question is whether you believe he was acting on his own.

Posted at March 30, 2008 1:08 PM in response to Response To Carville's WaPo Justification of Judas Comment

I haven't been feeling the inspiration from Barack quite as strongly in the last few weeks. I definitely want him to win, and am impressed by what I have read about the people he is surrounding himself with. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the GE if it comes to that. Yet I have noticed that when I watch him on television he appears a bit too careful, a bit repetitive, almost cautious about what he is saying, thinking too much, like he is "protecting a lead", maybe being "handled" too much now; the front-runner status hasn't helped him thus far, IMO. His ability to connect on a visceral level and inspire an audience is his great strength. The importance of plans are way over-emphasized by the Democrats historically. How many times must the lesson of Reagan be relearned? Get the people behind you first, then roll out your plans. The Democratic Party hasn't had a communicator like this since Kennedy.

Yet, since leading in the delegate counts he seems to have gotten away from his strength. I would say that his campaign didn't handle this well over the past few weeks, and let the Clintons back into the game, at least in terms of manipulation of the media and hence of voter's perceptions. (Of course, the media lust for a "horserace" and the bonanza of ratings and advertising dollars this would entail may be driving the coverage, and largely beyond his control). Still, somehow it seems the strategy or tactics have been a bit "off" in the last few weeks. I think he strategy has not been what it needed to be his momentum has faltered a bit, for the first time.

Every contest from here on out will count, especially Pennsylvania. I am not sure whether he needs to "go negative", or come to the realization that he might actually lose, and find the deep motivation within himself to dig deeper and fight the good fight, not to let this moment slip by. Whatever, it seems to me he must know who he is and not believe the descriptions of others: handlers, or the media portrayal of who he has become. His success comes from the way in which he conveys a deep, authentic sense of conviction about the need for change in this country, right now. You can feel it, which is inspiring to see in a public figure. He doesn't need to be another kind of leader.

Posted at March 5, 2008 7:44 PM in response to A reformed Republican learns a Democratic lesson

I don't think this particular gripe will make much difference to the viewing public, unless the CNN moderators are intimidated or otherwise instructed to treat Obama more "roughly" in the debate. Most of these "accusation" items don't seem to have much lasting impact on polls or primary results. The daily charges on the part of the Clinton camp convey a sense of desparation, the smell of a losing campaign, ready to do anything and say anything to grab headlines and manipulate the media for attention. It offers nothing positive about Hillary Clinton, and is obviously a negative "kitchen sink" approach in which each day brings a new complaint or "accusation du jour". This is a loser's strategy, and the reporting is nothing more than infotainment: reporting on reporting on reporting. No one takes it seriously.

Posted at February 26, 2008 8:44 PM in response to CNN Reports On Claims Of "Media Lovefest" With Obama

I like the idea of MoveOn.org, but in the style and content of the ads, there is often too much "preaching to the choir", not phrased or communicated in a way as to connect with people in the middle, or having other points of view. There is a tone to the MoveOn.org ads which reminds me of the mid to late 60s, after the unity had turned into polarization, and there was a sense of all government institutions being "wrong" or "bad" among young people. In the MoveOn.org ads the new villains are the Republicans: "we're good, they're bad". It is a very different tone from the early 60s. I find this approach to be somewhat arrogant and ideologically rigid in a way which is similar to conservative Republicans, just coming from the left rather than the right. Liberal-Progressive extremism alienated people in a serious way during the 60s, hence, Nixon, Reagan, Bush. Evoking the spirit of the 1960s requires a degree of finesse to avoid such a pitfall.

Posted at February 1, 2008 2:03 PM in response to MoveOn Members Vote Overwhelmingly To Endorse Obama