The New Republic

Welcome Monsieur Wolfson...

...I wonder, is there any particular reason why The Plank and The Stump were considered inadequate sandboxes for you?

I was already finding it (very mildly) annoying to have to click through two separate blogs to see what TNRnians were thinking about the campaign - cuz lets face it, the "Obsessive Coverage of the '08 Race" long since breached the Stump's levy and flooded off onto The Plank - and this makes it three - adding 33% more senseless clicking. And I count myself lucky: ever since my cardiologist diagnosed me with high blood pressure I've been on strict orders not to read The Spine. But other readers now need FOUR browser tabs open just to read up on TNR's campaign coverage...to say nothing of 538, TPM, RCP and the rest of the usual suspects.

A petty gripe on a petty topic? You betcha...welcome to the world of bloggery.

- emigdio

September 8, 2008 at 3:28am

It's not an interest in some prurient catfight.  It's that Palin is there in part to appeal to women, and only another woman can forcefully argue against her without being accused of sexism.

Out of curiosity, are you still on Clinton's payroll?  Your argument above is so ridiculous that I have to wonder if it's basically a Clinton plant.  Does she not want to attack Palin on behalf of Obama?

Note to TNR: Wolfson's posts have considerably less value when we have to speculate from time to time on whether he's still shilling for the Clintons.

- ejbenjamin

September 8, 2008 at 10:38am

I really think just by BEING there, Hillary refutes the Palin argument. She can just remind people what an experienced, national politician who happens to be female looks like, she could have a bit about the vetting she's undergone, making Palin look thin. She can talk about all the interviews she's done and international leaders and travel she's done and just make Palin look insignificant. Throw in a little God and Country but from a progressive point of view, and make Palin look extreme. Then link herself to Obama as the best candidate. She never has to say a single word about Palin! This way Palin can't come back. She's already dropped the HRC line from her speech because it got boo'd.

BTW, I agree, can we put the Flack into one of the other blogs? Its hard to find here...

- dbhuff

September 8, 2008 at 10:52am

I have to second emigdio.  We need yet another blog?  I already have a hard enough time figuring out which thread of The Plank or The Stump is the one in which I have gotten into a pointless argument.  How will I keep up with a third?

- drdannyu

September 8, 2008 at 10:53am

I don't speak for everyone, but congratulations and welcome Howard.

And don't fuck it up this time.

A good start would be to avoid lectures on anything Hillary. People around here are already in various states of high dudgeon and the rest are in a shit their pants panic.

I'm sure you intend to channel the best of Hillary. But you could understand why we'd be happy if she and Bill were only concerned with fucking up the other side and getting any Democrat with a pulse to the polls. Probably in that order?

I'm not a consultant or a writer. None of my friends are big shots. I won't make a buck let alone get a job if Barack wins.

But unlike your old boss, I do own up to "quick and easy stereotypes". An example would be, "Michael talks and thinks too much but but he'll cut you off at the knees rather than lose."

See, I do want a quick and easy stereotype for the Clintons. I want the GOP to fear them like man eating tiger on the lose every time they open their mouth.

The how, why and were doesn't matter but let's forget about dogma like "staying positive and contrasting with her opponents on issues" and admit that "anything that screws them up" will be just fine.

McCain didn't appeal to any high-minded character quality when picking Palin. If he thought adding a child molester with Che Guevara tattoos would get him elected? Well...you get it.

The GOP isn't over thinking or even expecting people to think. A corpse is a corpse and if they have to sneak up with a knife in the back, fine.

Tell your pals to forget about style, for two months it's about body count. That would be bodies for Obama?  

Help us pull this off for one reason, for Obama-Biden and we won't need any lectures on the how and why. We'll be watching it happen.

And if anyone is up to the job, they are. So, we'll see how skilled they are when they are fighting for someone else.

Then when it's all over and we won, you can explain how they pulled it off. Won't that be fun?

Go get 'em!

- michael

September 8, 2008 at 12:04pm

I agree with michael. The times in this campaign that I have second-guessed my soft allegiance to Obama is when Hill went after the Republicans instead of going after Barack. It is crushingly ironic to me now--Barack staying largely positive earned my money (if not my vote since I caucused for Edwards), but his refusal to take out McCain stirs fondness for the Clintons.

So, yeah, it isn't (entirely) about "the catfight." Voters always bemoan negativity, even as they slobber over Fox News and vote for Bush. Steve Schmidt understands this culture industry. Hill's peeps do too.

Sure, the catfight is an irresistible draw, but it's mostly the fight we yearn for--even as we swear that we're above it, swimming in a warm realm of new politics.

Buyers' Remorse sucks.

- ryanmacd

September 8, 2008 at 12:44pm

As ejbenjamin said, the interest isn't in having a "cat fight" but in having someone who can attack Palin without being accused of sexism.

That said, your other points are correct.  Hillary is much better when she's being positive than when she's on the attack (unfortunately for her, whoever was setting the campaign's message seems to have been unaware of this).  And this is still about McCain, not Palin.  Palin is in many ways a decoy.  Hillary may be one of the few people who can go after Palin, but going after Palin probably isn't a great idea in the first place.

- AlanSP

September 8, 2008 at 1:00pm

I don't recall all the white guys (who are still) attacking Barack suffering much from the accusation of racism. I'd wager one could find a quote today that is coded, plays upon prejudice or is used by the GOP because it has been found effective only because Obama is not white. However, when Barack warns that to expect those tactics he's accused of playing the race card.

The GOP has the legit media on their heels and afraid to cite any reasons for doubting Palin's preparedness for #2 or POTUS.  Is anyone with a proud reputation standing up and saying, "Sorry, I screwed up. The GOP is right and I went to far with Sarah."? The Republicans claim the media is guilty, the media is cowering and I've yet to see journalists explain what they think is out of bounds and why.  

One can argue "this isn't about Palin" but McCain wouldn't have chosen her out of the blue and then wrapped her in Kevlar if he was certain she'd pose no risk as long as he controlled "The about" part. It may not be about Palin as it should be about Palin. Is everyone with a keyboard and a microphone being told, "We know where your kids go to school, no Palin shit...OK? OK."

Close your eyes and repeat twenty times:

This is not about Palin. ----- Quick HURRY HURRY! Surf the Web, go to a news stand or turn on the television. 3-2-1...

Weird, huh? TIME, NEWSWEEK the networks and my cranky neighbor didn't get the memo from Howard ("Every day we are focused on Palin is a day we are not amplifying the Obama campaign's message...")

Plan B? Someone who can do what the media won't but what McCain fears.    Simple!?

Who? Hmm. A well respected woman. A lady who has impeccable credentials for representing and championing the cause for women and when they've been hung out to dry. A woman who not only took more than her share of abuse from the media but got back up and was in their face as a candidate for the President of The United States. A women who can look Sarah Palin in the eye and say, "This is what I think of what you are and what you are not. You got a problem with that? OK, here I am."

I doubt there would be a catfight. See, the women I have in mind is covered with what is known as "Scratch Protector 08". It has been tested in all 50 states plus Guam and Puerto Rico. From the coalmines of Kentucky to the California sun.

We don't need no truth squad, we don't need no stinkin' media and we don't need John McCain tellin' the Democratic Party what and who is good for women. Hillary Rodham Clinton is Sarah Palin's worst fucking nightmare.

- michael

September 8, 2008 at 2:42pm

I think that if Hillary stumps for Obama--will she?-- it is unavoidable that she will deal with, campaign against , Palin in the sense of making a case why people shoudl be voting for Obama/Biden and not for McCain/Palin. The gender infused choreagraphy, when that case is made, will be unavoidable, regardless how artfully and deftly that case is made. Palin is a candidate for the vice presidency like no other that I can think of, at least going back to just after WW 11. She is a cultural talisman. And she needs to be confronted, but respectfully, her good faith assumed. I don't think it is possible to ignore her and just campaign against McCain. And that confronting, the way of it, may be very problematic. The best way I can think of , for Hillary or anyone else, is to confront McCain /Palin on their ideas and policies, and leave the sense of anything personal behind. Surely, that is also the way Biden ought to debate Palin, the way debates ought to be done, which is to say, civillly and vigorously and disinterestedly. The right approach is to take just the opposite tone from Peretz in his recent notorious post about those that are "swilly" that raised the hackles of W. Kristol and others. No talking down, no condescension and no patronizing or smug assumptions of superiority, which all will rile her  base  and may well resonate badly with independents.

- basman

September 8, 2008 at 4:12pm

Howard,

I missed the original welcome, so welcome to TNR's blogs.  And yes, the editors are correct, your posts have been some of the best reads on the election.

I'm looking forward to your contributions.

- jet

September 8, 2008 at 7:12pm

I agree with Jet.  Welcome Howard.

As a political operative, what do you think of the Obama campaign so far (since the primaries ended)? Both at the surface level, but also beneath the surface (do you think despite the reputation/noise, they're going to be succesful at registering voters/improving GOTV organisation.  Are the allocating $ well?  How much does Obama need to raise, to make the opt-out of public finance decision really work for him)

- aref_j

September 8, 2008 at 9:37pm

I agree with Basman about the tone & substance for confronting McCain Palin.  I heard Hillary on the radio this evening saying that McCain & Palin want us to believe that we should send them, as Republlicans, to what's wrong in DC.  She was very clear about linking them to the screwups of the past 8 years, and said it would be like expecting the iceberg to save the Titanic.

- strabka

September 8, 2008 at 9:43pm

Are we really going to be subjected to a Howard Wolfson blog? No disrespect meant towards Howard's ability to write a compelling blog, but...Holy Clinton propaganda, batman! Why not just give Paul Begala and James Carville blogs? Or -- even better -- just let Hillary write under a pseudonym!

I guess, in some twisted way, this blog and Marty Peretz' rants might cancel each other out...

I'll stick with Chait and co. over on the non-polarized blogs.

- jaydog16

September 9, 2008 at 3:28am

jaydog16

Silly post, apart from agreement or disagreement with Wolfson on substance. He is moderate and inclusive and sensible to a fault, also rather wise.  If you think what he has written here is a rant, like other rants that go on around here, I think you read him entirely imperceptively.

- basman

September 9, 2008 at 10:47am