Kos on Hillary at the Washington Post
by RonChusidI fear that Hillary Clinton’s chances at the 2008 nomination, while still far from certain this far out, jumped tremendously today. Kos has an opinion article in the Washington Post on his perceptions of Hillary’s problems. Considering Kos’s track record, Hillary is probably celebrating tonight.
There’s no doubt this is the same Kos we see at his blog. He still has not gotten over fact that Kerry beat his guy (whose flaws he remains totally oblivious about) and tries to bash Hillary with a rather weak comparison to Kerry, even if it means resorting to repeating GOP talking points. It is a shame that when Kos criticizes Hillary for her moves to the middle he fails to acknowledge that it is Kerry who warned about compromising liberal principles in contrast to other Democrats after the 2004 election. Kos remains so blinded by his long-standing vendetta against Kerry that he fails to realize that it is Kerry who is leading the opposition to the war.
Kos notes that “pollster Mark Penn, a brilliant numbers guy, has counseled the Hillary team to ignore the party’s netroots activists as ‘irrelevant.’” If Daily Kos really represents the netroots, then this sounds like good advice considering that ” in late March, the Daily Kos’s bimonthly presidential straw poll delivered bleak results for Clinton, with just 2 percent of respondents making her their top choice for 2008.” Interpretation of polls has been one of Kos’s many weak points. Recall how during the 2004 race, despite later admitting lack of knowledge of fundamentals such as the margin of error, Kos misreported polls to suggest an inevitable Kerry victory, setting Kerry up for post-election criticism for losing an election they falsely claimed was his to win.
UPDATE:In the comments there is some confusion regarding this post with a couple of people mistakingly taking this post to represent support for a Hillary candidacy. More on this in a followup post.
Filed under: Democrats, John Kerry, OP/ED's, Politics | Get Permalink or trackback |
Boy
Just when you think the Washington Post can’t sink any lower-they publish this. I can’t tell what’s more pathetic: Kos’s “analysis”, Kos’s obsession with Hillary or WaPo’s obsession with Hillary. What’s the bigger joke anyway? WaPo allowing Kos to write a column in their paper thinking he’d give a serious analysis, or Kos thinking WaPo was the place to go to give an alleged “serious” analysis.
In DC (and elsewhere) folks often say that “misery loves company.” Apparently psuedo-intellectualism also loves company-in a very big way.
I for one will not give him that much credit.
Kos gives the ‘Kiss of Death’ to Hillary, just as he did to Dean?!
I don’t know. Kos World is full of Deaniacs, even to this day. Yeah, they’re some Hillary types running around over there – but nothing like the Deaniacs, even to this day. (This is all my observation.)
Hillary, hmmm, outside of beautiful downtown Seattle, I don’t see it around here. But then again, everyone can find supporters in beautiful downtown Seattle – those with liberal leanings that is.
Blue
Hollywood’s money loves Hillary but I wonder if they want her all the same?
I can’t believe you think a Hillary Clinton candidacy would be good for the party. She hasn’t figured out it’s not 1993 any more. This is not the time for hyper-cautious Hillary Clinton, tip-toeing around issues so as to not be caught taking a stand on one. This is the time for Democrats to stand up and offer a real alternative to what the Republicans have to offer.
I mean, if you WANT to lose, if you WANT people to keep scratching their heads and wondering what it is Democrats stand for, fine. But if Hillary is the nominee expect the base to start looking for a new party.
Despite my own disagreements about things Kos has said and done previously, I think he’s actually on the money this time.
Maha says it better – she’s a New Yorker with a bird’s eye view of Hillary and not a neophyte Deaniac utopian.
Still, it’s too early to call that race. Hillary has sufficient time left to outshine her record to date, but I’m not gonna hold my breath because fundraising prowess often leads to egotism more than to competent campaigning.
Kos has “New Face Syndrome”. Anyone who ran in ‘04 is not even on his radar screen. In that, he is consistent.
Maybe Marcos feels he needs a winner, any winner, to go with his self-proclaimed leader of the moonies status. He has achieved something with Daily Kos, which happened more accidentally and organically. Some good people and comment reside there.
Sometimes he takes more credit than he should for what’s good, and not enough for the bad, inept and immature.
maha,
Nobody here is saying a Hillary candidacy would be good. Note the post starts with “I fear. . .”
What I’m saying is that, with Kos’s terrible track record at predictions and simplistic political analysis, if Kos says Hillary can’t win this can be taken as a sign that her chances are actually much better.
Kos typically basis his predictions upon his opinion of the desirability of a candidate. Whether Hillary is a desirable candidate, and whether she is a potent candidate are two different questions. Arguments against her desirability do not necessarily make good arguments against her chances for winning the nomination.
Even though I agree with Kos on not wanting Hillary, our reasons are different.
Not being a new face is irrelevant, while this appears to be a major issue to Kos.
Kos appears to wish that Hillary had stuck to big ideas such as her health care plan. Hillary’s health care plan is a major reason I would not want her. While changes are obviously needed, Hillary’s plan would have been even worse than the status quo.
Maha
Across the board our readers here are of the same frame of mind – No Hillary.
What I’m saying is that, with Kos’s terrible track record at predictions and simplistic political analysis, if Kos says Hillary can’t win this can be taken as a sign that her chances are actually much better.
The problem is not with Kos’s abilities as a predicter. The problem is that the Kossaks and the rest of us liberal bloggers are having to fight the inertia and insularity of the Washington Dem in-crowd to get candidates we actually like rather than ones we vote for because they’re better than Republicans. That’s a tide that’s going to have to turn if the Democrats are ever going to stop living in the shadow of the VRWC.
Maha
I’m more concerned about ‘06 at this point than ‘08, everything that happens this November is a lead in to ‘08.
Maha,
As long as liberal bloggers allow someone like Kos to speak for them they will remain irrelevant.
If we wnat the best candidates, liberal bloggers need to look at candidates and their stands on the issues, rather than listening to Kos’s litmus tests based upon whether he likes how they sound or they are a new face.
Nick,
“What’s the bigger joke anyway? WaPo allowing Kos to write a column in their paper thinking he’d give a serious analysis, or Kos thinking WaPo was the place to go to give an alleged “serious” analysis.”
By far ghe bigger joke is the Washington Post allowing Kos to write a column. Despite their many faults, the Post remains a major newspaper. While I disagree with part of what he writes, I do not see anything wrong from Kos’s perspective of writing for the Washington Post when given the chance.
Blue Washington,
“Kos gives the ‘Kiss of Death’ to Hillary, just as he did to Dean?!”
No, it is the opposite. Kos supported Dean, whose chances were over rated. He is wrong again on Hillary in playing down her chances. While obvioulsy many things can happen to prevent Hillary from getting the nomination, she remains a strong front runner and Kos’s view to the contrary does not change this.
It is a shame Kos cares far more about tactics and about image than actual policies. If he paid more attention to policies he could have written a far better article on why Hillary would not be a good choice (without trying to confuse what he wants with what is likely).
One of the reasons we have had some Dem candidates that were not as good as the ones that won the primaries is that there are not enough people involved at the grassroots of CAMPAIGNS.
Every person who gripes about the insularity and inertia of the DNC should first say what local candidate(s) they are supporting. (Pearlmutter, Green, Keller). If you aren’t involved on the inside, the critical mass within the party to make changes is not there.
There are some reality lessons that outside quarterbacks need to learn about campaigns, candidates and voters before they consider their intellectual contributions viable in the real world of politics. Very few individuals will make changes. What we need are people who can articulate what many of us are thinking as the ideas and actions we should pursue. And the supporters who will build the momentum of consensus.
I have had many problems with the way our political parties run campaigns. It isn’t just the Dems. The system has been running this way for decades and the voters respond to changes erratically.
Business is fully aware that buying decisions are rarely rational. Neither is voting. The same kind of psychographic analysis needs to be done on demographic voter groups as are done on consumers. Polls and focus groups do this – to some extent. But I am not convinced the poll questions are phrased to get at the critical feelings of the responders. Then the messages that are put before the focus groups miss their most important concerns and positive response is lower than it should be.
There is an irrational focus in analysing whether some candidates were good or bad. Desirable and electable are missing the point of getting legislators who are effective. What some of us see as the most desirable candidates may be our own version of the GOP ideologues that have taken over. I firmly believe that the parties balance each other well if the elected candidates are humble enough to listen to other viewpoints so that the legislation that is produced actually works in the real world.
And the total disconnect of the real world stage that the candidates had to act on and the results of the elections is about as blind as you can get without being totally in the dark. Please, add these up and factor them into your analysis before you criticize or promote a candidate:
1)the Cheney-Rove campaign doctrine, 2) the right wing religious underground operating illegally out of churches small to mega, 3) the media Lapdogs, 4) Diebold et al 5) the Blackwells, Harrises, and all their ilk who independently or cooperatively carry out the Karldick doctrine. (AKA: set the voters up to be screwed by big corporations, willing or not). 6) the voters who have been duped or turned into apathy by the system
We will not reach the people we need to join us if we are not more constructive, rational and positive in our discussion and message.
Here’s one of the better blog comments on Kos’s column:
I’m not saying I agree with everything, but there are some good points. For example:
Certainly Dean ran an impressive campaign, thanks to the incredible energy of the netroots. But why did Dean tank in Iowa? It wasn’t because of Kerry’s money – Dean had plenty. It was because the political culture of Iowa Democrats had nothing to do with the emerging progressive netroots in 2004.
Markos’ analysis hinges on his “insider-outsider” framework. It reflects and expresses the frustration of super-smart strategists like Markos and his allies outside the Beltway who have never had the chance to run a national campaign against the Republicans – but are certain they would win if they had that chance.
But Democratic voters in Iowa don’t divide the world into “inside” and “outside.” Why would they? Iowa voters have the luxury of actually meeting the candidates and discussing substantive issues with them. They don’t need to deal in categories and abstractions.
When the caucuses finally roll around, Iowans go through a highly-interactive communal process to choose their candidate. While some are driven by single issues or personal connections, the collective process usually results in the choice of the Democrat Iowans believe has the all-around qualities that will make him or her most attractive to the majority of American voters, non-Democrats included.
In 2004, they saw qualities of character in Kerry – including his military decorations in a war-year election – that they simply didn’t see in Howard Dean. Given a choice between “exciting new” and “strong old,” they chose the latter.
So how will this apply in 2008? If nothing radical happens between now and 2008, Hillary will enter Iowa as the frontrunner. Since her roots are in Illinois and Arkansas, she will have no problem connecting with Iowa Democrats. Even Markos admits, “In person, Clinton is one of the warmest politicians I’ve ever met,” so she will win votes everywhere she goes.
“If nothing radical happens between now and 2008, Hillary will enter Iowa as the frontrunner. Since her roots are in Illinois and Arkansas, she will have no problem connecting with Iowa Democrats.”
Really Ron? I mean, outside of the big city liberals, I don’t see where she makes the connection. I see upstate in Illionis for her, but the rest of the state and Arkansas? Hmmmmm. Arkansas – Bill was governor, not Hill – I kinda see that as Clark country these days.
I place Hillary, as she fits here in Washington, in Seattle – big city liberal territory. A lot of money can be found there – but are there enough votes? I don’t think so – she’s gotta go out into the coutryside to get those, and I don’t think they’re there for her.
Ron Chusid Says: May 7th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Ron
Some interesting observations and thoughts on the post you linked to from Bob Fertik. One was this:
“In 2004, they saw qualities of character in Kerry – including his military decorations in a war-year election – that they simply didn’t see in Howard Dean. Given a choice between “exciting new” and “strong old,” they chose the latter.”
BW.
My take is similar. Assuming she does jump in, the Iowa voters don’t strike me as seeing her a good president any more than they did Dean. I don’t know about the conservative influence in New Hampshire. Vermont seems more interested in the candidate who can build consensus in the political reality that is Capitol Hill. Tweety thinks the GOP would like to see a NE conservative run for pres in ‘08.
He could actually be right. Similar groups in New Hampshire might go for Hil IF they can be convinced she can win in the general election.
That is going to be her big battle. I hope she loses it in the primaries so we don’t find out we were right in the general election.
Ginny
NH went for Kerry in the primaries and if it’s a battle between the two there in 08, I think they’ll choose JK again.
Blue Washington,
As I said, I don’t agree with everything there. I’m not sure how well she will connect with Iowa Democrats, but I wouldn’t write off her chances. Still, if she is going to lose her front runner status, I could also see that in Iowa personal factors of the candidates allow others to defeat her advantages in fund raising.
Let me throw another elaboration in to this.
Electability could be considered a combination of:
the candidate’s ability to connect and inspire voters
+
their qualifications that indicate s/he would be the best in the job they are being hired for.
The first has importance because it will add to the individual’s ability to persuade legislators and citizens when a more difficult path is the right one to take.
We ought to know that image is a lot easier to change than qualifications.
Pamela,
New Hampshire conservatives are a lot like Texas liberals
Ron,
Including, we hope, the factor of the Health Care initiative.
I admire her prodigous effort. The results should have been much better. Kerry puts in the same effort and usually slams the ball out of the stadium as far as being right.
Given the power of being voted into the presidency, he is more likely to start a US winning streak in prosperity, the environment, health, education, technology, human rights, and foreign relations.
One of the ways to look at qualification for any position are the levels of knowledge – especially as they contribute to the person’s learning curve before they get to 3 and 4.
(I think there should be a 0 – What you think you know is wrong. You either don’t know this or refuse to admit it.)
1 You don’t know what you don’t know.
2 You know what you need to learn
3 You have learned a lot but need to consciously apply it
4 ‘Thoughtless competence’ Mastery of an area of knowledge to the point you use it with the speed of a reflex, and intuitively use it to create new paradigms and perspectives.
The more areas any candidate can be considered at 3 and 4, the faster they will hit the ground and be able to make good changes.
I see Kerry as someone who rides a motorcycle, with a valid license, and doesn’t spin out. Able to play a game on ice, in ice skates, with enough talent to keep his body off the ice. A sailor/windsurfer who knows how to tack; to move against the wind, using it’s power for fuel. And he never looks all wet.
I would happily consider anyone who could accomplish as much, as quickly, as JK. The odds of that are improbable IMO. The need for speed and accuracy seems directly related to how close “Almost the worst crisis ever” is to whatever the worst crisis was.
My personal bottom line is not that we manage to save the country as a whole. I want to stop the tragedies that mount every day in individual lives. ASAP
Ron
Biggest joke is the Post allowing Kos to write a column-and right next to a column about can McCain be a Falwell Republican. I’m too young to have a first-hand memory of Watergate. Are you folks SURE it was WaPo that broke the Watergate story?
Gee Nick,
I was just about to hat tip KJ for setting the example of having ‘conversations with myself’…
Ron and I had a slightly similar discussion of what happened to Bernstein.
Whether it’s green or gold, paper or the real stuff, it basically comes down to lining pockets and feathering nests.
Is it me or are the page loads taking forever?
Two points: first, Hillary will NOT run for president, despite all of the media hoopla, and second, Democrats–REAL Democrats–should simply ignore Kos as being the joke he is.
Susan
Both good points.