Tumors in the Campaign: The difference between the Benign and the Malignant

Tumors in the Campaign: The difference between the Benign and the Malignant






There are differences

Everything that is similar is not the same in kind.

WWE and High School wrestling both have a mat.

A misdemeanor and a felony are both infractions of the law. They are also completely different.

There is a significant difference between saying anything to get a vote and seeing anything to get a vote. One is fair game and the other creates an irreconcilable difference.

Saying anything:

Example: Proposing a gas tax holiday that is temporary, superficial, counterproductive and unsupported by your own economists is an example of saying anything to get votes of a particular type of voter.

We understand this. It is part of the game of politics. When it becomes the mainstay of your campaign it is pathetic, but it is benign. It has no carry over effect. It will get you some funny cartoons in the newspaper and a few pokes by Leno and Letterman but it leaves no lasting effect, unless you are habitual and then you are perceived as a panderer.


Seeing anything:

This means that you are willing to perceive anything that happens in a way that advances your campaign regardless of how contrary it is to your previous positions or your long held principles. This is the epistemological question – how do you know what you know? Are you willing not simply to say anything related to policy but are you willing to change how you perceive political reality.

Example: If you charge that the reason for your electoral loss is a result of your opponent’s sexist actions or if you charge the system is inherently unfair and the result is in contradiction to general fair play then you are not raising an issue that can be undone when you transition from a primary to a general election. You are aiming at de legitimizing your opponent and his nomination. You cannot unring this bell.

When the Clinton campaign is now using its surrogates to tar Obama as a sexist she intends to change the perception of the reality of the campaign:

Ferraro, a former member of Clinton's finance committee who resigned that post earlier this year after making comments many viewed as racially offensive, also said she thinks the Illinois senator has been "terribly sexist" over the course of the presidential campaign.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/19/ferraro-suggests-she-may-not-vote-for-obama/

When the Clinton campaign promotes the lies about Michigan and Florida it is trying to change the perception of the campaign and the fairness of the system – even though the system was changed to benefit her perceived strengths.

When the Clinton campaign speaks about the popular vote – there is none in a primary/caucus system, when they lie about caucuses being undemocratic they are no longer trying to curry votes they are trying to throw out the process and completely undermine the legitimacy of the process and scar Obama permanently as the candidate who won by unfair means rather than an opponent that consistently took the higher road and followed the rules to a T.


The Demographic Lie

Of all of the silliest statements that are repeated by the Clinton campaign that we will hear until their final exhale is that Hillary has dominated the white hard working demographic.

The media, desperate to have something to murmur, now has taken this as gospel, "Obama has to do something to engage the white working class white".

Clinton did well in this demographic in Ohio and Pennsylvania. In both of these states there was a more relevant dynamic and that is that both states were influenced by the old style machines of their governors who were heavily invested in her victory.

She also did well in this demographic in Kentucky and West Virginia where she lost in the city but ran up huge margins in the impoverished and sadly uneducated rural areas.

In Texas and Indiana it was a virtual tie (with an assist by Limbaugh)

Obama however dominated these demographics in the following states:

Wyoming, Vermont, Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia, Maine, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah and Iowa.



The Electability Lie

The most far fetched of these attempts to change the perception of what is going on is the “We will do better in the General Election”. Of course we all know that this is shorthand for America won’t vote for a Black. And of course it undermines their own argument that they can’t get the nomination because the country is too sexist (If the Democratic Party is too sexist to nominate a woman then certainly – following this twisted logic – the country is too sexist to elect a woman).

How is it possible to argue that a campaign that hasn’t grown in the primary season is going to gain in the general election?



This is a campaign that has flat lined and is now where it was when it started:



This is a campaign that has lost all perception and bangs the drum of electability as its numbers peak and decline





Saying anything is Benign, Seeing anything is Malignant.

The former you can walk away from. The latter is something that becomes, if believed, a permanent scar on your opponent. No endorsement given latter, regardless of the dramatics that are scripted to promote it, will take it away. One is a misdemeanor and one is a felony.

One is a benign mole that can be ignored. The other is a malignant growth that will continue to do damage up until the General Election.

Those that advance the lies about the outcome of this campaign being anything other than simply the accurate and honest results of a fair campaign vigorously contested and conducted by the rules seek not to influence the Nomination but the General Election. They are a cancer to the party, and they are not benign.

I hate to keep repeating this but it is instructive......

http://www.electoral-vote.com /

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May21.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May21.html

These are results of poll averages and much better than individual polls and......they are updated daily. Good bookmark.

Edit: I have been corrected. They are NOT polling averages.

Electoral-vote.com uses the most recent poll and only the most recent poll, discounting all others. They list the others in their tables below the maps, but the map is based on only the single most recent result.

The pollster.com poll grantcart posted in his OP on the other hand IS a polling average.

Six months ago Sentator McCain was declared politically dead.

The reality is that her campaign has generated no growth in 6 months of campaigning.

In every state Obama has increased his percentage of the vote.

Any projection at this point (whether they favor Obama, McCain or Clinton) for the General Election is farcical.

There is a reason that they have campaigns.

The proposition that Senator Clinton is going to do better in the General Election than she did in the primary - where she was unable to move her popularity is absurd. We are not looking at hypothetical results we have the actual results of how well she campaigns.

It is a sobering time for two reasons and your post underlines one.

The other is that the Clinton has dramatically raised the stakes by moving from the 'gas tax holiday' attack to 'he is not the rightful winner of the contest'. The first is temporary and almost forgotten. The second will grow if it is not directly attacked. And when Senator Clinton tries to give a 'one for the team' speech she will not be able to unring the bell.

But I understand if you don't agree with this assessment.

It's just a difficult time right now, and your thread title just pokes at the scab.

Unfortunately it is the most important time. How Senator Clinton and her supporters decide how they are going to characterize their political defeat will have an impact on the General Election.

And to make it even more sobering is that I am deeply concerned that how this is handled will have as much impact on whether or not we are involved in armed combat with Iran 12 months from now as any other single event this year.

A decision to take their manufactured perspective of what this campaign has been about and take it to the floor of the convention will be a great burden for Senator Obama and the Democratic Party to bear.

Sorry, but it's tacky right now...a lot of us are really upset about Kennedy's condition, and this just seems tasteless.

Countdown is on now.


:rofl:

It seems that for the past 8 years we've been battling to slay organizations like Fox News, to point out their biases and de-legitimize them as a 'trusted source for news.' We've mocked their 'fair and balanced' approach. For example, we've pointed out their obvious sexism (google 'Fox News porn' for instance) and yet we have DEMOCRATS hailing Fox as the 'most fair and balanced' and going on Fox to denounce a fellow DEMOCRAT as sexist.

What is that going to do for the Democratic party? What is this going to mean for the next 4 or 8 years, when we once again take on the dragon but it is wearing the armor of 'Well, Hillary's campaign called us 'fair and balanced''? How do we put *that* genie back in the bottle?

A very enthusiastic K&R!!

:kick:

It's a shame they don't realize it.

I got to the bottom of one DUer's selective cognition;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6038963#6041630

and he never responded.

They want to believe that Obama supporters are 'evil', and will reorganize their perception around that preconception.

The Clinton campaign is doing this, and they can't see it.

Oh, great post too BTW.

There is a cancer on the party. But let us use wisdom. It will take a careful, targeted surgery to excise this cancer. Obliteration is NOT the solution because we (the body of Democrats) would hurt ourselves in the process. The goal is removing the cancer and leaving a healthy body that can then defeat the Republican enemy.

We should not let our anger, disgust, or disappointment distract us from that ultimate goal.

I know what you're saying, but given the events of the last few days, the "tumor" analogy makes me cringe.

And that was exactly what I felt when Senator Clinton upped the ante for a fratricidal convention fight that would result ultimately in McCain's election and drawing us closer to a war with Iran.



Unfortunately I think the threat of a convention floor fight requires a sharp analogy and this seemed to be the most appropriate.

But I certainly understand your objection.

whether it is thermonucler obliteration of Iran or a floor fight at the convention this type of ham handed approach is being completely rejected by the party. Senator Clinton is ending her campaign with exactly the same level of support that she started with.





Those of us who actually joined the Kennedys in the challenges they laid out for the country 40 years ago (see reply downthread) are not going to let this personal lust for power derail the candidate will bring us back to the traditions that the Kennedy's gave us.

As one of the purveryors of the anti Obama hatred that is based on such lies as

"19. Why won't Obama and his supporters fight for disenfranchised voters?

You are the perfect example of the following:



Having lost the campaign for the nomination a desperate attempt is now made to discredit the process, and the candidate it has selected with the only possible result that it will assist the Republicans to win in the fall. You are the perfect illustration of the grim reality that Clinton's reckless and hypocritical threat of a floor challenge is intended to move to a form of political extortion. Her actions and words like yours do not attempt to advance her failed campaign which has ended where it started with 40% of the party supporting her. They seek only to discredit the process.

The actions that she is threatening will draw us closer to a McCain candidacy and by logical extension military confrontation with Iran.

And it is not simply Obama supporters who voice this concern.



As somebody who answered Kennedy's call to join the peace corp and ended up spending 7 years in refugee camps cleaning up after war I will do whatever I need to draw the stark relief necessary for people to see the danger that her reckless party fratricide now poses.

If and when a Kennedy family member objects I will be tentative but from my contact with the Shriver side I don't think so. You do not have that standing.

I do believe that they would take rather strong objection to those who try to undermine Senator Obama's leadership in returning the United States to the Kennedy style of tough diplomacy with direct confrontation with our enemies rather than the empty saber rattling of winging thermonuclear policy on the campaign trail with new formulations of "obliteration" of our enemies and a bizzare reference to expanding the archaic policies of Mutually Assured Destruction through out the Middle East.

You are the one without class and without any respect for the traditions that the Kennedy's have provided the party.

Seriously, there are some really good detox centers available 24 hrs.

crutch - the flimsy straw man.

Nobody has said anything about Hillary staying in the race. What was addressed was the same exact thing that Senator Schumer brought up 3 months ago - attacks which are "So if one candidate is doing something that is regarded as really self-destructive, of the ability to win, that's really going to hurt them."

it is her moving from simple attacks on objective policy agreements - which were discussed and accepted as harmless to those attacks which go to discrediting the win as one of the result of sexism and inherently unfair system and to threaten to take it to the floor of the convention if she doesn't get her way. These specific examples and not the mind fuckingly stupid strawman that are your habitual tool of misdirection is what will contribute to a McCain victory. And yes Senator McCain will move the country towards a military confrontation with Iran.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6049536&mesg_id=6049536

But before that you threw him under the bus when he endorsed Obama.

Of course I was upset that Kennedy endorsed Obama, especially since his state favored Hillary. That does nothing to diminish his stature in my eyes. This post comparing benign and malignant tumors is just sick.

I see it's pretty clear.

You know as well as anyone he's not talking about Kennedy at all, but the malignancy of what the Clinton campaign has degenerated into -

A malignancy kills the host eventually. Like the Clintons willingness to kill the party, just because princess cannot have her way.

The bigger the malignancy, the more severe the surgery.

I cannot wait until they are BOTH cut out of the party.

lives. What the fuck is your problem??

You are needed more than ever around here. lol

I felt it was justified. but I respect your sentiment.

certainly considering the news yesterday.

though i usually really like your posts and the information in this one is interesting as always. :hi: