Mike: Tuesday Pennsylvania voted. This was supposed to be a race that was over. Barack Obama was the choice of the people. That's what the media said. You heard he was closing the deal. We were told it was over. He outspent her at least three-to-one. But Mr. Pretty Words lost. By ten percent. And, oh, did the Bambi Groupies go nuts.
Rebecca: Dave Lindorff, who feels that Barack deserves to be president because he "risked jail" by doing drugs, wanted to debate the ten percent win. It was really important that he argue about fractions. But when your mind is as cracked as his is, you focus on the most meaningless of details. It was pathetic.
Ty: A longterm reader, George, e-mailed a quote from Harper's magazine's John R. MacArthur: "The mistake of the former left-wingers, from Tom Hayden to Todd Gitlin, is that they want to be players in the Democratic Party and academia. This is not what the left is supposed to be. The left is supposed to be outside the system. The attempt by the left to take control of the Democratic Party failed with McCarthy and George McGovern. The left, at that point, should have gone back to organizing, street protests, building labor unions, and the mobilization of grassroots activists. Instead, it went for respectability." I saw that Friday and e-mailed back for the source but haven't heard back yet.
C.I.: It's Chris Hedges from The Philadelphia Inquirer, "The left has lost its nerve and its direction" it ran last Sunday. He's quoting the statement in his column.
Ty: Thank you. I looked at Harper's and couldn't find it. McCarthy is Eugene McCarthy, the peace candidate of 1968 who flipped with a vengeance. Trina wrote about independent media in "Corn-Stuffed Bell Peppers in the Kitchen" and I thought we might be able to discuss what's going on now, what MacArthur is talking about, with what Trina's talking about that happened before.
Jim: Good idea. Okay, Ruth?
Ruth: I did read Trina's piece. I'm hearing the quote from Mr. MacArthur for the first time. But I agree with Ty that you can tie them together. Trina was writing about how independent media died following Vietnam. And how it did, which goes to Mr. MacArthur's comments, because people stopped trusting them. They became about candidates and that's not what built them up. But once they had a following of some form, they began itching to be king makers and they threw the standards out the window. Trina's account jibes with my own memories of that time and, like her, I see the same thing happening today.
Kat: I'll jump in here because we're talking about my school years when there was a really vibrant independent media scene. And then it went away. To use one counter-culture bible as an example, Rolling Stone. There's been a great deal of ink wasted on how music died and Rolling Stone did as well. Or Rolling Stone lost touch with music. There are those who don't think it did enough to promote for punk, for instance. But the reality is Rolling Stone became a non-stop cheerleader for Jimmy Carter, long before he was in office. I like President Carter and voted for him. I would vote him for again if he were to run. However, we saw slanted coverage on Carter and that's when the kids turned on Rolling Stone. We weren't idiots. We saw it happening. We realized that there were standards for some and standards for none. And as Carter got closer to the White House, Rolling Stone lost its steam and its importance. It seemed to suffer from self-importance. It's really easy to blame it on something like music but the reality is that there was a fundamental shift that took place and it effected not just how the magazine was seen but also how the magazine self-presented. It became a professional and lost its vibrancy. So that's one concrete example of a periodical that was in touch with the politically aware and destroyed itself by becoming a cheerleader and a biased cheerleader at that. If I can add something to that, I'd note that they have the "Rock Issue" for 2008 onsale today and no one but a pathetic magazine -- which is all it is today -- would put Madonna's picture on the cover as an example of 'rock.'
Elaine: I think Kat provided the best example and I think you can apply that to all of what was the underground press. You weren't reading for pretty. You were reading for the life in the publication. But they all went into professional and avoided controversy. You started seeing the 'dining out' sections appearing in the 'alternative' weeklies, for example. And all of them began editing out certain words and also editing long pieces down. It was an attempt to go mainstream and that's not what drew anyone to them in the first place. No offense to Jimmy Carter, but he wasn't my Democratic choice in the primaries in 1976 and I remember the very slanted coverage coming from 'independent' media at that time. It's similar to what we're seeing with Barack Obama today.
Jim: You compared him, Barack, to Jimmy Carter at least a month ago.
Elaine: Well that's another example. But you grasped that they had no respect for you, that they thought you were idiots and you had no reason to read them. That's why they died. That's why they lost importance. They would argue they were maturing but I think the critics were right, they were selling out. MacArthur's two examples are good ones, Tom-Tom and Toad. Two sellouts surpreme. As disgusting as both men are today, they were that disgusting then. The only thing that surprising is that Tom Hayden, the notorius pollster, didn't learn from his first sellout. He's selling out again. I'm not surprised by Toad. But Tom-Tom knows where this path leads. Of course, he probably fools himself that this time he'll be sitting pretty in the end. Short of divorcing his current wife and marrying another money maker who can bankroll his campaign dreams by the millions, he's going nowhere. Going nowhere real slow.
Jim: Rebecca?
Rebecca: Well, my view would be more distant because Elaine and C.I., in college, were much more up on the underground press. For me, the thing that stood out would be after college, when I was working in my first professional job. I was feeling very sad, very lost and one day I saw a rack with the free papers, which would be the underground press. I picked one up thinking it would remind me of my friends, Elaine and C.I., and pick up my spirits and instead I was reading the equivalent of the culture section of a mainstream newspaper. I didn't follow closely enough to see the sellout, I only saw it after it happened. But I had friends who would just scream about writers, the way people complain about sellouts like Amy Goodman today, and I know the grief we feel today over the death of 'independent' media was felt then as well.
Dona: I'm going to jump in and, obviously, I didn't live through that time period. But we know it, Jim and I, from class projects and digging into C.I.'s library. C.I. has most of those periodicals in bound volumes. And you can, just turning the pages, see the life leave those publications. It's really noticeable once Nixon resigns. They're sort of in a static state of flux until they hop on board the Carter campaign. In terms of today, let me speak for the community and note that there wasn't much plan to cover the campaign that's ongoing. We only got involved when so many lies were being told and repeated. I would prefer to cover other things but there is some real sexism going on and there are some real issues with a lack of standards. I can remember Bill Clinton as president. I'm old enough to remember him as president at the end of his second term. But what I really know about Bill Clinton came from the response after he left, the response to the right-wing attacks. Those lies were called out and it's amazing to see some of the people and some of the sites that called them out now repeat them. It's not a level playing field. I'd like to think I would object regardless but the fact that it also includes sexism means I damn well will object. And loudly. I'm censoring myself somewhat in this -- we all are -- because we plan to do a feature on how toxic 'independent' media is today. But the point MacArthur's making is solid and I wish I was able to add, "And that's why we're not covering the political race." But we are covering it and we would for the issue of sexism alone. Ava and C.I. introduced feminism at this site from day one. When the rest of us didn't know what they were doing, let alone what we were doing, they did. And it's something we're all aware of, sexism, and something we make a point to call out.
Jess: Well, if you go back to 2007, you'll see we made every effort to note all Democratic contenders and Dennis Kucinich got the most praise, followed by John Edwards, followed by Bill Richardson. We held Hillary to a standard and we held Barack to a standard. Even then, Hillary came out ahead because Barack's so disgusting and we knew all about that from Elaine and C.I. None of the 'scandals' have surprised us. The only thing that has surprised us is what's still not being covered.
Jim: Okay, well let's go there. A number of e-mails to this site were about C.I.'s piece on Sam Graham-Felsen, people claiming to be longterm readers, claiming they e-mailed all the time, showed up to say that they were offended. None of these people have ever e-mailed. We have copies of all our e-mails. Jess started that the first month of the site. He's got them all in a notebook. So, first off, when you astro-turf us in the future, grasp that we know who's written and who hasn't because we have every e-mail from the three-years-plus of this site printed up. Second, among regular readers who were e-mailing, it's the most requested thing to be included in this week's "Highlights." I've got a few comments to make on it but I thought we'd get a few comments here before I spoke. So C.I.?
C.I.: I wrote it. I think it speaks for itself. I'm not trying to stop the discussion, I'm just noting, I wrote it so I've already said what I said.
Jim: Okay. Kat, why don't you give us the backstory because I know you were involved in this. First, the astro-turf accused C.I. and us of being part of the Hillary campaign.
C.I.: Let me respond to that charge. I'm not part of any campaign. No one involved is. I had no idea someone would be so stupid as to make such a ridiculous charge. If I were a part of the Clinton campaign, I would be asking members to send money to the campaign and I've never done that. Last week, I was willing to link to everyone's store because the Ralph Nader store had just gone up. I thought that was news but grasped that some might see it differently. So I asked the friend I was dictating the snapshot to to go to all the stores. Cynthia McKinney had no store, that was noted. Barack's store said there would be a two to three week delay because they were out of stock. That was noted and no link provided. Hillary's store, like Ralph's was linked to. To be sure that no one thought there was bias in that, John McCain's store was also linked to. Had McKinney a store or if Barack hadn't had that two-to-three weeks headline, they would have been linked to as well. Donation requests that appear in the HUBdate do make it up at The Common Ills. I don't edit the HUBdate. Members know that, they know that because there is a publication I loathe and do not link to. If it's in the HUBdate, as it has been twice so far since we've been reposting that, it gets linked that way because I don't edit the HUBdate. It goes up word for word. If I was part of the Clinton campaign, it would be run a lot differently. We can come back to that but I want to be clear on that point because some idiot will try to tie them together. I am my own person, we all are our own persons. Our statements represent only ourselves.
Jim: Okay. Kat, you know a lot about the backstory and with it being noted that it's "as I recall it" and may or may not be agreed to by C.I., why don't you bring us up to date on the Sam piece.
Kat: I always talk politics in the things we do. The speaking engagements Ava, C.I. and I do. They don't. They will pick up something as a favor to a professor or something. But it's made clear that those are two different things, that that's a campaign speaking thing and that Iraq is its own thing. But because I'm the one talking about the political race, anyone wanting to talk about that after we're done seeks me out. So I get a lot of stuff. Where C.I. found out about Sam only C.I. knows. But I do know, from being on the road, that C.I. was researching that for about four weeks now. I know C.I. had Sam's resumes from past jobs and I know C.I. had a chart of all of Sam's friends. C.I. was nailing that story down. What happened was that on Tuesday the morning entries were dictated to a friend who taped them to then type up. C.I. finished as we arrived at a campus. We went and spoke and after a former friend of Sam's approached me and started speaking of the person blogging for the Obama campaign. He said, "I'm not making this stuff up. I was just talking to ___ at ____ about it." A daily paper. I said, "Hold on a minute." I waived C.I. over and I had the guy repeat what he had just said. I assumed that C.I. would want to know that because it could be breaking at any minute, the Sam story, and I knew C.I. had worked like crazy nailing it down. C.I. got on the cell phone and asked if the pieces were up and was apparently told that one was but the other wasn't. C.I. said, basically, stop the presses. And C.I. was flipping through notes to give out web addresses. If you read that entry, you'll see that Sam's at the top. The original entry was what goes below and anyone reading The Common Ills even semi-regularly would have grasped that. My opinion, had that not happened, the almost scooped by a daily paper, you would have seen more than you did. I'm not insulting what is up but C.I. notes that's just sticking to the public record. I know for a fact that there are other details but C.I. was looking for four confirmations and only had three on some of them. But that's the backstory on it as I witnessed it over the last four weeks.
Jim: Okay. Mike, I was talking to your mother, Trina, and your grandfather about it so let me let you toss out anything first because, since you're all family, I may end up stealing your points otherwise.
Mike: I loved it. We all did. I think it goes to judgement. Is Barack saying that's who he wants in his campaign? If so, is that the sort that he would appoint? The entry has taken off on the right-wing blogs. So obviously, it's news. And I think for someone who brags about superior judgement, who's running a Democrat campaign, we have a right to wonder what this says about whom Barack would hire and appoint and how well he would vet them. I think if Sam were nominated for a cabinet post with the same background, it would be an issue.
Jim: That was the point that your mother and grandfather made. You grandfather talked about Barack's "airy chatter" about how he can reach across the aisle and how if this is an example it's a poor one and indicates poor judgement. Does anyone else want to weigh in?
Betty: I will! I'm surprised there was any problem with that entry. As Kat noted, C.I. stuck to the public record. All that information was out there. Good detective work on C.I.'s part. Great entry.
Jim: Well I agree with Betty. It is news. I figured what Kat just recounted was how it was going on because I know Sam's friends have called the house, C.I.'s house, while Kat, C.I. and Ava have been on the road. So I knew there was something in the works. But, yeah, it's journalism. It's real journalism. If Sam's hanging the Communist flag -- and bragging about it for publication -- turning his roomates onto Marx and publishing in a Marxist publication, what's he doing being picked by Barack for his campaign's blogger? It's news. It clearly reflects on judgement. It clearly begs the questions of did they not research Sam or were they okay with Sam?
Cedric: I'm thinking this goes to a stupid charge of 'red baiting,' am I right?
Jim: Yeah, that's what the astro-turf said.
Cedric: Sam Graham-Felsen's comments were made for publication. Tough. Get over it. And, just FYI, it's not a good idea for someone who's a closeted communist to cry "red-baiting." That would be where it would come from, of course. I'm referring to a broadcast this week. One the day after C.I.'s piece went up. Oh boo hoo, closet doors may break down. Here's a thought, don't hide in a closet. But if you're too much of a chicken to be open about what you are, then stay out of Democratic races. Don't pretend you're a Democrat in public so you can comment on a Democratic primary and endorse Barack. If you do, you're asking to be exposed.
Betty: As C.I. has said for two weeks now, fair is fair. When the Democratic Party was offended that Ralph Nader was getting support from Republicans in 2004, they went public. Their belief was that people had a right to know who was supporting a candidate. I happen to agree with that and, to the red, I know who Cedric's talking about, shut up, you big baby. If it's worth knowing who's supporting Nader in 2004, it's worth knowing who's supporting Barack today. But all these closeted communists in 'independent' media think they can smear Hillary and offer their "Democratic" critiques. They aren't Democratic critiques. They are radical critiques. And, to get back to the point Elaine and everyone was making before, they aren't applied fairly. They're applied to Hillary but with Barack nothing gets applied. And that goon Dave Lindorff is saying that we can hope he will be different. Oh go hope your ass off, Lindorff. I'm sick of your mouth. Back in September you were running your "Quit the Democratic Party" campaign and now you're cheerleading Barack. What a bunch of losers.
Ava: I agree with Betty. And fair is fair. Betty's angry and went beyond what we probably wanted to talk about here -- because we're hoping to do a feature on the toxicity -- but she's right, there aren't offering a Democratic critique. And, let me just note, all this talk about Barack being the next FDR? Usually coming from the closeted Communists. When we got back, Jim tried to pump me on information, the backstory about the Sam article. I told him I wasn't talking and I'm not on the backstory. But in terms of what it was, it was real journalism. Did it embarrass little Sammy? Probably so. When people live in closets they are likely to be embarrassed. That's life. On Dave Lindorff, he has a real problem with facts and I've long noted that. He invents things or reads wrong before he writes and his pieces are riddled with inaccuracies. I'm referring to his online writing, I would assume his paid writing in magazines are fact checked -- but I may be giving too much credit to Panhandle Media. Here are some basic facts people should file away as life lessons. 1) Closets are for wardrobe, not for hiding. 2) A Democratic primary is the business of Democrats. If you're not a Democrat, you have no business endorsing during a Democratic primary. If you must endorse, you are obligated to disclose your politics. Now Republicans are known. So the ones hiding are Communists and Socialists. If you're unable to identify your politics honestly, that's your first clue that you have no business making a political endorsement. Once you do, or go to work for a campaign, you will be subject to scrutiny. In terms of the closeted Communists, they've destroyed the Communist Party and you have to wonder if that's not why they're trying to infiltrate the Democratic Party today? Their vicious infighting caused their own party to splinter into several factions. They don't seem to think they can build a party today so they want to latch onto the Democratic Party. The only good in this is that young Communists, people my age, aren't in the closet and they can and should take control of their party right now while their usual leaders are pretending to be Democrats. I'm serious on that, redraft your rules, redraft everything to prevent the eyesores from coming back in a few months and trying to take control. Shut them out. It's the only hope your party has of making an impact.
Ty: I was actually going to read an e-mail from Zoie, who is a 21-year-old Communist, a regular reader of this site and was among the people praising multiple entries by C.I. including the Sam post. Her point was that with all the closet cases focused on the Democratic primary and passing themselves off as Democrats, she felt like she could put in measures, in her local party, to shut these types out. She made the same complaints that Ava did about how those people have splintered the Communist Party and how it's time to "shut the door while they're out of the house."
Ava: My apologies to Zoie. If I'd known you had an e-mail to quote on the topic, I wouldn't have sounded off. But, to Zoie, go for it. While the malcontents are posing as Democrats, take control of your party and steer it to prominence.
Cedric: Well, I think it's important to remember that we have covered Communists and Socialists here. But we have never intentionally covered closeted ones. There is a difference. Would we cover a Republican pretending to be a Democrat? No. Not unless we were calling them out. Ava, Dona and C.I. spoke in last week's roundtable about how there's a kind-of war resister who is a closeted Communist. We don't cover him. His whole life is about fakery. He hides his past political involvement, he pretends he doesn't have a college education and lies about why he enlisted. Knowing that, if we cover him, we either have to call him out or we have to be liars. So we just ignore him. It would be dishonest for us to pretend like we believed a word he was saying when we all know better. He wants to lie to people and if we repeat it, knowing what we know, we're guilty of lying too.
Betty: Well I think people need to get real. There's no law against being a Communist. If you're a Communist and you're hiding then you've got no reason to speak out on anything. If you're closeting yourself, you're sending and enforcing a message that your political beliefs are something to be ashamed of. As for 'red baiting' or the more ludicrous charge of "McCarthyism," you start endorsing in a Democratic race, people have a right to know where you stand. But, to get back to Dona's point, there's another reason we'd be covering Hillary. There's the sexism, no question. But she's also become the underdog and we exist to counter-balance. That's the lies of the right-wing, absolutely. Sadly, the left and 'left' are lying so much now that we need to conter-balance that as well. I don't know about the liars' lives on a day to day basis, but I've got three kids and I've got to tell them, "Do this" and "Don't do that." They expect me to be honest and with three pairs of young eyes looking back at me, I have to be honest. I can't even lie about hiding their Halloween candy anymore. They've gotten too smart for me. Used to, I would just play dumb and act like I didn't hear them. But last October, my oldest confronted me the day after and I had to say, "Yes, I hid your candy and you can have some on the weekend but not until then." Imagine if I was lying about what I believed in. How would I be able to do that when I knew my kids were watching me? I wouldn't. Sam chose to publish in a Marxist publication and chose to do that less than a year before he went to work for a Democratic presidential campaign. It's news.
Jim: Elaine, you wrote last week about a topic that kept getting pushed aside, one we hope to do this weekend, and I was wondering if you could talk about that here?
Elaine: In terms of this subject? Well I drank the Kool Aid, I was a good little leftist but I'm recoiling in horror at a number of things. That includes Alexander Cockburn floating rumors about John McCain as a prisoner of war. I do not like John McCain, I would never vote for John McCain for any office. But I found Alexander Cockburn's writing highly offensive. What's been going on with left voices and their 'toxicity' has been a real shock, we've all talked about that, and it really has shocked me. In terms of Communists, some of the the radical left loves to accuse Israel of 'hiding behind' the Holocaust, of using that as an excuse to shut down discussions about the Israeli government's crimes. Well McCarthyism, though an awful period, was not the Holocaust. My point is that this idea that they are some group, Communists, beyond comment because of McCarthyism is ridiculous. And when it's someone like The Pooper, Marc Cooper, making that charge, it's only more ridiculous because he smeared A.N.S.W.E.R. as Communist this decade. But he loves Barack Obama and nobody better lay a hand on his lover boy. So suddenly he's screaming "McCarthyism!" And doing so about a domestic terrorist being covered in the press.
Jim: Okay, I'd asked C.I. to talk about this topic right here, the one Elaine just got to and C.I.'s held off on other things as a result. What are your feelings about Weather Underground?
C.I.: Well, it's strange. Usually I'm in the position of saying, "Okay, here's the context for their actions." I have no problem with doing that.
Jim: I'm stopping you for a moment because Ty handed me an e-mail. It's not from a regular reader who's ever written before. He signs it "Obama Gets The Nomination, Go F**K Yourself." He wants to know why you and Elaine have never denounced violent actions?
C.I.: Elaine, jump in if you want to. But Elaine and I never took part in violent actions. We never set any bombs. We never attempted to overthrow the government, violently or non-violently. During Vietnam, our work was speaking out against that illegal war and helping draft resisters, draft dodgers, war resisters. Now I have a poli sci background and I can put into context what happened with Weather. But not only were Elaine and I never tempted to join them or any other violent group, we also wouldn't have had the time. So we have nothing to denounce. But back to the point, there was a criminal government and, from a poli sci angle, and as someone who studied revolutions, rebellions and resistance, the Weather Underground exists as a very real point on the history of those times. I have no problem saying that and I have no problem understanding why people joined up -- some of whom Elaine and I knew very well. But we don't deny the actions that took place. We don't say, "It's perfectly fine that they did ___." We say, Elaine and I, here's what was going on and here's why people felt powerless and when people feel powerless there are certain responses . . . But what's going on right now is a denial of the actions that took place. It's as if Weather Underground's been turned into an animated film put out by Disney and all the characters are cuddly, little animals.
Elaine: I would agree with everything C.I. said and I would also note that it's difficult to talk about for C.I. because C.I.'s always been able to see both sides. So when the current coverage is such that it reduces the crimes of the Weather Underground, it is uncomfortable. We know Bernadine Dorhn, we know Bill Ayers. We like them as people. We're happy to defend them but we're not going to deny what took place. One area we strongly defend them on, and have here, is the notion/smear that Weather destroyed the left. No, it didn't. That's as dumb as saying Charles Manson destroyed the flower children. It's a popular narrative but it's lacks truth. But we're not going to pretend that they weren't trying to overthrow the government. As C.I. pointed out, during Vietnam, our work was on ending the war. We weren't part of the "Bring It Home" crowd. We didn't condemn that crowd -- whether they resorted to violence or not -- but it wasn't anything we believed would work and we didn't have the time for it. We were on the road every week after college -- and during college. I remember some group of women were going to make the Pentagon or Wall Street levitate and we always wondered how the press on that came out but we didn't have the time to follow that. Note, I said the press. We knew it was going to rise in the air but we were interested in how the press was going to cover the non-happening. There were a lot of actions going on and that was a good thing because they kept the interest level up but our focus was on ending the war and helping war resisters. We never made bombs, wouldn't know how to make them. We do know how to shoot a gun. We actually traveled with one due to the fact that we were often in areas where a lot of violence, such as during the Civil Rights era, had taken place. We never shot anyone. We certainly never robbed anyone. We don't have any violence to renounce because we never took part in any. I mean, we could renounce the five dollar tip we left for a witch in Nashville in the early seventies who was trashing "hippies" and war resisters. She really ticked us off and we used the catsup bottle to put catsup inside the folded five because she just tossed the tips into this pocket on the front of her apron. But other than that, the only other thing would be a few knees in the groin to men who didn't know how to take 'no' for an answer.
C.I.: I had forgotten that waitress. She had a red beehive and a dark mustache. But what Elaine's saying is correct. Now, we would wonder, when we were on the road and would hear about some bombing, if we weren't focused on the work we were doing, would we have felt the need to take part in that? It was a very frustrating time and while our answer was always no, we weren't a part of that world. We can say we would have said no but who knows? We had a different perspective because by that time we both were not dependent upon anyone for money. Due to our backgrounds, we had contacts and were less frustrated than some.
Elaine: Right. Then, like now, we could hear from members of Congress that they wanted the war to end and they would outline what needed to happen for them to get on board with that. And if you weren't having that dialogue, if you were just left with the press, it could be very frustrating because Nixon swore he was going to end LBJ's war and he didn't. So you could see it as both the Democrats and the Republicans were liars. C.I. wrote a thing, I think it was last week, where the wording stood out. C.I. was talking about how we believed there was spying going on. That was another part of it. Yes, post-Watergate, we all knew spying was going on. But we could tell it before the press exposures. So you knew you were being spied on. Weather really got into violence after Fred Hampton was slaughtered. I never met Fred Hampton but there's no question -- unless you're Gary Hart -- that he was slaughtered. He was drugged, it was a set-up. My point here is: It wasn't like it was all sunshine and one day Bernadine decides, "I don't like sunshine, let's declare war." She and others were responding to very real things -- crimes -- that the government was doing. She and others lost faith in the government and didn't feel it could swing back to anything that would create a liveable existance for many Americans. C.I.'s background is poli sci -- or includes poli sci, C.I. has multiple degrees -- my background is psychology. There is a context for the actions Weather took. But while we have no problem providing the context for those actions, we have a huge problem with those actions being ignored or minimized. It's especially appalling to see them minimized by people we have had to defend Weather to because it makes it clear that they will tell any lie today to get Barack elected.
Jim: Would you vote for Barack if he got the nomination?
Elaine: Me?
Jim: Yes.
Elaine: Absolutely not. He lacks experience and I know too much that the press still hasn't reported.
Jim: Okay, well you're lobbying super delegates on behalf of Hillary and there was an e-mail questioing whether you were part of the Hillary Clinton campaign?
Elaine: I am not part of the Hillary campaign. That's an important point to make. My actions represent my own actions. I am only lobbying super delegates that I personally know.
Jim: This roundtable has zipped along and anyone can jump in. I'm semi-stalling due to the fact that Wally and Marcia had to speak, they're campaigning for Hillary and doing that on their own, outside of the campaign, and were going to be joining us late. So I'm going to turn to C.I. You said you weren't a part of the campaign -- which you aren't -- and that if you were, it would be run differently. How so?
C.I.: That's not slamming the campaign. But there are mistakes being made and I wouldn't worry about them. My focus would be on a hard hitting campaign. The myth, the lie, is that the campaign has been too 'dirty.' It hasn't been hitting hard enough.
Jim: Okay, well the press keeps citing polls that say people do not like negative campaigning and that it's been too negative.
C.I.: Lies. First off, a question such as: "Do you like negative campaigns?" will always find a response of "no." But the reality is that negative campaigns rarely hurt a candidate. In fact, an argument could be made that one reason Democrats do poorly in so-called Republican states is because they refuse to fight. Negative campaigns do not turn off voters. Studies show just the opposite. They follow them much more closely. Now negative is a problem for Barack because he's running as "I'm a political virgin and I'm not going to play their game!" That's a lie but it's the lie he's presented the public with and they've willingly bought it. But Hillary can and should hit hard. Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to get into the White House and he didn't do that by waffling. I understand there's a gender dynamic but, actually, the sexism in the media coverage may have now immunized Hillary's image. So much has been thrown at her that she can probably throw a great deal back without any problem. I also think the issue of "negative" campaign should be addressed. I don't remember Hillary accusing Barack of beating his wife. Now his campaign has tried to get reporters to dig into her husband's sex life and that's clearly negative. But in terms of his record, I don't think you can hit hard enough. He has a small record and what's there isn't good. Pointing out reality may be uncomfortable for him but it's not going "negative."
Jim: But people say they don't like negative campaigns. I get your point about let's define negative but that's what people say.
C.I.: I don't know if I'm supposed to repeat myself here or what, but people follow tough campaigns. And the one who is the strongest in those is the one who generally gets elected. You can study that over and over and you'll find that to be true. No, no one wants to admit they like "negative" campaigns. But they follow them the same way they follow other things that no one wants to admit to. I wouldn't suggest that Hillary stand up and scream, "Liar! Liar! Liar!" over and over. But when she hits hard, the voters pay attention. It was the same with Bill. Al Gore, who did win the popular vote and did win Florida, tried to nice guy it. You're not fighting for the press to like you, you're fighting to get into office. Barack flipping off Hillary, as he did, may be true negative campaigning but the reality is that Barack looked like a scared little punk doing that. He did that and only underscored that he could be 'brave' when Hillary wasn't around. It pleased his groupies but it was an idiotic thing to do because it went against his narrative and it was done behind her back. It was cowardly. That's part of his image now. He's the little coward doing something that might be considered brave in third grade but it disgusting for an adult.
Rebecca: I would agree that Hillary's been immunized by the press coverage of her. They've been so nasty to her that she can be tougher. But, like C.I., I agree that depends upon how she picks it. Her image now is someone who is knocked down and gets back up. Within that context, she can do a lot of things. And because of that image, which the press didn't mean to create, it's created this stronger image of her that people are responding to. And when I say, image, it's who she is but it wasn't coming across in the press by the press' own design. Now it is. And people are connecting it with the mud that's been thrown at her for years and how she's withstood that. It's the point she made in the last debate -- which may be the last debate -- about how they've gone through her garbage. She's still standing. And people root for that. Barack's taken his own shine off with scandals indicating his poor judgement. But it's also true that the myth of Saint Bambi isn't interesting. We're not electing a healer, we're electing a president. Barack may kiss all your boo-boos and give you a pep talk but that's not what a president is supposed to do. If it were, Hillary wouldn't be the first woman we've had to make a serious run for the White House. He is the stereotype of women. The frail, little creature who can't stop babbling. He's a drama queen and he decided to play Joan Crawford in this election cycle. It worked only while he was being treated with kid gloves. When just a little of the fawning ceased, we saw he was just another effete candidate who couldn't close the deal. As C.I. was saying, he can't break that image without breaking the narrative he's created. If he goes nasty, and one more time giving the bird will do it for him, he loses the cult completely.
Mike: That's why Wally and I were saying John Edwards should have stood up to him. He was doing that at the end and could have continued to do it. But that's probably the main reason men are leaving Barack. He's so weak. He's like the 'special' candidate that everyone has to make different rules for and different allowances for. Or that's how everyone acted. He got a free pass. Hillary stood up and that's something that we can respect because so many people don't. And I was talking about "negative" campaigns with C.I. this weekend and you really need to define "negative." Because, like we were saying, Hillary calls out Barack's falsehoods and you've got the Bambi groupies reaching for the smelling salts and whining.
Jim: Okay, we have Marcia and Wally so I'll go quickly to them. We're talking about Barack and Hillary. Marcia and Wally are calling in from Indiana.
Marcia: I know we're late so I'll just be brief and say that each day I'm more and more surprised by how strong of support for Hillary there is. Happily surprised but -- it's something to see. I'm feeling really good about Indiana. And I'll add that Wally's had to put up with a lot from me so let me thank him publicly.
Wally: I would echo Marcia on what we're seeing in Indiana and add that Barack's got an ad that is going over very badly. Other than that, I'd just say it's great to have Marcia here and the insults she's been writing about herself at her blog aren't really accurate. She had to find her footing but she's been a strong speaker all week.
Jim: Okay, we are going to wind down then and Jess gets the last word.
Jess: I'm a Green Party member. If Hillary gets the nomination from the Democratic Party, I'm voting for her because she is a fighter and has survived everything that's been thrown at her. When I stated that a few weeks back, I felt a little bad in terms of Cynthia McKinney who is running for my party's nomination. However, now that the official word from the campaign is that she's running not to win but to get 5% of the vote, I don't feel troubled my vote at all. In addition, we're not breaking our backs to cover her. Five percent sounds an awful lot like a safe-state strategy. It may not be. But in 2000, I was too young to vote then, Ralph Nader got the Greens on the national map with his campaign. The Greens wasted that in 2004. Until I hear something that suggests Cynthia's trying to do more than regain the losses from 2004, I'll be saying "Kill" whenever anyone proposes Green presidential coverage.
