Why does he keep saying "through line"? It seems to mean theme... but on a time line... or narrative... but with one clear idea... except there are 2 "through lines" in Brooks's telling. Is it a vogue phrase? I don't think I've used it or quoted it before in the 20+ year history of this blog.
But I didn't quote David Brooks to muse on the words "through line." I quoted him because I was astounded to see bureaucracy touted as if it were part of the system of checks and balances in the American constitutional system.
The next thing Bret Stephens said is "Tim Walz’s football analogy about Democrats having the ball and driving down the field while they’re down by a field goal was a good metaphor." How is that a good analogy? Didn't Walz intend us to think of a game with only a few seconds left?
In any case, in politics both teams have to worry about offense and defense at the same time. You can do either or both whenever you want. But this convention felt like a big sugar high. That's the metaphor that comes to mind for me. A big spike of energy, but then what? That's what Collins is "kinda worried" about. We need some substance, and the "sudden transformation" people are adamantly denying us substance... and I'm getting hangry.
Ah, I see Bret Stephens comes in with another metaphor... about that insipid "joy" theme:
But as our colleague Patrick Healy pointed out in an astute essay, “Joy is not a strategy.” Actually, it’s more like a helium balloon that rises and rises — until it deflates and crumples....
Is the debate prep the same or different? The NYT — in "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too" — stresses the difference, but there's a sameness in relying on the weakness of the other person and hoping to reveal and amplify what's wrong with the opponent. The difference is that Hillary seems to be getting scripted zingers ready while Trump is learning how to read her. That is, Trump is going deeper as he preps and will be more spontaneous during the event.
But that's not how the NYT writers — Patrick Healy, Amy Chozick, and Maggie Haberman — put it. To them, Hillary is deep and Trump is shallow:
I singled that one paragraph out because it's different from everything else in the article, which I read because I wondered what evidence the author — Patrick Healy — had for the (hedged) proposition in the headline. I was imagining an alternative article that could have been written premised on the idea that Trump is choosing the best path for himself, that it's worrying Clinton people, and that they hope to enlist the media in an effort to lure/scare Trump into doing something else — toning down his attacks, being less exciting, ruining the ratings-based relationship he's got with television.
Putting Mr. Clinton to good use, while containing his less helpful impulses, would be a major test for Mrs. Clinton as president, given the spotlight and pressure they would be under and her limited ability in the past to rein in his excesses....
Given his insights and experience, Mr. Clinton could be more capable than anyone else in ensuring the success of her presidency – or he could cast a long shadow over her....
"[H]e came around grudgingly to supporting her, the advisers said. But he was also determined to make a strong case against Mr. Trump and, in doing so, champion Mrs. Clinton as the only chance to defeat him.... One person close to Mr. Sanders said that the senator and his wife, Jane, were 'putting on a good face' on Tuesday, but that they were disappointed that his campaign had not been more successful after he gave it so much of his energy and rallied millions of people around his ideas.... Still, Mr. Sanders uttered the words that Mrs. Clinton needed him to say — 'I am endorsing Hillary Clinton.'"
From the NYT report "Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton, Hoping to Unify Democrats," by Amy Chozick, Patrick Healy, and Yamiche Alcindor. They include Trump's cutting reaction: “Bernie is now officially a part of a rigged system" for "endorsing one of the most pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and pro-offshoring candidates in the history of the Democratic Party."
James Taranto says I'm "right that the omission is glaring."
ADDED: I was wrong to say "it's mostly a quote from my post." I was only looking at the top of a column that (I didn't realize) really did go on to try to answer my question (How can we think about what Trump or Hillary could do about racial divisions unless we understand why Obama has not done more?). Taranto ends with:
The election of a black president was indeed—and still is—a sign of how far America has progressed since the 1960s, never mind the 1860s. Perhaps a nimbler politician could have dealt more effectively with the clamor of the past couple of years. But Obama is uniquely constrained by the unreasonable hopes that so many Americans placed in him.
No moment in the 2016 presidential campaign has cried out more for a unifying candidate than the police shootings of two black men last week and the ensuing national uproar, followed by the shocking sniper ambush that killed five police officers in Dallas.
And no other moment has revealed more starkly how hard it is for Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton to become that candidate....
Neither Trump nor Clinton, it seems, has what it takes to do what, it seems, America needs now. Clinton "lacks the public emotion, oratorical skills and reputation for honesty to persuade large numbers of Americans to see things her way." And Trump is "sowing division and hatred" and "electrif[ying]crowds... through provocations."
What's missing? Why is racial discord the problem of the summer of 2016? If anyone has what it takes to unify the country over race it is Barack Obama, who is President right now and who has been President for 7 1/2 years. If it makes any sense to be deciding the current presidential election on this issue, if this longed-for capacity is something that can possibly exist, then Barack Obama would be doing it now and would have been doing it for years.
Before you push us to judge whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would do better in bringing us together in racial harmony, Mr. Healy, please say a few words about why President Obama has failed. Of course, neither Clinton nor Trump inspires hope for a new opportunity at racial harmony. That's what Obama did in 2008. He was ideal for that issue and we voted for the hope. Now, so many years later, things seem even worse. Can you analyze how that happened? Because that did happen. I don't see how we can begin to think about what more Trump or Clinton could do unless we understand why President Obama failed.
... the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday — two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy....
She is running as a supremely competent candidate and portraying Mr. Trump, in essence, as irresponsible and dangerous. Yet the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department....
Her clearest selling point — that she, unlike Mr. Trump, can manage challenging relationships with allies and adversaries — has now been undercut because she personally mismanaged the safeguarding of national security information.
Trump has been saying that all along. What's different now is that Comey, based on what looks like unshakably careful investigation, has verified a set of devastating facts that will not be controverted and that can be set — with Comey video — alongside Clinton's repeated statements that must be seen as blatantly wrong.
Read the whole Healy piece. He generates hope for Clinton by portraying Trump as falling short because he is not a "typical" candidate: He's not ready to go with lots of TV ads:
And he has a tendency to choose the wrong targets and overcomplicate his arguments. On Tuesday, for instance, he chose to attack Mr. Comey for not bringing charges against Mrs. Clinton, writing on Twitter, “The system is rigged.”
A few hours later, Mr. Trump issued a longer statement full of insinuations and conspiracy theories... But he did not attack her judgment... “Her judgment is horrible — look at her judgment on emails, who would do it?” Mr. Trump said. But he did not prosecute the argument in any depth, and quickly moved on.
Interesting word there: prosecute. Comey would not prosecute — in the formal sense — but Trump must prosecute — in the political sense. Healy is saying Trump probably doesn't know how to do that. He's all over the place, throwing out little jabs (in speeches and on Twitter). But he needs more solid presentation, a concerted effort to prosecute her in the political arena.
If Trump the Political Prosecutor can't do that, she skates.
1. "'Brexit' Revolt Casts a Shadow Over Hillary Clinton’s Cautious Path" (Patrick Healy, NYT). ("[W]hile many of Mr. Sanders’s supporters are expected to support her in November, she has not recalibrated her message to try to tap into the anger that he and Mr. Trump channeled. Nor does Mrs. Clinton have any plans, advisers say, to take cues from the Brexit campaign and start soft-pedaling her support for globalized markets, or denouncing porous borders, illegal immigrants and the lack of job protections in free-trade agreements...." And the pivot would not be easy because she supported NAFTA and because her views about trade are "nuanced" compared to Trump's.)
2. "The Hillary Campaign Should Be Panicking/But are they buying into their own good press?" by Sarah Isgur Flores in The Weekly Standard. ("[It's] been over 200 days since her last press conference.... Hiding their candidate is exactly what the Clinton campaign is doing. It's hard to imagine Trump will make the rest of this race as easy for Clinton as he has the last few weeks. He's having a significantly better few days, and Brexit only helps his momentum. The fantasy within the Clinton campaign that they could easily take down Trump by calling him 'dangerously incoherent' should be giving way to reality after this batch of polling.Clinton is such a deeply flawed candidate that her staff is learning they can't even run up the score against Trump during the worst month of his campaign....)
3. Riddle: What's the difference between "nuanced" and "incoherent"? (The answer is easy, so I'll withhold my simple riposte and turn the discussion over to you.)
That's from the NYT, which seems to be forefronting whiteness these days. (I wonder why. Trying to get the jump on Trump? Isn't this unhealthily racial? Trump never mentions white people, does he? It's the people who are worried about Trump who talk about white people. Should they be doing that? I know they must feel it's okay because they're known to be so solidly liberal, but there's something wrong with that feeling, in my book.)
Are you a young or youngish man who prefers the company of other men? Platonically, platonically. (For the most part.) Are you currently wearing — or have you ever worn — baggy shorts? A baseball cap? A polo shirt? White sneakers? Sunglasses on your head? All at the same time? Are you white? And these other men whose company you enjoy, do you guys drink and watch sports together? Are they white, too?...
Then there's "As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men," by Patrick Healy. The article is illustrated with a photograph of what I assume is the NYT's idea of a typical Hillary-resistant white man. Is he old? Is he sitting at a bar? Is he alone? Is he drinking a beer? Is he wondering where's his America? I inferred the last question. The answer to all the other questions is, naturally, yes.
In dozens of interviews in diners, offices and neighborhoods across the country, many white male Democrats expressed an array of misgivings, with some former supporters turning away from her now.... [M]ost said they simply did not think Mrs. Clinton cared about people like them.
“She’s talking to minorities now, not really to white people, and that’s a mistake,” said Dennis Bertko, 66, a construction project manager in Youngstown, Ohio, as he sipped a draft beer at the Golden Dawn Restaurant in a downtrodden part of town. “She could have a broader message. We would have listened. Instead, she’s talking a lot about continuing Obama’s policies,” he said. “I just don’t necessarily agree with all of the liberal ideas of Obama.”
I can't tell if Bertko brought up whiteness or if he said "white people" because he was asked. It seems as though he's saying he doesn't like racial politics, the appeals to subgroups, and would prefer a "broader," inclusive message that grouped everyone together, not that he wanted special attention for white people.
Mr. Bertko said that he rarely crossed party lines but that he voted for Donald J. Trump, who is making a strong pitch to disaffected white men by assailing free-trade agreements that Mrs. Clinton once supported. “I know a lot of guys who are open to Trump,” he said.
Again, see my point? Did Bertko bring up a "strong pitch to disaffected white men," or did the NYT insert that amplification into the center of what Bertko did say, which is that he and guys he knows are "open to Trump"? I'm guessing it's the latter, and that's unfair to Bertko, and it feels to me like intentional anti-Trump propaganda.
[S]ome Democratic leaders say the party needs white male voters to win the presidency, raise large sums of money and, like it or not, maintain credibility as a broad-based national coalition. To win a general election, Mrs. Clinton would rely most heavily on strong turnout from blacks, Hispanics, women and older voters. Though she won among white men in Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee, and tied in Texas, some Democratic officials and pollsters say they fear that without a stronger strategy, Mrs. Clinton could perform as poorly among white men as Walter Mondale, who drew just 32 percent in 1984, or even George McGovern, who took 31 percent in 1972.
“Her most serious relationship problem is with white men, on a policy issue front but also stylistically, and she is at real risk for running worse than the average Democrat with white males,” said Peter Hart, a veteran Democratic pollster.
So, the analysts speak frankly and openly about the need to win over white people. Somehow that's still socially acceptable. How different the commentators would sound if they didn't feel free to talk about everyone's race!
Do the candidates ever openly talk about white people? I think that's not socially acceptable. Even Donald Trump, who flouts "political correctness," doesn't say "white people." He may brag "Muslims love me" or "The Hispanic people love me," but I don't think he ever says "White people love me." I mean, if he did, a huge deal would be made of it.
Anyway, apparently, Hillary's people know she needs to get white men, and the NYT wants to help her. Lord knows what will get written in this effort. Let's notice.
At an event in Las Vegas last week, Mr. Clinton, 69, looked smaller and his voice seemed weaker than in past campaigns, and people had to strain to hear him at times... he occasionally meandered, leaving the audience, including some who had lined up for hours to see him, seeming more politely attentive than inspired.
“He seemed perfunctory, looked gaunt, didn’t seem to captivate the crowd,” said Jon Ralston, a veteran political commentator in Nevada, who attended the Las Vegas event last Friday....
“His age, his heart surgery, his veganism — I think it’s all brought a calmness into his life,” said George Bruno, a former Democratic Party chairman in New Hampshire and longtime ally of Mr. Clinton... “He’s not as fiery as he once was, but he has an air of real self-confidence,” Mr. Bruno said....
“I think he’s become more cautious, more tentative, and less unabashed,” said Doug Schoen, a former adviser and pollster to Mr. Clinton. “Going negative just isn’t his strength in her races. His strength is developing a positive and empathetic narrative for why Mrs. Clinton should be president.”...
"... rather than a failure to realize just how desperately many people are seeking what Bernie has to offer. She had a lot of time to get out in front of that parade."
Most Clinton advisers and allies would speak only on the condition of anonymity to candidly assess her vulnerabilities and the Clintons’ outlook on the race.... Several Clinton advisers are also regretting that they did not push for more debates.... Several Democratic leaders... argued that Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should have competed against [Sanders] more aggressively, in debates and on the campaign trail, rather than appear so sharply negative with their recent attacks, which have given the campaign a jumbled feeling heading into the first voting states. Even Chelsea Clinton jabbed at Mr. Sanders, an unusual move given that relatives are traditionally used in campaigns to soften a politician’s image....
Some Democrats also believe Mrs. Clinton may have benefited from a more competitive primary season with big-name rivals, like Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., who might have brought out the fighter in her. Only this month has she started to engage Mr. Sanders, and some of her jabs have looked sudden and anxious....
Jumbled... sudden... anxious....
Why did Democrats stand back and allow Clinton to run unopposed? She lost in 2008, so why was she entitled to this clear path they gave her? One guy, not even a Democrat, stepped into the path with her. That he's caused her so much trouble makes it obvious that she didn't deserve that deference.
I know there's another guy. I'm sure his utter irrelevance has some meaning. What gets me is the cession of the party to the Clintons. How can a party be so inert, so uninspiring? Why did Obama leave it in such a condition that it should offer up only the elderly woman who lost to him 8 years ago, offer her up as if she's so decidedly right that no one else should even compete? What deadness! Such deadness that a significantly more elderly man drops in and feels like the future. How could a party lapse into this predicament?
ADDED: The post title is a quote that I cut and pasted. The misspelling of "Hillary" appeared in the NYT. Just a commenter, though, so no reason to look down on the NYT.
"As a father, I have felt the heartbreak of drug abuse. I never expected to see my precious daughter in jail," said Jeb Bush. "It wasn’t easy, and it became very public when I was governor of Florida, making things even more difficult for Noelle. She went through hell, so did her mom, and so did I."
She went through hell, but why not use her as a means to the end of getting votes in a state (New Hampshire) ravaged by drug abuse? I'm questioning Jeb's judgment. He raised a daughter who, for whatever reason, fell into this problem/chose this course. But she's "in recovery" and she seems to have kept out of the news for quite a while. Shouldn't she be left alone? Back when she was arrested, there were articles like “Noelle Bush: A victim or princess?” and “Royal rehab: Nonviolent drug offenders should get the Bush treatment.” And Jeb complained:
In 2003, Mr. Bush grew frustrated with a Miami Herald reporter, according to emails obtained by The New York Times through a public records request. “The only reason you wrote the piece or were told to write the piece is that my struggling daughter is the child of the governor,” Mr. Bush chided the reporter. “It won’t matter in the whole scheme of things, but I wish the media would leave my daughter alone. It would make it a whole lot easy for her to recover and live a life full of hope and promise.”
"Leave my daughter alone," said 2003 Jeb. But 2016 Jeb is not leaving her alone.
Bill Clinton, the famous Big Dog of American politics, seemed to be on a tight leash on Monday as he delivered a low-key and, at times, disjointed speech at a rally for Hillary Clinton during his first solo swing in New Hampshire. Mr. Clinton, who was criticized for overshadowing Mrs. Clinton in 2008....
If Mr. Clinton had a theme, it was portraying Mrs. Clinton (and himself) as high-minded advocates of “inclusive” policies — an adjective that he repeated several times — rather than exclusionary proposals like Mr. Trump’s call for temporarily banning Muslims for entering the United States....
Describing the ideas and work ethic of immigrants as potential “meal tickets” for the American economy, Mr. Clinton told some wandering anecdotes about Muslims and others who had stood up for Christians and defended their families....
"Meal tickets"? Wouldn't that mean immigrants should work so we natives can get free food? I want to see the text.
Several voters said after the speech that they were struck by Mr. Clinton’s relatively muted style... “He was low-key in a down-to-earth way, which I think is the right thing to do, because the limelight should be on Hillary,” said Gail DuFresne, 59, a nurse from Rindge, N.H.
From the second link:
Mr. Clinton appeared a little rusty, rambling at times during his first campaign rally at Nashua Community College.... He talked about his own presidency and the work of his foundation, which he mentioned a few times, and about Mrs. Clinton’s ideas and the need to elect a president to fit the times. (His discursive reflection on the personal problems of President Franklin Pierce, a New Hampshire native, was largely met with silence from the Nashua audience.)...
Ah, the Franklin Pierce business (that I wrote about in my earlier post) was New Hampshire related. That makes it less bizarre.
Advisers to Mr. Clinton said he was focused on making the best case possible for why Mrs. Clinton should be president, rather than delivering stemwinders or playing attack dog. Political allies of Mr. Clinton added that he did not feel the need to attack, in part because he did not see Mrs. Clinton’s opponents as serious threats to her at this point.
So he did what he was supposed to do... or the NYT understands what the campaign intends for him to have done — which is to be out there but inconspicuous — and affirms that's what he did.
I never found a transcript, but here's full-length video:
The Daily Mail made a photo-filled story about the people who stood behind Bill Clinton for the whole speech:
A half-dozen females hand-picked to stand behind the former president grimaces, scowled and fought off yawns as he spoke in New Hampshire.
I feel sorry for these ladies! Who knows how to stand and look on camera for 28 minutes? What would you do with your face if you were under that kind of high-def continual scrutiny? The Daily Mail interviewed a 14-year-old girl and cruelly informed her that she looked "apathetic" on TV. The poor girl said "Oh, no!" and then "I was ecstatic!" The DailyMail "delicately" brought up Bill's sex problem. In front of a 14-year-old! That seems kind of wrong, but at the same time, it seems right to question the use of a girl as a backdrop when she can't understand how she is being used.
"Oh, I'm aware," she said. "Yeah. He's a womanizer. I think that that's his social life... And his work should be separate from that."
But does she know that he used a young female in the workplace to have a social sex life in the workplace? Does she understand the concept of sexual harassment in the workplace, how those who care about the equality of women in the workplace have struggled to enlighten people about this concept, and how Hillary Clinton — along with Bill Clinton — participated in a great disenlightenment?
ADDED: I'm seeing an unintentional pun: "the Subdued Spouse" — the sub-dude spouse. When the husband is the subordinate one, he's sub-dude.
IN THE COMMENTS: MayBee said:
Women should start carrying mattresses to Bill Clinton rallies.
That's not quite fair. I don't remember any mattress cushioning Monica Lewinsky.
Let me set this up. The article purports to analyze Trump's use of language:
The dark power of words has become the defining feature of Mr. Trump’s bid for the White House to a degree rarely seen in modern politics, as he forgoes the usual campaign trappings — policy, endorsements, commercials, donations — and instead relies on potent language to connect with, and often stoke, the fears and grievances of Americans.
Now, we were already laughing, because the NYT is obviously using the very devices it's criticizing in Trump's speech. The phrase "The dark power of words" ironically utilizes the dark power of words. And the Times continually uses "potent language to connect with, and often stoke, the fears and grievances" of its readers. (See, for example, the front-paged editorial on gun control today, decrying the "moral outrage" and "national disgrace" that citizens can buy guns that are useful in self-defense.)
Anyway, Healy and Haberman consulted Jennifer Mercieca, an academic expert in "American political discourse," and she said: Trump's "entire campaign is run like a demagogue’s — his language of division, his cult of personality, his manner of categorizing and maligning people with a broad brush": "If you’re an illegal immigrant, you’re a loser. If you’re captured in war, like John McCain, you’re a loser. If you have a disability, you’re a loser. It’s rhetoric like Wallace’s — it’s not a kind or generous rhetoric."
This got Meade singing: No time for losers...
“And then there are the winners, most especially himself, with his repeated references to his wealth and success and intelligence,” said Ms. Mercieca, noting a particular remark of Mr. Trump’s on Monday in Macon, Ga. (“When you’re really smart, when you’re really, really smart like I am — it’s true, it’s true, it’s always been true, it’s always been true.”)
No time for losers, 'cause we are the champions Trumpions....
Here's the final version of the parody:
I’ve paid my dues
Time after time
I’ve voted GOP
Almost straight, straight down the line
Bad candidates
I’ve picked a few
Clinton and John McCain
Bob Dole but now
With RINOs I’m through
And the wall will go on and on and on and on
We are the Trumpions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting
Till the end
We are the Trumpions
We are the Trumpions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the Trumpions... of the World
I’ve taken my shots
At Carly and JEB
And I’ve knocked out Scott
And Huck, Rick Perry but no
Not Ted Cruz
It’s been no simple deal
Though I'm rich and smart
And wealthy and smart
And did I tell you — that I am really really quite smart?
This race is huuuuge
And I ain't gonna lose
And the wall will go on and on and on and on
We are the Trumpions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting
Till the end
We are the Trumpions
We are the Trumpions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the Trumpions... of the World
We are the Trumpions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting
Till the end
We are the Trumpions
We are the Trumpions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the Trumpions
Out on the presidential campaign trail, Gov. Scott Walker has left “Wiscahnsin” back home in Wisconsin. He now wants to strengthen the economy, not the “ecahnahmy.” And while he once had the “ahnor” of meeting fellow Republicans, he told one group here this week that he simply enjoyed “talkin’ with y’all.”
The classic Upper Midwest accent — nasal and full of flat a’s — is one of several Walker trademarks to have fallen away this month after an intense period of strategizing and coaching designed to help Mr. Walker capitalize on his popularity in early polls and show that he is not some provincial politician out of his depth.
Is he changing his accent? I'm skeptical. I've lived in Wisconsin for 30 years, and what strikes me is that people outside of Wisconsin, when they hear about Wisconsin, get cranked up and start imitating an accent they believe is a Wisconsin accent. They especially love to say the word "Wisconsin" in their idea of a Wisconsin accent. I don't have a Wisconsin accent myself — I'm from Delaware. The main thing I notice about Wisconsin people saying the word "Wisconsin" is that they make the syllable break after the "Wi." The imitators never seem to get that right. It's wi-SCON-sin. That's the important part. Not the part where you get all weird about the "o."
I had to laugh when I read the end of the article. The NYT quotes a woman named Jennifer Horn, the chairwoman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, who wasn't really opining that Walker had changed his accent, only that she didn't hear whatever accent the questioner had asked her about — perhaps by doing that outsider's version of the Wisconsin accent that I've heard so many times over the years:
And at the dinner, as well as in his Concord speech, his Wisconsin honk was noticeably absent.
“I didn’t hear it,” Ms. Horn said. “Good for him, good for him.”
They asked a Horn about a honk.
Anyway, is Walker trying to modify his accent in order to appeal to America at large? It appropriate and competent of him to be working with speech coaches, but should they be taking the edge off his accent and is that, in fact, happening?
Had the purchases been made by the McCain campaign, it would be a conversion of campaign money into personal use, which is prohibited. The same rule does not apply to money from party committees.
Yes, diabolically devious of them -- wasn't it? -- to follow the law.
Yesterday, I cleverly drove 25 miles an hour in a 25 mph zone.
***
That's tucked down at the bottom of the NYT article by Patrick Healy and Michael Luo. Let's pick over the rest of it:
... Republicans expressed fear that weeks of tailoring Ms. Palin as an average “hockey mom” would fray amid revelations that the Republican Party outfitted her with expensive clothing from high-end stores.
"Tailoring" and "fray" ... a cute use of sewing and fabric metaphor.
Healy and Luo note that she needed the clothes and needed someone to accomplish the shopping for her, as she was suddenly thrown into constant campaigning in widely variable climates.
Yet Republicans expressed consternation publicly and privately...
Can you quote any?
[O]n “The View” ... Joy Behar, a co-host, noted the McCain campaign’s outreach to blue-collar workers — like an Ohio plumber who recently chided Senator Barack Obama over taxes — after another co-host, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, defended the expenditures....
Behar, not a Republican, but a Democrat and a comedian, surely had a comic opportunity and took it. More about her joke in a minute.
“It looks like nobody with a political antenna was working on this,” said Ed Rollins, a Republican political consultant who ran President Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign in 1984. “It just undercuts Palin’s whole image as a hockey mom, a ‘one-of-us’ kind of candidate.”
Oh, yes, Ed Rollins, last seen advising Mike Huckabee and making the insightful comment: "To me, hitting somebody, knocking somebody down, is a great feeling. Firing out a negative ad just feels amazing... What I have to do is make sure that my anger with a guy like Romney, whose teeth I want to knock out, doesn't get in the way of my thought process." I'll bet he wasn't the first guy Healy and Luo phoned up to get an Republican mouthing the quote they wanted.
And that's the only on-the-record, negative Republican quote.
***
Now, back to that Joy Behar joke: "I don’t think Joe the Plumber wears Manolo Blahniks." Note how spectacularly Behar fails to get Joe the Plumber's way of thinking.
Joe was not yet successful, but had a dream of buying his own business, and he thought the incentive structure should remain place. He didn't want those making $250,000 to be subjected to confiscatory tax rates.
You may think that Joe the Plumber -- and the "I am Joe the Plumber" types -- are foolish not to express antipathy toward those who are economically successful, but they do not. As they put it they want to get rich too. They look at rich people -- or so they say -- and think -- not: that bastard doesn't know how I struggle -- but: I want to get there too.
In this light, Joe the Plumber wouldn't look at Palin's nice clothes and seethe with jealousy. He would think: I'm inspired to work harder so I can get some great clothes too.
***
Now, 2 things:
1. Palin was given the clothes. She didn't earn the money to buy them. So maybe she's not Joe's model of success. Joe doesn't want a handout. He wants to earn it and not have the government take it away. But Palin attained the level of success that made other people want (and, really, need) to give her these things, which is earning them.
Yes, slingbacks and open toes. Blue suede shoes. Deal with it. Need to go more conservative?
I can see Joe in those! The "What Not to Wear" guy, Clinton Kelly -- that repressive bastard -- says those shoes say "Hey look what I have on that you don't have the balls to wear." I say: have the balls.
ADDED: This newer "I Am Joe the Plumber" makes the point even better than the one I linked to, above:
Here's the arty and cool but distorted and disturbing picture of McCain.
And here's the elegant and eminently presidential Mr. Obama.
Journalistic bias? Well, maybe the article -- a Patrick Healy "Political Memo" -- supports it:
It was classic John McCain and classic Barack Obama who grappled with the $700 billion bailout plan over the last week: Mr. McCain was by turns action-oriented and impulsive as he dive-bombed targets, while Mr. Obama was measured and cerebral and inclined to work the phones behind the scenes....
As Mr. McCain appeared as a man in motion last week, Mr. Obama’s cautious side was on clear display....
Mr. McCain, meanwhile, thrives in the fray....
Mr. Obama does not tend to take fiery or partisan swipes just for the sake of them....
Voters list the economy as a priority, and Mr. Obama’s placid public approach may not mesh with the anger that many of them feel. But Democrats say that in the long run, Mr. Obama’s approach will appear as an appealing alternative to President Bush and his choice as a successor, Mr. McCain.
So the choice of pictures is absolutely appropriate. You may question Healy's analysis, but the pictures perfectly illustrate it.
I happen to like Healy's analysis. I've called Obama phlegmatic. I wonder how he keeps going and how he inspires when he seems so low energy. But there's something subtly amirable in that stolid stability.
Remember when Obama promoted himself as having "the right temperament for the presidency"? He said: "I don't get too high when I'm high, and I don't get too low when I'm low."
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Posts
