RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Competing Endorsements and Parallel Narratives

As the campaign for the nomination heads into the final days before North Carolina and Indiana, both campaigns are attempting to control the narrative prior to the voting. Obama is failing miserably. The Clinton campaign so fully controls the narrative now that it’s virtually a presidency-in-waiting, with bully pulpit and podium to boot (more on that below). So on Thursday, in another Judas moment and in a failed attempt to salvage Obama, Joe Andrew, former Democratic chair appointed by President Clinton, switched from Hillary to Obama. The Big Orange Kool-Aid (herein BOKA) triumphantly announced that:

It’s a high-profile, high-level signal to other super delegates that it’s okay to switch to Obama in order to finally bring about the inevitable conclusion. … The dam was holding, but it has now sprung a leak. The whole thing now threatens to collapse.

If it were still February, BOKA may have been correct in his assessment. However, as Jerome Armstrong correctly points out about Obama supporters:

They are stuck in February and early March, when they saw Obama as the second coming of 50-state campaigner that would move us beyond the battleground days. That’s not the Obama of late April.

There are two parallel, related narratives replicating in the media and the national consciousness, and neither are good for Obama. The first, of course, is the Rev. Wright debacle. Like the DNA in a virus, the Wright narrative replicates other mini-narratives: it tells us that Obama is rapidly losing working class whites, his overall poll numbers are dropping dramatically, and that Obama as a candidate is fatigued and confused, a candidacy sputtering. Additionally, his campaign has been caught sending out an amateurish polling memo and embarrassing letters to Oregon voters talking about their beautiful Great Lakes.

The other narrative is Hillary’s Gas-Tax plan, panned by critics but loved by voters. This media virus spreads additional information: Hillary cares about and connects with average voters, she responds to the country’s needs now and, most importantly, she is controlling the narrative of the election; long gone are the days of sniper fire in Bosnia. We read about a focused and energized Hillary who puts in 16 hour days and leaves the press corps exhausted and in awe. Hillary is in far better shape now than she was heading into Pennsylvania. Her campaign is a presidency-in-waiting.

This brings us back to Joe Andrew. He literally penned his letter of support at his mommy’s table, wringing his hands over the hard-fought nomination contest, throwing in every tired Obama cliché he could remember (I suggest a four year break on the words audacity and hope), and begging Democrats to stop voting and start buying into Obama. Instead of coming across as a dam breaking like BOKA suggested, the Andrew endorsement was more like a thud, and in an exquisite example of the parallel narratives, Hillary announced her own group of DNC’s chairs arguing for her candidacy:

The signatories, all previously announced Clinton supporters, were: Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, Don Fowler, Kenneth Curtis, Charles Manatt, Debra DeLee, Steven Grossman and the family of the late Ron Brown.

“Hillary can win our party’s nomination,” the former leaders wrote. She is neck and neck with her opponent in Indiana and North Carolina. Both states have sizable voting blocs that resemble constituencies who supported Hillary by large margins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other contests.”

The letter concluded with an understated appeal: “We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country.”

Long gone are the days when we read stories about in-fighting and a lack of focus in Hillary’s campaign. This campaign is now a lean, nimble machine capable of beating both Obama and McCain. It’s Obama who is in the shit storm, and that’s not a good place to be prior to a big contest.

  • Talktruth

    I only have a second and I’m sorry this is OT, but I just wanted everyone to know that Sean Hannity is about to do a story on Bill Ayers stomping on the flag, as shown in Susan’s article from yesterday. This looks like a great article, Bud, and I’ll definitely be back to read it in a while!

    • Talktruth

      Excellent article, Bud. Just what we need on the eve of IN and NC!

      A bit of a correction on what I wrote. The story I was thinking of about the Ayers photo was Larry’s story from May 3rd (“Stomp on This?” at http://tinyurl.com/5w7szm). Susan also has stories on this topic (“Greta Van Susteran, John Murtagh and I Have Some Questions” at http://tinyurl.com/63ef82, and “His Country Beneath His Feet, A Terrorist Holds Fast His Violent Visions” at http://tinyurl.com/5v8yap).

  • AF catfish

    Who has even heard of Joe Andrew? Even political junkies know of Donnie Fowler, Ron Brown, Terry McAuliffe, James Carville and Harold Ickes don’t know the name Joe Andrew.

    • sandyR

      very true. I had never even heard of Joe Andrew.
      I thought this post was great, and right on target.
      Hillary and team will be picking up speed and refining. Her voice is actually becoming stronger and more powerful. When she spoke about China’s
      questionable trade policies with us, she was so into it that she was almost surprised by the audience reaction. This woman is feeling things deep and conveying to people her dedication and the amazing breadth of her knowledge. She is the people’s candidate. As for the simps out there: let them eat aurugila (and shit, I still can’t figure out how to spell that. I just remember that it actually tastes quite BITTER.)

      • Nicole

        All I could think, when I saw Joe Andrew give his little press conference, was how doughy and ineffectual he looked…a non-entity of the highest order (which is really saying: nothing).

        BTW: it’s spelled “arugula”…otherwise known as “rocket” in the United Kingdom, and is quite tastier and not nearly as bitter as some other greens. It’s often described as having a “nutty” flavour.

        • sandyR

          arugula. thanks. arugula. man that is a tough word. I thought I’d had that before and it was bitter. But “nutty” makes perfect sense as well, really- I mean if one is trying to tie a green to a group’s swing. Now what the hell green is it that tastes so bitter that people like to throw in salads at upscale restaurants?
          I’m still thinking arugula. But when I get away from iceberg, romaine, and a little spinich tossed in, I’m pretty much traveling in uncharted territory.

          • Nicole

            Maybe you’re thinking of frisee, radicchio, dandelion greens, or Belgian endive…these are some that often appear in mesclun mix salads–that most popular of restaurant/supermarket salad mixes. It’s the little curly, bitter frisee that I find the most difficult to swallow. (As a former in-house book editor, I used to work on a lot of food books and cookbooks.)

          • http://hyper-educated-uppity-woman.blogspot.com Uppity

            Ironically, Arugula has been the greens of default of poor Italian peasants for centuries. It grows like weeds and, before “upscale” people discovered it, arugula was considered one step up from dandelions. If you plant arugula it will take over your yard. In short, all these people did was take a cheap bunch of greens and turn it into something expensive. I guess in some small way it must make them feel in touch with the dirty masses, when in fact all they succeeded in doing was making cheap greens too expensive for poor people. God knows what it costs now since Barky mentioned it.

            • Nicole

              Hey, Uppity…thanks, I didn’t know that–actually, I always associated it with the ancient Greeks. And it’s true, arugula does bare a striking resemblance to its cousin dandelion greens. It seems the once-humble arugula could now be used as a fitting metaphor for Obama, for so many reasons.

      • stodghie

        she was “born to run”.

    • pm317

      Exactly! and extrapolating further I would say Obama got all the Clinton rejects as his advisers and endorsers.

      • workingclass artist

        SHAPIN UP TO BE A FINE PRIMARY DAY IN IN. AND NC. FOR SEN. CLINTON…….GOOD POST…..

  • Sj

    Any more info on this item on the news with Obama and what he promised the teamsters union?

    Obama it is said promised that he would support ending strict federal oversight of the union, in order to gain their endorsement.

    Fox was playing clips from that board meeting they had with Obama, anyway would be nice to have a follow up on that to see if there is anything in it.

  • http://Supergram.blogspot.com Melissa

    Hannity is chomping on the Ayers story!!!

  • Poor White

    This guy JOe Adrew is a partner in a law firm that has contributed $75K to Obama. Also the hospital where Michelle Obama is VP is a client of his company.. no doubt why he is switching support to Obama.

    It is all money connection. And guess what … Obama is not playing old politics. Obama is playing the worst of all politics …

    • http://myspace.com/loyaldissent Garlic-Nosed Guitarist

      Money won’t buy Obama the nomination, look at what happened to Romney. :)

    • Catriley

      It makes me ill that the MSM has not called him out on that BS. Seeing Joe Andrew on some show the other day trying to act spontaneous, but he basically recited a memorized script. NO ONE talks like that in real life!

      Guess that money is just too hard to turn down, eh Joe? His law firm is Obama’s #4 donor, and it far outspends most of his other big donors. Why in the hell the MSM does not talk about this beats me. Just once I wish the fawning Obamafans in the media would discuss his biggest donors. And how he’s buying the super delegates.

      Obama is a junior Senator.. where in the world did he get over 700k to donate to super delegates in the past year or so??? Hillary only donated 200k, and that could be attributed to the normal donating she has always done to help Democratic candidates in general. Ah.. but Howard Dean doesn’t mention what Hillary has done to help us take back Conress and Senate.

      • Nicole

        Maybe big pharma and HMOs are secretly funneling money to Obama’s campaign, generously topped up by his Daddy Longlegs, otherwise known as George Soros…which might explain why Obama’s not pushing a mandated health-care plan. (That’s just one little “conspiracy” theory I’ve been imagining since his mind-boggling bid for presidency began….)

        • Marjorie

          Nichol, I rather like that. It sounds close enough to reality to be-possibly?-more than a conspiracy theory.

  • ebonyscrews

    Bud, have I told you lately that you is the man? You just pegged Obama and Loser Co. to the T. A very worthwhile accomplishment.

  • Mr.Murder

    jsindc wrote:(wapo comments)

    Obama has been critical of the 1990s calling the era of same old politics. He praised Ronald Reagen yet refuse to give any credit to the peace and prosperity by the Clinton. when Clinton left office, NASDAQ was at 5000 points, the Dow has risen from 3000 to 11,000. Millions African American were lift out of poverty, 23 million new jobs were created. More millionaires were made in the history of USA.

    Obama doesn’t have any record to run on and he has the audacity to call 1990s politics of the past? How many jobs has Obama created? What has he done to curb the recent gang murders in Chicago? What about Tony Rezko’s public housing slump costing tax payers 100 million dollars?

    The last thing we need is CHANGE to south side Chicago politics.

    5/5/2008 12:20:55 AM
    Recommended (14)

  • typical.white.person
    • Strawberrybitch

      Hey Typical, didn’t Krugman endorse Obama? And Obama betrayed him too? So does this qualify as being thrown under the bus?

      • typical.white.person

        You’re as bad as Faux News. You throw an allegation out there, but provide no evidence (links) to support your unfounded allegations.

        I was unable to find anything about Krugman “endorsing” any candidate. I did find a lot of this type sh*t, showing how Krugman drafted an indictment against Obama.

        Please provide a link showing where Krugman endorsed Obama.

        • Strawberrybitch

          No seriously, I’m trying hard to remember which ex clinton appointee went on the Colbert Show and endorsed Obama. It was a few months ago and for the life of me, I can’t remember. It may be the Vicodin and back surgery, but I was actually trying to get a question answered not stir up shit. I do remember being pissed at the guy for stabbing the Clintons in the back. I really thought it was Krugman. It wasn’t Richardson, he’s a douche too. Damn.

          • Nicole

            Do you mean the Toulouse Lautrec-ian Robert Reich, who reiterated his Obama endorsement last month? He’s the economist and talking head who’s clearly been pushing BO and more-than-subtly denigrating Hillary for sometime. He was in the Clinton administration until 1996, I believe.

            • Marjorie

              Oh, Nichole. That reference/comparison is way over the line. I am having second thoughts about supporting your “conspiracy” theory.

          • typical.white.person

            Probably Robert Reicht (Sec. of Labor under Bill Clinton). He has been anti-Clinton for years.

            • mimi

              Link doesn’t work.

          • typical.white.person

            Probably Robert Reicht (Sec. of Labor under Bill Clinton). He has been anti-Clinton for years.

            • Strawberrybitch

              Thanks, Typical and Nicole. I’ve been off my game the past few months battling insurance companies, so until they OK the back fusion, I’m reduced to laying on the couch, whacked out on narcotics and trying to keep from going insane due to boredom. I’m usually much sharper. Sorry for the confusion.

              • Nicole

                That’s horrible, Strawberry! I’m so sorry to read about your trouble. Good luck with this, and hope it happens soon. (Damn those idiots.)

      • stodghie

        krugman is way to smart to endorse obama. but you do right? it isn’t our fault you are backing a loser.

  • http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/ Gloria

    Sean Hannity on the radio sounds different…

    Is FOX Drifting into MSM Spin and Beginning to Bash Clinton???

    Some contradictions today there. too…

    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

  • jwrjr

    I saw a new NC TV ad for Obama describing his energy policy today. A few generalities with no details. What is more, as described, the policy is a failure. It is a typical elitist approach that totally ignores lower and fixed income people. And they are the ones who need the assistance the most.

  • bayathena

    Krugman didn’t endorse Obama. He’s for Hillary.

  • llilytoo

    FOR DAYS Hillary made so much hay from the gas tax issue, I almost think BO wants her to win. Why would he keep helping Hill by denying working folks a tax break?! LOL! Does he even know how it sounds?? Thank Barry!

    Someone in Hill’s camp realized instantly what MaCain’s idea of a gas tax holiday could mean …and then they bettered it , by saying sure! Tax free gas for the summer! but the oil companies would pay for it!

    This reminds of when Bill ran and he offered a 1,500 rebate or something and it got alot of good attention for them. The Bush Sr.folks didn’t take it seriously because 1,500 is nothing to them and they didn’t think it would motivate anyone….well they were wrong.

    Pennies count too

  • hillarysmygirl

    Just saw Judas Richardson on Larry King and he obviously didn’t get the April playbook. He’s still claiming that Obama can unite people, win Red states and reach across the aisle. Has Bill been asleep? You can just see on his face his regret for selling his soul to the devil.

  • Mr.Murder

    Actually there are three broad narratives that emerge, running parallel in some places, and competing in others.

    Make that four narratives.

    Romey’s possible ticket placement would mean a Cheney still directs foreign policy via the OVP, daughter Elizabeth, a State apparatachik from father’s days of stovepiping intelligence from the Near East.

    The three larger competing narratives are based in historical wings of modern foreign policy.

    Albright policy would direct Clinton, high level engagement across the board, coupled with muscular EU directives and overlapping humanitarian missions.

    Baker policy could again emerge for McCain were he to disavow the Cheney wing of policy, something he probably lacks true cahones to do. Forcing our allies to buy into payments for the war as a way to actually boost our client state status and influence through them. This would mean Saudi Arabia and Israel gaining hugely plausible ground once again in shaping the new Iraq.

    More than likely the GOP continues China’s bidding there, and thus abates conflict with Iran. This would depend on the extent to which we gain in a Yukos bid. Russia has more long term oil, but delaying its arrival to market boosts domestic oil interests and their ability to spike the price upwards.

    That is one area where the Baker and Albright policies could actually match, triangulation vis a vis Putin via Chinese strategic influence in other spheres. Albright leaning more to Russian influence vs. China’s women rights and human rights issues, Baker siding with the money that propels certain vested interests from the Mid East.

    Then there’s Brzezinski policy fueling the Obama race. Outright confrontation of perceived foes, muscular subversion of opponents via counterintelligence and low level conflict. His former efforts against Russia return, on steroids, we build some new kind of MEK/Mujahadeen to undo the old one we previously built, then faced as a foe, in the mid East. We’ll do it in a way that probably escalates a conventional arms race. This will parallel a wider nuclear one, that will of course end up having several countries wanting the influence of larger super powers introduced to new levels in their region as insurance against old regional rivals with their new arms, as the cold war localizes to smaller geographical sectors.

    Most people assume that would be all right, but we could well see the same thing occur in our hemisphere to newly accelerated levels.

    Albright policy would probably Balkanize Iraq to hedge surrounding countries to greater levels. Syria, Turkey, Iran all would face serious challenge from an emerging Kurdistan, each being distracted from their ongoing rivalries with Israel or combined EU interests. One pushed closer to NATO to try and contain Putin and other items at the crossroads.

    Syria and Iran would have borders with a rival that cold greatly challenge their stability enough we could plausbily engage them to greater levels. That is something Brzez would probably agree with as well and he appears to have already briefed his favorite candidate in that direction.

    Baker will follow the money in any instance, in reality all will, but he will to the greatest extent. He’s the one who sees the greatest private fiscal relevance to policy, Albright perhaps even more so though she sees the greatest political relevance to any directives.

    Brzezinski simply sees it for what it is, looks to play the underlying strains of cultures and political consequence forward to create change or even anarchy, without any true substansive ability to shape its political result.

    All three are catalysts, some are more likely to blow up the lab in making their experiement. Thus America has become a Frankenstein of policy directives and action. “It’s alive,” so far as being a hideous anthropomorphic killer patched together with three major ideas across the past three decades lends itself to upholding quaint agreements forged from the heat and fire of previous great generational conflicts. Thus our creation is stitched together as a beast, one that shaped our continents and planet’s political map within the world community.

    The beast will struggle to recognize its humanity at its greatest moments. The chance it is able to do so and be part of a larger community remains to be seen, we’ve been fighting them more than they have us. Memo to America, we’re part of the world village also, let’s work with them to our gain.

    • Marjorie

      Doesn’t being part of a “world village” mean one country’s gain is every country’s gain?

  • http://makethemaccountable.com Carolyn Kay

    Parallel universes.

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

  • karen for Clinton

    That Andrew falsely claimed on Saturday to millions of viewers Obama VOTED against the war in Iraq and then later in the day it was disclosed he is now a shill for diebold, made me very glad he is on the losing team.

    That and his obvious error in declaring both primaries today will go to his sham, um candidate.

    He is to Indiana what Bob Casey was to PA.

    That dog can’t hunt anymore. Casey lost a hell of a lot of support over his stance, and just like Richardson it backfired on him.

    Andew isn’t a big dog, he’s just a wee little pup who still wets the newspapers in mom’s kitchen.

    Am I bitter? A tad, perhaps. ;-)

    • llilytoo

      Not only is he a shill for dibold, but the law firm he belongs to is one of BO’s biggest supports….duh,so how much hand wringing did he need for a decision that was made months ago?

      Really it seems like the biggest Dem losers are for BO. But over and over we see the Clinton’s help out people like Andrews and then they are stabbed in the back. The Clinton’s mistake is trying to raise those who would not reach the level they have now without Clinton help. Raising these folks up beyond thier true levels doesn’t inspire loyalty as one would think. I believe in time it makes them angry. Because the help shows them up in a way. I do know the Dems with clout who are supporting Hill , got where they are on thier own….which is the only ones you can count on.I think Hill has learned that lesson.

  • http://hyper-educated-uppity-woman.blogspot.com Uppity

    I wonder how many people wish they could vote in their primaries again?

  • workingclass artist

    Kevin….The Nixon Campaign Dress was appraised in Antique Road Show as being worth at Net auction as $600.00….Save your Unity Bong and Yor Obamacult Gear…..It may be worth something in 30 years….Obama is headed for Political Obscurity….