Have you heard this?

I'm guessing a professional political consultant would advise against this, but here's something like what I'd like to hear each of the leading Democratic presidential candidates say.

From Barack Obama:

"Sen. Clinton would make a fine president. Now I know there are some voters who might not want to vote for a woman for president. If that's you, if you're going to vote for me because you just don't want to vote for a woman, then let me say this to you: Don't vote for me either. I don't want your vote."

From Hillary Clinton:

"Sen. Obama would make a fine president. Now I know there are some voters who might not want to vote for a black man for president. If that's you, if you're going to vote for me because you just don't want to vote for a black man, then let me say this to you: Don't vote for me either. I don't want your vote."

The professional political consultant might even offer an explanation for why that's not something either of them should say. I'm not sure I would understand that explanation. That's probably why I'm not a highly paid professional political consultant.

(It's also possible that one or both candidates have already said something similar to the above. If so, please point me to it. I would find that immensely heartening.)

Comments

[Steve]

I think the professional political advisor would advise against this because American's typically don't like to hear the truth.

[Praline]

Don't they? I have the feeling that it's been so long since politicians tried telling the truth that nobody really knows how people would react. It might make for a landslide victory; that's certainly the fantasy, anyway - look at films like Bulworth and Brewster's Millions. On the other hand, it might not work, so there's a dearth of volunteers to be the first one to try it. Who will bell the cat?

[aunursa]

FWIW:

In January a majority of conservative bloggers were acknowledging to themselves that the Republicans were going to lose the White House in November. They don't like McCain because of the immigration and campaign finance issues, but they figured that no conservative was going to do any better. They believed that nothing could stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president. They also knew that they would suffer losses in both houses, and figured that the best they could hope for was to prevent a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Some of that has changed in the past two months. The New York Times, ironically, caused conservatives to defend McCain against an unfair attack. After initially vowing to sit this one out, most grudgingly admit that they'll support his candidacy. Meanwhile the mudslinging on the Democratic side brings them hope -- that when the dust settles, the Democratic nominee will be fatally tarnished. They would prefer to face Hillary, but believe that she won't be able to pull this one out ... and that Obama is turning out not to be a teflon candidate (a la Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) but is actually beatable. The most frequent around conservative circles this month is "popcorn" ... as in "pass the popcorn, while we sit back watch the Democrats destroy each other.

[aunursa]

The New York Times, ironically,caused conservatives to unite to defend McCain against ...

[aunursa]

The most frequent word around conservative circles ...

Damn, I need to preview!

[Robb]

Maybe it's just his antiChrist mojo preventing me from thinking negatively of him, but I can readily imagine Obama saying such a thing. I strongly doubt it from Hillary, but who knows.

[Jeff]

I heard Michelle Obama last night froma speech on Thursday. She reminded voters than Barack ran for State Senate on the South Side of Chicago -- there are many races tougher than a 6-sided primary there, and that they had heard it all. She stressed the similarities to this race, and there were quite a few.

Bill (and Hillary) have been out-right racist -- has Michelle ever been sexist? (Talk about your "two-fers" -- we'll get a smart, well-spoken black man and his equally smart, equally well-spoken wife if we elect Obama!)

Some of that has changed in the past two months. The New York Times, ironically, caused conservatives to defend McCain against an unfair attack.

He's pretty much acknowledged that he lied about knowing the lobbyist, or to being friends with the company she was lobbying for. The sex part **may** have been false, but the base accusation was true. It's just a matter of who he was in bed with, and who he was screwing.

[balt]

(Talk about your "two-fers" -- we'll get a smart, well-spoken black man and his equally smart, equally well-spoken wife if we elect Obama!)

I remember saying almost exactly the same thing in 1992 about Bill Clinton.

aunursa: I think the Republicans are overestimating how much damage the Democrats are doing to each other. McCain, unless he does something stupid, is a non-story until the Democrats get their nomination sorted out. That's 2-3 months of the press ignoring McCain. So long as Clinton remembers that the important thing is a Democrat in the White House and keeps everything relatively clean (as it has been so far, in the grand scheme of things -- yes, I know one can point to dirty tricks, but nothing even close to what McCain suffered in 2000. Or Kerry in 2004. Or Jefferson in 1800.), the Democrats are going to have a lot of momentum coming out of their convention. Sure, almost exactly half will be disappointed by the nominee, but I bet the candidate/party will be able to unite the party pretty quickly.

[MikhailBorg]

"Don't vote for me either. I don't want your vote."

I'm not even being snarky: what modern politician can honestly say this? Especially in a hotly contested race?

It's one thing to say "You are encouraged to vote for me, but I cannot support your worldview, nor will I be acting upon it." It's another to say, "I'm just not interested in your vote."

I rather doubt either Democrat could say that and mean it, even if they agreed with the supporting sentiment.

[not_scottbot]

'...has Michelle ever been sexist?'

Interesting question, isn't it? I haven't heard about any baking recipes from her either, have you? Especially ones that receive major media play. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard much about her one way or the other, whereas Hillary Clinton was a major factor in Bill Clinton's campaign, a lightning rod of controversy on so many fronts. To which Hillary Clinton generally seemed to respond in the 1992 campaign through optimized focus group reaction, not the sort of tough take or leave it attitude of Thatcher (a poor, but not completely unreasonable comparison - an attitude which led to Thatcher's downfall, in trying to implement what could be not so ironically called a poll tax).

However, as to the question about who is desperately attempting to collect any vote - when Obama's wife appears on Limbaugh's show, we will know that politics is more important than either decency or self-respect in the eyes of that married couple. It may be a vast right wing conspiracy, but it is one that can be counted on to vote in Democratic primaries, when properly prodded. Think about that for a moment.

And since this seems required for some -
Scott - banned poster
Scottbot - joke/experiment aimed at changing Scott's behavior (didn't work, obviously - and as many didn't find the joke amusing, also a failure in many eyes)
not_scottbot - the person at this keyboard

[Toby]

I don't think those are good things to say, for reasons that have nothing to do with political consulting. If you want to combat prejudice, scolding is not a particularly good way to go about it. Mostly you'd just end up alienating a bunch of voters from the political process, which is the opposite of progress.

Plus it sounds like an expression of a drive for ideological purity: let's kick out all the people who have such-and-such sympathies. I say we leave that to grand ideological movements.

[Lauren]

You know, scottbot, if you want to keep contributing, I see no reason you cannot just choose a different signature, rather than trying to explain yourself every day. People change names all the time. Just tell us what it is.

If you don't, then every couple of months some new poster is going to ask, "What does scottbot mean?" and somebody will dredge the whole mess up again. The point in banning scott was not to have to deal with him any more.

May I suggest "nsb"?

[smgt]

""Don't vote for me either. I don't want your vote."

I'm not even being snarky: what modern politician can honestly say this? Especially in a hotly contested race?"

Soon after Edwards' wife was diagnosed with cancer, Edwards said that he didn't want anyone to vote for him because of his wife's cancer. It's not exactly the same, but hey, there was a principled politician who never had a chance.

[Spalanzani]

not_scottbot: I agree with Lauren. Now that the original programmer isn't around anymore, you might as well pick a different handle. Maybe just "Not-bot", if you don't want a completely new name. That way: (a) you wouldn't be invoking the name of the banned, (b) people who knew the whole situation would still know who you were, and (c) people who didn't wouldn't find your name quite as confusing.

[damnedyankee]

Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, I think the current round of intra-party sniping will be quickly forgotten, same as it is every four years, once the inter-party sniping starts in full earnest. It's still eight months to the general election, which is eternity in televised politics.

[lonespark]

In 2004 Dick Gephardt followed up Dean's remarks (that he had made a zillion times before, but whatever) that he wanted guys with Stars and Bars bumper stickers to vote for him, because their kids needed health care too, by saying he didn't want those guys's votes. I thought that was stupid. I was also pissed when Dean ended up apologizing about making the remark. Yes, that flag is a symbol of hate for many, but those guys are still Americans. Of course we want their votes. We don't want to pander to racism, but we want to reach out to everyone.

Fred's proposal is a somewhat different case, and I would love for Obama to say it. It think it would fit in well with the way he tries to speak to the best in the American character.

[Raka]

balt: ...[the campaign] has been [clean] so far, in the grand scheme of things -- yes, I know one can point to dirty tricks, but nothing even close to what McCain suffered in 2000...

There was a push poll insinuating that Obama had fathered a black baby, but it didn't gain a lot of traction.

[damnedyankee]

Tom Tomorrow, apropos of something.

[Steve]

Don't they? I have the feeling that it's been so long since politicians tried telling the truth that nobody really knows how people would react.

You might have a point. Maybe I should add that the professional political advisor would advise against this because even if it was sensible and true, the talking heads of the MSM would crucify the candidate and slant and distort what was said so that the average American still didn't really hear the truth.

Just think of any candidate saying racism is alive and well, or saying in foreign policy matters America should take responsibility for its mistakes and just might have pissed a few people off. You get crucified for making such obviously true statements. "Why does so-and-so hate America?"

[Susie from Philly]

Jeff: "Six-sided primary"? I guess Michelle didn't mention that Obama had all of his opponents thrown off the ballot before the race even began via petition challenges.

You could look it up.

[Izzy]

Lonespark: I don't know. I wouldn't institute measures to prevent the average God 'n' guns redneck from voting, because that would be wrong--but I wouldn't be too broken-hearted if they didn't vote, either. Yes, in a political campaign, you want to reach out to everyone...but really, outside politics? I don't. They made their choices; they build their lives around hating people like me; I'm more than happy to tell them to fuck off and die.

[aunursa]

balt: So long as Clinton remembers that the important thing is a Democrat in the White House

The general consensus among conservatives is that there is nothing that Hillary wouldn't do to get the nomination. How much damage she could do to the party remains to be seen.

That said, if Obama gets the nod, then he will gain most of Hillary's supporters. However if Hillary does manage to steal the nomination, then many of Obama's supporters will be very, very, very bitter.

[Froborr]

Part of the problem for this Obama supporter is that the Iraq War, and the larger War on Strategies We Don't Like But Only When Used by People We Don't LikeTerror, are not my biggest priorities in choosing a candidate. On pretty much everything else, the left-right spectrum basically runs:

Me - Obama - Most Democrats - Center - McCain - Clinton - Most Republicans

I really don't want to vote for anyone right of center, but if Obama loses I'll have little choice; it's McCain, Clinton, write-in*, or nobody.

*I would find it unendingly hilarious if Obama lost the primary, dropped out of the race, and then won as a write-in candidate. It'll never happen, but I can dream.

[aunursa]

I really don't want to vote for anyone right of center, but if Obama loses I'll have little choice; it's McCain, Clinton, write-in*, or nobody.

In the 2002 California Goober race, I couldn't in good conscience vote for either Democrat Gray Davis or Republican Simple Simon. (I had voted for Davis in 1998.) And none of the minor party candidates was palatable. So I wrote in Richard Reardon, who had lost to Simon in the GOP primary.

[John]

aunursa, why care about the consensus for Clinton among conservatives? Tell us what her natural base thinks about hanging around waiting for Obama to self-destruct. I think the base has no problem with that. I don't have a problem with that strategy, FWIW. And how would Clinton "steal" the election if it is run according to the rules of the Democratic party? They party has designed a system that, AFAICT, keeps the leading candidate from a clear knockout, while also painting a corner with no good exit by stripping FL and MI of convention delegates. Don't we want a President who knows how to deal with changable rules, fluid situations, and less than overwhelming public support?

[Jeff]

You could look it up.

So I did. Cite:

"I hadn't publicly announced," he said. "But what I said was that once I announce, and I have started to raise money, and gather supporters, hire staff and opened up an office, signed a lease, then it's going to be very difficult for me to step down. And she gave me repeated assurances that she was in [the congressional race] to stay."

Obama "did say that to me," Palmer says now. "And I certainly did say that I wasn't going to run. There's no question about that."

I read the whole article. It sounds tough, but fair -- Palmer knew Obama wasn't going to back down if she came back. She decided to come back anyway.

Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago. Ballot challenges eliminated 67 of the 245 declared aldermanic candidates in Chicago before this past February's elections, an election board spokesman said.

Palmer knew she would likely be challenged. She decided to go ahead with a half-assed petition process anyway.

In terms of modern elections, this ain't spit.

[Raka]

Froborr: On pretty much everything else, the left-right spectrum basically runs:

Me - Obama - Most Democrats - Center - McCain - Clinton - Most Republicans

glur? I oppose Clinton strongly enough that I will not vote for her if she takes the nomination, but in what world is she to the right of McCain? For that matter, I'd say Obama is more centrist than most Democratic voters. He's not calling for the broad-ranging legal, social, and economic changes I associate with the heart-and-soul blue voters. I'd put him and Clinton effectively tied in terms of left/right alignment, and both of them slightly to the right of the median Democrat. YMMV, of course, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[Froborr]

why care about the consensus for Clinton among conservatives? Tell us what her natural base thinks

You mean neo-cons? I thought that was what aunursa was doing.

[damnedyankee]

Me - Obama - Most Democrats - Center - McCain - Clinton - Most Republicans

Haven't you heard, Raka? According to all of the finest newspaper Letters to the Editor pages, Obama is this year's Mostest Librul Senator Evuuurrrrr.

[aunursa]

John: And how would Clinton "steal" the election if it is run according to the rules of the Democratic party?

You answered your own question. I read somewhere that, if she's desperate enough, Hillary may go after some of Obama's pledged delegates. Alas, I don't have a link.

[not_scottbot]

A name change is in the works, after my ISP gets around to dealing with a little mistake it made in terms of my IP number/RIPE/DeNIC. And the name I have in mind should be clear enough here.

For those interested in Internet privacy, viewing your IP number through the service provided by http://www.maxmind.com/app/locate_my_ip could be quite interesting. Especially since all of the forums you are likely posting at (and most assuredly all that are monetizing their forums) use this or a similar service. Typepad, google, Haloscan - though in the business of providing information, it is not the information many people believe. After all, first such services must collect it to be able to resell it.

I have to thank a certain James McDonald for my investigating more deeply into this - after not only announcing my (admittedly fake) e-mail, he also pointed out that I wasn't anywhere near as unknown as I had thought. He was quite right - my ISP had made a mistake (understandable - I am one of their only private customers at this point) when I finally abandoned dial-up for the brave new world of fixed IP numbers.

A couple more days or so, and not_scottbot will be no more. Until then, no more disclaimers.

[Omorka]

Froborr: do you really think Rodham-Clinton is to the right of McCain on, say, women's rights and reproductive rights? Or the environment? I don't think their voting records reflect that.

[damnedyankee]

A couple more days or so, and not_scottbot will be no more.

We should give not_scottbot and its related aliases a decent funeral. Or, given that it's St. Patrick's Day, which brings to mind celebration through excessive libation, a wake.

Scottbot was a noble experiment, often misunderstood, and much funnier than the original programmer. It deserves a decent sendoff.

[Froborr]

Well, for starters, while Clinton seems to oppose the Iraq War (as long as it's unpopular, anyway), she's a lot more likely to start a new war than McCain. Her strong ties to Holbrook and his ilk make that pretty clear. McCain has a history of support for campaign finance reform; Clinton does not. Both of them have a history of voting for increased government surveillance and secrecy, but McCain went against his own party (for about ten minutes, anyway), to oppose torture. During the absurd "Hot Coffee" Grand-Theft-Auto Oh Noes teh Videogames iz Corruptin R Yooth nonsense, Clinton was quite outspoken about her support for censorship (as long as the thing being censored is something she doesn't play with, anyway).

As for the spectrum, apologies, I should have made clear: by "Most Democrats" and "Most Republicans" I meant most Democratic and Republican elected officials, candidates, and pundits, not voters.

[aunursa]

Conservatives aren't the only ones who think that Hillary would be ruthless in her quest for the party nomination:
The Clinton civil war

First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.

She knows this. That's why there's all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.

Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war.

Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.

[Lauren]

A couple more days or so, and not_scottbot will be no more. Until then, no more disclaimers.

I am mildly curious if you are aware how tin-foil-hat crazy you sound. I can understand, even if I don't agree with, your insistance that nothing you write be linked back to your actual, physical self. But the idea that changing your signature without changing your IP address along with it compromises your privacy somehow is just weird. Especially since you have used dozens of scottbot variants over the last couple of months.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, to which I don't have anything particularly exciting to contribute.

[Eric B.]

About 2 weeks ago, I thought that the Democratic primary dragging out would be an advantage for the Democrats come November due to the reason many of you have stated: it keeps the eyes of the people on the Dems and off of McCain. But, as it gets more and more vicious, I think we are getting close to the point where it is going to hurt whoever comes out with the nomination since they will be covered in mud.

If Clinton wins, expect the Republicans who "aren't enthusiastic" about McCain to come out in droves to support him. Bill was hated by hard core Republicans, and they like Hillary even less. In fact, I still think that guys like Dobson who promised to sit out if Guliani was the Rep. candidate would have come out full force for him if he were running against Hillary.

Regardless, I think all of the elections this year (Pres, House, Senate) are going to be fought mostly on which party is not the worst--ie "my opponent is terrible so don't vote for her/him", as opposed to "vote for me." That was Kerry's strategy in 04, and it didn't work, so now both parties are going to try. It's gonna be a long year.

[aunursa]

Eric B: If Clinton wins, expect the Republicans who "aren't enthusiastic" about McCain to come out in droves to support him. Bill was hated by hard core Republicans, and they like Hillary even less.

Most conservatives think that Hillary would be easier to defeat. She has high negatives. Against McCain, Obama would be successful at portraying himself as the candidate for change in ways that Hillary cannot. And if the Democratic candidate were to win, for conservatives Hillary would be easier to live with ... because (1) they consider Obama to be more liberal, and (2) she is considered to be a pragmatist. They think she'll change her position on any issue for political gain. (Exhibit A: Iraq.)

The silver lining they see in an Obama victory would be that he doesn't know the executive branch, whereas the Clintons are very experienced. Presumably a Clinton administration would hit the ground running, while an Obama administration would still be reading the directions, and therefore less effective in getting his legislation passed. (See: Jimmy Carter presidency.) In either case, the conservatives would use obstruction and stalling tactics for four years as the Democrats did in 2003-2004. If that turns out to be the case, then the magic number for Democrats is 60, and for Republicans, 41.

[nationElectric]

Lauren: May I suggest "nsb"?

Or "NoScoBo."

[nationElectric]

Also, if you're that worried about IP tracking, you should consider using an anonymizer.

[Robb]

@ Froborr & Raka

Glad to know I'm not the only one who'd vote for McCain before voting for Hillary. As noted above & many places elsewhere on the web, Clinton is obviously power-hungry, and despite toeing the party line on a number of issues (and, let's be honest, genuinely caring about many of them), she's shown far too much skill in playing the part of the vague & non-committal politician. I really would like to see a woman become prez, but not her. It's frustrating that so much of antipathy toward Hillary & her genuinely dubious scheming is mistaken for sexism.

@ [the artist formerly known by who they were 'not']

I second "Not_Bot"

[Anguish]

Fred, frankly the positions you're suggesting stink. They're the sort of utterly confused idea that might come from someone who has become so used to elections being decided by scheming and lawsuits that they've concluded the vote itself is just another show, worth throwing over for the chance to score an imaginary moral victory. A candidate who thought that way would make a lousy president (and America already gets lousy presidents often enough without more help). Let's see if I can explain why these positions are incompatible with support for democracy.

Everybody's vote counts. That's what so many fought for, isn't it? Now to dismiss some of those votes is to dismiss what was fought for. If you're a voodoo practitioner who does horrible things to chickens, any democratic candidate still wants your vote. If you're a cop who pulls over black kids in nice cars just so that he feels like a bigger man, the candidates still want your vote. If you're a school teacher fighting to "get rid of the evolutionary claptrap" from your science classroom they still want your vote. They may not want you to pledge support on TV, or campaign for them, they may not agree with a single thing you believe in, but they want that X on the ballot.†

The big plus point of indirect democracy is that the representatives are not a simple proxy for the electorate. British public opinion has favoured the death penalty consistently, while its MPs voted against it for decades, time after time (though not any more because it's moot, the EU forbids member states from executing criminals). Once elected, the representative tries to do their best for their whole community, but on any individual decision the community is inevitably divided, or hopelessly parochial and so you have to be able to see beyond that. I'd be just as uneasy about a senior politician (senators in both cases no less) who can't manage to represent someone that is racist, or sexist, as I would if they announced they couldn't represent atheists, or criminals or any other unpopular group. That's just not doing their job properly. You shouldn't support racism, but you need to be able to represent racists and that means their votes count the same as anyone else's.

In that sense politics is like lawyering, and as unlike journalism as could be possible (unless you really believe that "We report / You decide" nonsense).

† In your area it may be a tick, or a tiny drawing of Batman, please read your voting instructions carefully.

[Spalanzani]

Anguish: "Everybody's vote counts. That's what so many fought for, isn't it? Now to dismiss some of those votes is to dismiss what was fought for."

How does a canidate saying that they don't want a certain person's vote saying that their vote doesn't count?

Anyway, I'd think that the point of Fred's suggested canidate statements insn't so much to dissuade such people from voting, but to shame them from basing their vote on such low reasons.

[Lauren]

As noted above & many places elsewhere on the web, Clinton is obviously power-hungry, and despite toeing the party line on a number of issues (and, let's be honest, genuinely caring about many of them), she's shown far too much skill in playing the part of the vague & non-committal politician. --Robb

How is that not an equally accurate description of John McCain? He has been consistant on Iraq, and consistant on abortion, but on the economy, taxes, the environment, regulation, etc. his positions seem to have more to do with popular opinion and his own ego than with any guiding moral principles.

[Robb]

John McCain has plenty of his own faults, and I'm not enthusiastic about voting for him (at least, not as long as Barack Obama is an option for Commander in Chief), but John McCain has, for the most part, defied the party & been his own man. True, he's still a politician, and if you want to look at him has a slave to corporate interest (or whatever), there's as much evidence for that as there is for anyone else. But as much as a man with 35 years in Washington can be, John McCain is fairly independent & non-partisan.

And yes, I'm aware that's a NABA, but in a 2 party political system, there's not going to be a lot of options.

[Froborr]

I didn't actually say I'd vote for McCain before Clinton. Honestly, if it comes down to McCain vs. Clinton, I have no idea what I'll do. Probably write in Obama.

[aunursa]

John McCain has, for the most part, defied the party & been his own man.

When a Republican defies his party, he's considered a maverick.

When a Democrat defies his party, he's considered a traitor.

[Froborr]

When a Republican defies his party, he's considered a maverick.

When a Democrat defies his party, he's considered a traitor.

That'd be because we consider Republican views bad, so defying them is good. Democratic views are, um, marginally less bad, so defying them to adopt Republican views is bad.

One would assume that, for a conservative observer, the terms would be reversed.

[Anguish]

“How does a canidate saying that they don't want a certain person's vote saying that their vote doesn't count?”

I agree that they're not identical sentiments, but they're much too close for comfort. If the person you're voting for doesn't want your vote, who cares what you think at all? If instead you mean that "just saying it doesn't mean it's true" ie that Obama and Clinton would both claim not to want such votes in public, but secretly they would still want all the votes because they want to be President, well then these statements are hollow, and worthless. Politics already has too many empty gestures (look at the "endorsement" of McCain by Bush).

[Jesurgislac]

John McCain has, for the most part, defied the party & been his own man.

Wow McCain's media support is terrific. His "image" is of a maverick who "defies his party" - and his routinely voting with the Republicans is ignored.

Suggest you check McCain's voting record before you repeat the media claims unthinkingly, Robb. McCain's a party man through and through - he'll even vote for torture when supporting torture becomes the Republican thing to do.