Kill the "Creative Class"

I've talked about this before, but I think it bears repeating (endlessly) until this label is absolutely shunned from any serious political discussion.

It's the optics stupid.

Labeling one group "creative" implies that other groups are not creative. You might as well say that those who are not part of the "creative class" are dumb.

Its an elitist term that should be taken out and shot, hung, drawn, quartered and then buried with salt (after being torched with a flamethrower). It is quite simply one of the most self-destructive identifications I have heard in the last 20 years. And the fact that so many members of the "creative class" have adopted this label just proves how DUMB they are.

Defending Liberalism?

MSNBC gives this story the headline "OBAMA DEFENDS 'LIBERAL' LABEL". But then includes the following meat to back this up:

"Oh, he's liberal,” [Obama] said. “He's liberal. Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home.”

Continuing on his riff: "There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should so something smarter with our health care system. Don't let them run that okie doke on you!"

Um, excuse me, but if one is defending "Liberal" then you don't do it by saying that there's "nothing liberal" about a whole list of good things. Far from a defense, Obama's comments feed right into the right-wing framing that says Liberalism isn't worth crap.

Now, I suspect the greater point Sen. Obama is trying to make is that wanting better access to healthcare is something that not JUST Liberals want. But his choice of words goes much further than that. It suggests that any of the good things Liberals have stood for for the last 50 years had NOTHING to do with Liberalism.

If there's nothing "Liberal" about these things, why bother being "Liberal" at all?

Is it any wonder so many people have problems self-identifying as "Liberal" when they hear things like this from Democrats?

(Chris Bowers has similar thoughts here)

Hillary entering the acceptance stage?

My takeaway from last night's debate (what little I saw of it) is much the same as Josh Marshall's. Hillary Clinton could have gone for a knock-down-drag-out fight but appears to have deliberately chosen not to. I consider a major signal on her part that she ISN'T willing to tear the party apart in order to win.

Her response to the final question was especially telling, as it indicated that as much as she might not like the fact that she is on the ropes, she can live with the consequences of not winning. The fact that nearly the entire audience gave her a standing ovation after that response (and some of those had to be Obama supporters) shows that a lot of people interpreted her comments as a provisional concession speech (contingent, of course, on the results in Texas in Ohio).

I've always thought there was far to much freak-out among activists about the possibility of the Clintons taking a Pyrrhic victory approach to this race. Of course, they have the skills to tear the party apart in order to get some kind of technical win. But I've never bought into the idea that their were so single-minded about winning that they would actually do it.

Last nights performance was a validation for me.

Conflicted!

What I think will be the most fascinating aspect of this story is the extent the right-wing media machine (TV, radio, newsprint, blogs, etc.) will defend McCain. Many of them don't like McCain. But they also don't like the NY Times.

Oy what a conflict!

Making an Accusation Stick

More on this.

I think David Kurtz is right that the Clinton campaign is trying to push an "inauthentic" narrative on Obama. It's a tactic that could work but for the ham-handed way they are going about it.

First off, if you are going to follow the Rovian strategy of attacking an opponent on their strength you can't do it using a full-frontal assault. You first have to lay the foundation for the narrative by suggesting over a significant stretch of time that there are reason's to question Obama's authenticity. Clinton has not made this argument before (at least not to my recollection). So for them to leap on it now with the plagiarism charge again strikes of desperation.

(Unfortunately, it's not to late for the GOP to start making this charge stick, which is why the Clinton campaigns accusation may help McCain more than it will help her.)

Now, I think the Clinton campaign was starting to make a more effective argument that a President needs to do more then just give good speeches. Obama has substance to back up his campaign, but few would deny that inspirational rhetoric has been his main weapon in this campaign. Undermining that rhetoric with an updated version of "Where's the Beef?" could work.

But this wild charge of plagiarism could destroy any effectiveness that tactic would have had.

Looking For Traction

I think this counts as flailing.

It's a serious stretch to interpret this as plagiarism. But when a campaign goes with the accusation full boar you know it is desperate to find something that will give it traction.

Desperation is never pretty, whether in potential suitors or potential Presidents.