A Potential Theme for Edwards? "The Politics of Unity" vs. "The Politics of Division"

[babylonsister]

A Potential Theme for Edwards? "The Politics of Unity" vs. "The Politics of Division"
by RJ Eskow | Nov 2 2007


If this week's post-debate debate has proved anything, it's that Hillary Clinton is consciously using the Politics of Division as a strategy. She's tried to divide men against women and treat-us-the-same feminists against go-easy-on-us feminists. Any progressive who challenges her on substance can be pigeonholed as a "Hillary hater" and kept after school with the sexists.

This week she's accused her opponents (except Richardson) of ganging up on her. She's used the "one tough woman" spin relentlessly (which Tim Grieve brilliantly dissected with a simple question: What if Obama had been in her shoes and responded he's "one tough black man" against five whites?) She's found more than enough minions in the blogs and the media to spin her narrative, creating a level of dissonance and friction that hasn't been seen in the Democratic Party since Vietnam.

All in three days. And all to spin a lackluster debate performance. What will happen when things get really rough? If she keeps this up she's going to fracture her party.

This cynical strategy, the Politics of Division, may have been inevitable given Mark Penn's leadership role. Penn's a smart guy, but his entire strategic foundation - the concept of "microtrends" - is basically a rhetorical and analytical framework for an older and much simpler concept: Divide and conquer.

After all, a candidate can always choose between issues that galvanize large groups and those that appeal to narrowly-defined segments of the population. A large majority of voters want us out of Iraq. But if you're a politician who's closely tied with the "bipartisan" machine that got us into Iraq, it's more comfortable to avoid that sort of broad-based movement in favor of pitting small groups against one another.

When you divide the population into so many subgroups, you can pick and choose those groups that reflect your own interests and ideology and pretend it's just "the numbers" talking. Although Ezra Klein explains the statistically meaningless nature of "microtrending" in his review of Penn's book on the topic, Penn was using his "numbers" routine less than 24 hours after the debate to say that he was "detecting some backlash" among women voters. (No documentation or methodology was provided.)

more...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10799

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Theme.... music?

Please note I'm showing excellent restraint here...

[babylonsister]

2. Duly noted

and frankly shocked!;)

[msongs]

3. ol' john did a pretty good job of dividing himself out the other night nt

[babylonsister]

4. How so, or can't you answer that either? nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. how about: hypocritical attacking on a silver platter.

His position on Iraq is the same as hers while ridiculing her position
He has taken money from Hedge fund pacs--while ridiculing her funding
He said she is inconsistent with the war--he voted to authorize Bush to go to Iraq

And not once did the media question him or anyone else on those inconsistencies.

[babylonsister]

6. He also apologized and admitted he made a mistake. Funny that; I

haven't heard Clinton do likewise, not once. Go watch his Parsing ad about the war; where does she stand exactly? Nevermind; she'll be any which way 'you' want her to be.

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. don't you see? If she apologizes, she knows "they" will ridicule her for being

wishy-washy / soft on terrorism / emotional.

Why is it ok with you that Edwards ridicules her about things that he himself does? Why is it ok with you that the media gave him a free pass while attempting to annihilate her?

[babylonsister]

8. Don't you see? By not apologizing, she reminds me of the ultimate

person who never admits to making a mistake, the dim one himself. I just can't get over the similarities. And I'm very turned off by her wishy-washiness. She can't seem to stay on point. If she has an opinion, state it and stop with the hemming and hawing. I really don't care for the woman, loathe the idea of the dynasties in this country, as I seriously think we need new blood. Having said that, I'm a Dem and will vote for her - if I have to, and I hope that's not the case.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. She...I totally disagree with you

She is not wishy-washy. She has been as consistent as the rest of them in her views and opinions.

I totally agree with her with regard to "the vote" Of course it was not to go to war. Bush will use anything against them. I understand the nuance of her statement, and I totally understand her reasoning not to apologize. Why should she?

I am saddened that people do not listen to her answers, but rather listen to the hype and politics and twisting.

[waiting for hope]

10. Game, Set, Match....

The proof is in the pudding ... :popcorn: and it's happening here all over, as duly noted in the above thread. I think the Clinton camp is also mastering the Straw Man argument as well:

A straw man argument can be set up in the following ways, by:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Oversimplifying a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

[Adelante]

11. Edwards used race and gender cards first

Months ago. He's been running negative all along. He is no uniter, either.