A failure to Get It

This article in the New York Times shows just how deeply neither the press nor the Clinton campaign understand the appeal of the Obama candidacy. Here's the lead:

"When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton meets Senator Barack Obama at a one-on-one debate in Austin on Thursday night, one of her final opportunities to change the course of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, she will again face the challenge that has repeatedly stymied her: how to discredit her popular opponent without hurting herself."

The obvious answer: Senator, you're never going to "discredit" him. You're only going to do better if you can sell yourself on the merits -- authentically, without such Swiftboat/Rovean repackaging of your weaknesses as attacks like the whole "experience" issue.

That you seem unable to find such merits within yourself is Not Obama's Fault.

"Even now, after a string of defeats, her advisers are divided over how to proceed as they head toward what could be her last stands, in Ohio and Texas on March 4.

Some — led by Mark Penn, her chief strategist — have been pushing Mrs. Clinton to draw sharper and deeper contrasts with Mr. Obama, arguing that she has no other option, campaign officials said."

I have no idea what Mr. Penn's history is. I've enjoyed the snarky comments over at Talking Points Memo about him. But if this is a representative sample of his advice... Fire his ass. He's an incompetent twit.

"Others, particularly Mandy Grunwald, her media adviser, have pushed for a less aggressive approach, arguing that attacks would not help Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in an environment in which she is increasingly appearing to struggle, aides said."

Bingo.

*^*^*

Further down we see:

"Mr. Penn, asked about the extent to which the campaign might move to draw tough contrasts in the weeks ahead, responded with an e-mail message that suggested Mrs. Clinton did not intend to roll out any new lines of attack now.

“It is really up to the press to dig deeper and vet him now,” he wrote. “That’s not our job.” "

Again, this branches on any number of false assumptions, not unlike the buildup to Iraq. It assumes the press haven't been digging and haven't been vetting. It assumes there's something to be found. And it implies that the obviously failing campaign Mr. Penn directs isn't going to admit it's making any mistakes. Which is all too painfully familiar when it comes to Mrs. Clinton, let alone the obvious parallels to current office holders.

*^*^*

UPDATE TO ADD: Michael Bérubé agrees in spirit, calling the Clinton campaign staff, "...the gang that can’t shoot straight." (A phrase to warm the heart of any West Wing fan.)

Basuboru

There's been a lot said about the apparent discrepancies in the testimonies of Brian McNamee and Roger Clemens. "Mr. McNamee stated that Mr. Clemens took steroids and human growth hormone on 16 occasions in 1998, 2000 and 2001." Mr. Clemens denies every word.

One possible explanation: McNamee knew what he was giving Clemens.

Clemens didn't.

Why would McNamee do that? He keeps insisting that he's but the employee of the players, but the impression I have is, no, he's an employee of the Yankees. This also implies why he would conceivably perjure himself -- if it was the team directing his actions, and he tells the truth, he'll never eat lunch in this town again have an easy time finding another baseball job.

Here are some questions I haven't heard asked during the whole slow burn of the baseball drugging scandals: Who stands to gain more -- individual players who make no more than $25 million a year, or team owners, who make as much as $415 million a year? Could a given owner order a given trainer to juice players, because those players would sell more tickets? If "everyone knew" about the steroids and other drugs being used, why did the owners do nothing? Or, rather, why are they continuing to walk a tightrope between doing enough to keep the crowd satisfied, while not doing so much that they themselves get implicated, even though they had the most control, the most responsibility, and the most to gain? Where were the managers?

You'll know this whole Congressional investigation has finally gotten serious when Joe Torre and George Steinbrenner are subpoenaed. If not, then not.