But the melody lingers on

All of this sounds like bad news for Democrats.

"[Clinton] panders flat-out to the teachers' unions by saying that she's going to end No Child Left Behind (a flawed piece of legislation, but is she, like, against basic reading and math standards?)" - No Child Left Behind is beyond repair. I can understand that you may disagree, but framing your post to suggest that the only reason someone would want to end it is to gain the support of teachers' unions is inaccurate and unfair. There are a lot of people who are not teachers, and who are not running for office, who are nonetheless convinced that it needs to be ended.

Well, how they manage to survive so far is unthinkable. The primary just needs to be over.

Hillary Clinton voted for "No Child Left Behind"

To quote Russ Feingold (originally talking about John Edwards) "(s)He's running on my record"

Please Pennsylvania - end this thing on Tuesday--

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/politics/20loyalty.html?ei=5065&en=bdeed0067115920a&ex=1209268800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

And the hiss just keeps on coming!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwww !!

Well, Obama will just have to figure out how to get past the frustration of the moment and get on with it. There is likely a big difference between intellectually understanding that if you enter the presidential race and do well, at some point you will get slimed, and actually getting well and truly slimed for 45 minutes on national TV by "respected" journalists - with your same-party competitor jumping in with both feet.

And, frankly, who could have imagined being up against a competitor from your own party who would, apparently, be willing to cede the White House to the RePugnantans rather than see you win. I say that as someone who would have chosen Hillary over Obama without a second though just a few months ago.

Joe:
A "laundry list" of what problems a candidate intends to solve (and how) is bad for voters...how is it bad for voters, again?

It might bore you to death, and be "uninspiring" (instead of providing "fascinating" hero-worship material) for the political press corps, but isn't that exactly what America needs? You know, a list of thing that should get done--pronto?

Isn't that why we hire our temporary government employee every four years, Joe? Don't we want to get things done?

I just thank the lord that Pennsylvania voters don't go to these events with your ridiculous theatrical-evaluative criteria.

Welcome To PANDER FEST 2008.

[Grab your kids, and grab your wallet.]

"I just thank the lord that Pennsylvania voters don't go to these events with your ridiculous theatrical-evaluative criteria."

The tipping point will be whichever of Socialist Thing 1 or Socialist Thing 2 first guarantees unionized Hooters babysitters for the drooling elderly in Shamoykin County football weekends so Butch and Brunella can take the day off from the T-Shirt Barn to attend the next Eagles home loss to the Redskins.

Maybe Obama was tired from delivering a great speech to 35,000 people in Philly on Friday. I streamed the whole thing and he seemed pretty sharp.

And following up on what wvng said, Nico Pitney made an effort to quantify the head to head debates between Clinton and Obama. Worth a read. He categorizes questions as policy, non-policy, and scandal. The money quote:

"Barack Obama has received the overwhelming majority of scandal questions over the course of the four debates, by a margin of 17 to 4."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/debate-analysis-abc-asked_n_97599.html

Joe's humming a tune he's been dancing to for many years now: "The Democratic Pandering Blues." He knows the words by heart; knows them so well he has dozens of columns waiting to be recycled, saving him the bother of actually writing anything new.

My guess is Obama isn't all that thrilled (if Joe can be believed, that is) because he's only now getting a taste -- it's a small taste at that -- of what it's like to be subject to the Clinton Rules. Probably, he had, like his followers, convinced himself that his success was due to his own gifts rather than to an absurdly slanted playing field, and the problems other Dems have had with the press would not be his. This is a guy, keep in mind, who has never known anything but adulation in the world of politics; discovering you aren't as brilliant and irresistibly charming as you thought you were isn't likely to put anyone in a good mood. Neither is the prospect of seven more months of having everything you say scrutinized and twisted and turned against you, until you have to analyze, and re-analyze, everything you say before you say it, knowing that in the end it won't do any good anyway, because someone like good ol' Joe Klein will dust off one of his old, sneering columns, accusing the candidate of "pandering," or "being controlled by the consultants", and cut and paste "Obama" into where the word "Kerry" had been, and "Gore" before that.

Welcome to the real world of Democratic politics, Obama. You ain't in Illinois any more, and if you're "lucky," you won't have Hillary around to act as a press corps decoy any more, either.

As an aside, tsk tsk, Joe. Attacking the candidates' music is Cox' beat (as it were). You're poaching, and the sad thing is, you're poaching on territory that's shrinking faster than nature preserves under the Bush Administration. Cut the woman some slack and leave her something she can claim as an area of expertise.

Joe,

I couldn't help but think as I was reading this post that you yourself might be experiencing a bit of fatigue.

If I have to choose a single word to describe it "crabby" comes to mind.

in response to Klein's "answer": if that's the case, politics is the ultimate test of message delivery, then what's changed in this election?

If the attention span of voters is so poor that they will only hear a few things, how does that contrast with the quoted upsurge in political interest?

There's been a lot of firsts in this election, but the proverbial stake has never been higher, a country at war on two fronts, an economy tanking, issues of race and gender still unresolved. It's a lot of stuff. While I share Klein's disappointment at the loss of substance, I don't share his solution.

How do you hold a politician accountable if you don't ask what they will do. Klein may not like the laundry list, I don't mind, the detail.

We parse every word a candidate says, the gestures they use, their plans deserve at least the same.

When he talked about hope, journalists would attack him for being "substance-less".
Now that he talks substances, he is a "panderer".

When he tries to be gracious about the scandal du jour, journalist attack him for being "wimpy".
When he attacks back, he is an "hypocrite".

No wonder he is pissed, bummed or exhausted. I am only *reading* about all the BS Hillary throws at him and about the way journalists have been covering him lately, and *I* am bummed, pissed AND exhausted.

It's almost magical the way these media narratives slip in there. I saw this "Obama is tired" meme slowly building up momentum among the pundit class, which seems to continue on from where the ABC debate left off in a full-court MSM press to feed Hillary's message that Obama is not up to the long, hard fight.

Well the "Obama is tired" meme would work if it was not for the small problem of Hillary making up a whole story about being under sniper fire ... because "she was tired".

"I saw this "Obama is tired" meme slowly building up momentum among the pundit class."

Memekiller: Joe is following the lazy pattern they all do. Group think is so much easier than actual thinking. They have been working this way for so long they can't help it.

"Of course, this is a university campus and she's doing intellectual pandering...but I can live with that."

= CALI ACCOMPLISHED =

Hillary will replace No Child with No Hooker.

Other than that, she and O'Bonger IS basically indistinguishable, on everything from limp foreign policy to chilling tax policy to derelict defense policy to stunted education policy to isolationist economic policy.

They'll be the Dream Ticket of Tom Hayden fans all over Switzerland.

Just returned home from the Hillary event in State College. She's much more empathic and human in person than she has ever come across on television. Her speech was thoughtful and precise - I love that she has specific proposals (that's leadership and it sure beats voting "present" on controversial issues). I would not call it pandering - she knew her audience and highlighted proposals that would be relevant here (what sensible candidate wouldn't?). My major impression was that she's holding up very strong in a tough campaign and I would feel very comfortable about her ability to thrive under the demands of the presidency and to lead this country into more prosperous and peaceful times.

From reading this post and this thread, I'm beginning to suspect Obama is "polarizing," that he's "alienated the press corps, fairly or unfairly", he "has baggage," and so, even though I have nothing against him, it makes sense for the Democrats to go in a "new direction," because otherwise the Dems would be playing the same old "51-49% game" and they can do better than that with a candidate who can "bring people together" with a "message of hope and optimism."

It's just so f*cking funny to see some of the same people who've been brainlessly mouthing the Obama talking points for months crying about how he's being treated now, when anyone who's been paying attention to politics longer than this election cycle knew this was going to happen.

"I saw this "Obama is tired" meme slowly building up momentum among the pundit class."

Next they'll be saying it's because he has sickle cell.

Joe,

I appreciate your use of the word "like" to add a beat to your sentence. That was the last piece of evidence I needed to finally be convinced of the ascendancy of my generation. Who knows, maybe some day I'll get away with adding extra "likes" in job interviews.

Well, Clinton has the advantage of being able to run on sewage, rather than inspiration. That might account for some of the contrastyou perceive. Also, if you are trying to tell us that Obama is speaking well, or badly, just say it. If not, don't - just don't provide us with an ambiguous mishmash of how even at death's door he would be good, while your post overall seems to imply that he isn't. Frankly, I'd have thought that the brush-off speech, which was excellent, and the speech in Philadelphia both showed him at the top of his game. They were powerful, funny, moving - a quantum leap beyond anything Clinton has ever managed. As for their speeches before Iowa, I seem to recall someone criticizing Obama for lack of substance, while Clinton was flatulently dull. Now you have more policy talk - and you want the old rapture back? Could we have just a little consistency here?

Blatant pandering? What did you want - a detailed, costed list with schedules attached? Of course that won't happen, and probably shouldn't. All candidates paint with a broad brush, whether we like it or not. If you want pandering, write a real piece on McCain, and dissect the collection of dishonesty, idiocy and illiteracy he serves up to the American public. Of course, you may have a problem if the teleprompter goes down, because McCain doesn't even know his own policies day to day. Write that article, and then tell me about pandering!

As for Clinton's speeches, if Dante had had to listen to her on the stump, I guarantee that he would have added something to the Inferno. The Swamp of Spurious Pundits, condemned to sit in a stinking ooze and listen to Hillary and Mitt Romney alternate on the stump - for all eternity. Frankly, I don't know why Bush and Co wasted time on waterboarding. Translate Clinton's greatest hits into Arabic, pipe them into the cells, and the prisoners would be screaming to talk.

DavidC--

She is good in person, isn't she? One of the reasons I thought she would win is that she is not the caricature they've made of her, and that she'd turn the negatives around. She was doing that in the beginning, but, I dunno, hubris or too much Mark Penn, being trapped in the last campaign or something did in the strategists.

Oh, and Obama had a better campaign finance model.

this isn't "Survivor" - it's about who will have the judgement to lead the free world out of the hopeless morass we have been put in these last eight years

the "fighter" reference to me is not very appealing --

Hillary is wounded from all those years of being beaten up -- she is well versed in the Washington ways --

If this appeals to you - she's for you

If you want to move forward and try a new way -Obama's for you

They are not the same - the vision for the future is different

For me - there is only one option
Obama '08

A vote for Clinton is affirming that there's no way out of "the game" of politics; it _has_ to be played.

A vote for Obama is a wasted vote because he'd like to get rid of "the game," but you'd have to be very naive to think that will happen. He'll either waste his time trying, or just turn tail and play along like all the others - but with the hypocrisy baggage.

A vote for McCain is a crime - because he's a Republican, my highest form of invective, lately; eg. "You damned, dirty Republican!" I used to be registered as a Repub; now, after doing their best to plunder the Treasury for themselves and their friends, kill our servicemen and women for Bush's misguided notions, and destroy this great country, I can't even think of them as Americans, anymore.

In short, is this the best America can do? Maybe we should write-in a poo-flinging monkey from the nearest zoo.

Perhaps Mr. Klein would prefer that politicians pander only to the public's pavlovian fear of terrorists and 'patriotism'.

Now that sort of pandering would take care of the economy, the energy question, the war, the constitutional separation of powers, trade, everything, all in one package deal. That would be more 'honorable' pandering and that is how McCain, a man of character, panders honorably.

In fact by even implying that a politician owes something to those who vote for him (rather than those who pay his campaign bills) Obama in particular is striking at the very fundamentals of Wash D.C's work ethic, ideology and economy of which journalists are a big part.

Instead of declaming as home office oracles to their captive readers, journalists have to actually travel to some small town in fly over country where some suitably controversial ballot measure should have sufficed. Horror upon horrors.

Let me make that last sentence more precise to underline just what is at stake for media pundits who might be losing their position as the REAL people whom politicians need to pander to-

Instead of declaming as home office oracles to their captive readers, talking points passed on by a 'political insider lobbyist' over an expensive tax-payer ahem! business expense-account paid lunch, journalists have to actually travel to some small town in fly over country where some suitably controversial ballot measure should have sufficed. Horror upon horrors.

Mr. Joe Klein you are a cruel taskmaster. The candidates have been giving the same speech, what, five times a day for the last six months? You can't really expect them to be hitting a home run every time, can you? Back off, you're going to give us all an eating disorder with your impossible expectations.

Exactly what BenjaminOMeara said:

"When he talked about hope, journalists would attack him for being "substance-less".
Now that he talks substances, he is a "panderer". When he tries to be gracious about the scandal du jour, journalist attack him for being "wimpy".
When he attacks back, he is an "hypocrite". No wonder he is pissed, bummed or exhausted."

Obama would still be delivering soaring oratory, with plenty of substance available on the web for those interested in it, if the press, and his competition, hadn't created a substance-free storyline that he finally had to respond to.

You know, the press, the professional dispassionate observers who write in the passive voice because they never influence events.

Both candidates must be pretty exhausted. Sure they will make mistakes; will say things in the heat of the moment that can cause problems, and both are frustrated. Obama is relatively new to being at the receiving end of harsh criticism, often unfair. He had better get used to it.

It is one thing having to face the crowds; it's another to face the self-satisfied smugness of the pundit class.

Maybe we should choose David Brooks' ridiculous suggestion that they war game the race. Better still toss a coin. Frankly I don't see much difference between the two if one sets aside soaring rhetoric (O) or close up earnestness (C). The problems seem to be with the supporting cast and chorus and members of the team. Left to themselves these two could be a dream team. But that requires a level of modesty that has no place in US politics. Macho is in.

Time to go get McSame!

Qwexchun for the Obamites:

Was Skippy's alleged insistence (before he was ever elected a U.S. Senator available to actually vote Present on the issue) that we not go back into Iraq in force based on his easy breezy willingness to not free the slaves of Saddam and the thug Baathists -- or from his basic unwillingness to tip over the brazen oil-for-EU deals of funds master realtor Rezko?

To Ayers IS humus, to withhold Obama, eh?

And you thought Al Franken's lone testicle was the only terrorist sycophant running in November.

I didn't get a chance to post in KT's diary about Obama going negative but I do wonder why anyone would be surprised at his tactics.

I'm sure Obama intellectually means what he says about a "new" kind of politics but he himself was prepared to go negative on Bobby Rush. And David "Ax" Axelrod is known as a slash/burn kind of guy.

Obama is a good man. But from accounts of those who have known him for a long time, he is very very ambitious.

Honestly, the protracted primary is the best thing that could happen to Obama before the GE. What's going on now is nothing compared to how things will play in the fall and after Obama is the Dem's candidate he can't even depend on the press to defend him, the way he does now, because the MSM loves McCain even more.

"...What's going on now is nothing compared to how things will play in the fall..."

By then of course Hillary will have joined the GOP.

If she hasn't already.

Southern Bell - You wrote: "Obama is a good man. But from accounts of those who have known him for a long time, he is very very ambitious."

This is a ridiculous statement. There is nothing wrong with ambition. The only people who use the term 'ambitious' as an insult are conservatives who are trying to insinuate that somebody 'thinks they are better then you'. They used it against both Clintons and John Kerry. It is a meaningless, ridiculous statement. The only people that 'end up' as president are boy-idiots like GWBush who are installed in that position by the likes of Cheney and Rove.

Your statement ought to read:

"Barack Obama is a good man."

BTW: Kudos to Joe Klein for reading and responding to comments.

That being said, he is absolutely incapable of distinguishing from a candidate who is discussing and promising to address issues that are very important to ordinary, everyday, non-punditry citizens and a candidate who is pandering.

Perhaps if he explicitly defined what he means by his over-used term then we would understand what he means by it and way he uses it so much.

Joe:
Thank you very much for responding to commentary.
It is greatly appreciated.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ambition.

But, Obama keeps going on about a new kind of politics and he's not walking his talk. The MSM is letting him get away with this fantasy but once he's pitted against McCain and Obama's daily surrogates start sniping at the Maverick, the press will let that free pass expire.

Hillary is like a pander cub to Obama's giant pander bear.

Why don't you obamabots buy yourselves a clue and that goes double for you press people who are foisting him upon us and causing the ruination of the DNC.

Shame on you all!

Hillary!

When Democrats speak in broad themes Joe slams them for lack of specifics. When they speak in specifics Joe slams them for pandering. The only way to gain Joe's approval would be to speak Republican...

...Adding, when McCain panders/promises that he can make large portions of the deficit disappear by cutting unspecified "waste" Joe will fellate him as a straight-talking maverick hero...

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4