Language and Superdelegates

As a writer, I'm interested in language, and how it is used. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I am more interested in language than most authors I have met, whose eyes glaze over when I talk about the finer art of choosing the right word, or how to properly structure a sentence. But this is my blog, so I'm not going to talk about how to get an agent or how many rejection letters I've received – I'm going to talk about language!

No More Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

One of the fascinating things about language is how people can consciously change it, and use those changes to direct how other people think. There must be people working in politics, who are interested the power of individual crafted words and phrases as much as I am, and who understand them better than I do.

For example: When Republican candidates wanted to advocate torture, they re-named it "enhanced interrogation techniques", and flatly denied that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture. That, of course, isn't true. Enough people with brains called the bullshit for what it was that the words "enhanced interrogation techniques" soon became analogous to "torture" in the minds of most people, so it was time for the people who wanted to advocate it to change the words that they used.

Now, torture is being called . Here is one of the quotes by Scalia that particularly irks me: "You can't come in smugly and with great self satisfaction and say 'Oh it's torture, and therefore it's no good.' "

IT IS NO GOOD! People who interrogate people say that it's no good! Psychologists and scientists say that it's no good! PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TORTURED say that it's no good! Forgive me for shouting, but entirely independent of moral considerations, torture is no good because it's unreliable. Read the firsthand account of waterboarding in the post linked above. The poster specifically says that he would have said anything – anything – to make it stop. If you didn't know about an imminent attack, make one up, anything to stop these crazy people from dumping water on you. People who interrogate people for a living have said publicly that information obtained from people who have been tortured is unreliable to the point of uselessness. Any "physical interrogation technique" short of torture isn't going to work, either. You think if someone is so determined not to talk that you come to the point where "slapping them in the face" is necessary is going to give because they're smacked around a little bit?

Even if, like Scalia, your soul has been replaced with the soul of a creeping, slimy thing, torture still doesn't work. It's not just a moral consideration.

So remember: "physical interrogation techniques" = "enhanced interrogation techniques" = torture. Don't let the smoke and mirrors of language cloud your mind as to what is being discussed and advocated, and who advocates it.

To be honest, the phrase "physical interrogation technique" isn't even very well crafted, because it evokes images of physical interrogation (torture) and enhanced interrogation (torture).

Positive Use of Language

There are, happily, more responsible and positive uses of the art of manipulating language. There is another phrase in wide use right now that is one of the best, if not the best, crafted slogan, that I have ever seen. Just thinking about it and breaking it down fills me with the kind of deep and swelling awe that most people feel when they see a masterpiece painting, or hear a beautiful symphony.

That phrase is Obama's motto: "Yes we can!"

In three words, three simple, one syllable words, that motto manages to be positive (yes), inclusive (we) and active/positive (can). On top of that, it forms a great rhythm when repeated or shouted. Humans have a very strong reaction to strong beats. They also have a strong reaction to things that come in threes. There's a reason why this slogan is firing people up in rallies that I have frequently heard described a "electrifying", even if the crowds that it sweeps through on a wave of emotion don't understand why. Whoever thought of "Yes we can!" is a god among speech writers. I want to become an acolyte, sit at his or her feet, and beg: "Teach me, master!" I am in awe.

You're probably not, because (as I said), most people don't get excited by how powerful the manipulation language can be. That's fine. But take my word for it – whoever wrote that slogan is a genius, and I hope Obama is paying him or her well.

Obama's Sweeping Victories (Or: Hillary In Trouble)

We all know by now that Obama scored a sweeping victory in the "potomac primary" yesterday, and that, because Hillary has made the dubious choice of ignoring the 'little states' and moving directly to campaign in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, a decision reminiscent of Guliani's disastrous Florida gamble, he's likely to go into the big primaries with ten straight wins under his belt. I'm firmly of the opinion that most voters don't care about how many wins a candidate has when they go to the polls, but Obama's winning streak means that they will see his sexy self (you know he's sexy!) and his handsome, smiling face wherever they go – on the TV, on the news stands, everywhere. This is a massive amount of free publicity to top the massive amount of money that Obama has been raising. Recently, his campaign urged his supporters to top Hillary Clinton's $5 million donation to herself, and they did, donating $7 million, much of it in small sums, in less than 48 hours.

Hillary needs a decisive victory in either Texas or Ohio to win the nomination, and it doesn't look good for her. Another of her top campaign officials has quit. She's tapped out her donors. Obama is eating into her core constituents. For once, it might be that the democratic party will actually pick a winner.

A lot of people are saying that, no matter how well Obama does, the superdelegates will flock to Hillary's side and artificially crown her the nominee. The reasoning goes that superdelegates, being by and large senators,congressmen, and other elected officials, will support the establishment, since they are, themselves, part of it. People claim that the Clintons can call in favors, that superdelegates will be nervous about this young, energetic man who is so earnestly calling for the end of "politics as usual" and that Hillary Clinton's larger count of superdeletages is a bellwether for that is to come.

They are wrong.

The Establishment

Let's look at the first statement, that senators, congressmen, and other elected officials are part of the establishment. This is true – if they weren't, they wouldn't be superdelegates -- but what is also true is that they will no longer be a part of the establishment if they do not get re-elected, and their role in the establishment will be drastically reduced if the democrats lose their majority in the senate and the house.

If Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee, she will galvanize Republican support against her, and they will turn out in droves to vote for the not-Hillary candidate (John McCain). And since they're there already, most of them will go ahead and vote for any other republicans who happen to be on the ballot. This is bad news for the democrats for two reasons. The first is that a lot of republicans are up for re-election this year, and Hillary Clinton would all but make certain that they went right back to Washington. The second is that any democrats up for re-election would be in a very bad way, especially with a lot of the young people and first time voters that Obama has been rallying staying home in disgust, or refusing to vote for them because of who they supported in their role as superdelegates.

Conversely, if Barack Obama is the nominee, it will be bad for the Republicans. Assuming John McCain never manages to rally his party around him (and I don't think he can expect to do so completely), many of the evangelicals who have been key to republican victories in the past will stay home. In the meantime, Obama's incredible charisma and his well-crafted message -- he's got the 'Yes we can!' guy working for him, after all – will inspire first time voters to come to the polls. Many of these people will, as in the above scenario, vote for any other democrats who happen to be on the ballot while they're there. Which means that established democrats get re-elected, and many republicans up for re-election get tossed out of office, thus increasing the democratic majority.

Calling In Favors

Have no doubt: The Clinton family is a new dynasty in American politics, and they are like the Incredible Hulk. You do not want to make them angry. You will not like them when they are angry.

A lot of people in politics owe them favors, and a lot of people are terrified of pissing them off. But there are a lot of senators and congressmen who are angry with them, as well. Hillary Clinton's attitude of 'what Hillary wants, Hillary gets' has led her to ride roughshod over her colleagues, and Bill Clinton's centerist policies during his presidency, and his tendency to throw his substantial weight around, have alienated others. These senators and congressmen, now superdelegates, will see their chance for payback, and they will take it.

It's true that Hillary Clinton has over 200 pledged superdelegates at this time, but these are probably the limit of the favors that she's been able to call in. The rest are waiting to see which way the wind is blowing; they want to endorse Obama, but know better than to come out in the open and do it unless Obama is certain to win. Hillary Clinton angry with them as a senator is one thing. Hillary Clinton angry with them as President is another thing entirely. As Obama's lead widens, they will see the importance of crowning him victor before the convention and they will flock to his side. Some of Hillary's superdelegates might even change their minds, counting on Hillary losing enough political capital in her bid for the Presidency that they can safely do so.

The Will of the People

The final thing to consider in predicting which direction the superdelegates will swing is whether or not they will follow the will of the people. The idea of superdelegates crowning the candidate who lost the popular vote is reminiscent to the 2000 election, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George Bush was named President of the United States by a ruling of the Supreme Court. I think we all remember how utterly pissed off the majority of the Democratic party was. Even now, eight years later, and with so many other things to be mad about, I occasionally hear someone whining about this injustice. For the superdelegates to do the same thing would be ludicrously stupid. These are seasoned politicians, and no matter how much we enjoy painting them as a pack of idiots who are bound and determined to find a way to lose, even someone with rocks where their brains should be can see that imitating the controversial situation that made their party's most hated figure President would be a bad idea.

So there's my opinion: If Obama performs well in Texas and Ohio, which I believe he will, the establishment will begin to swing over to his side. It's in the party's best interests to crown a victor as soon as possible, and as soon as the superdelegates can do that with their support, they will.

Hillary Fights Back

With her campaign in serious trouble, the question is: What will Hillary do? The last time she faced Obama as a rising star, when he went to Nevada flushed with high poll numbers that she never expected, and a near certainty of winning in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton fought dirty. She campaigned in Michigan, when the candidates had been asked not to. She campaigned in Florida, when the candidates had been asked not to. As such, she scored strong victories in both states, clearly with the plan of trying to get those delegates from unfair primaries included in the total count. She cried. She made attacks so ugly that Ted Kennedy called her and told her to stop, and defected to Obama's side when Bill Clinton made his borderline racist remarks in South Carolina, and it was only then that she backed down. She has made it clear that she will do anything – ANYTHING – to take the White House.

Well, she's backed into a corner again. Soon, she will be campaigning against Obama in Texas and Ohio, and I'm expecting her to do something sneaky, or even downright dastardly in an effort to bring him down. I'm going to be interested to see what it is, and whether it succeeds.

Huckabee Loses in Virginia

Hey, when I'm wrong, I admit it with grace. I was stunned to read that Huckabee lost Virginia; I was certain he'd win there. And while he did do very well with people who identified themselves as extremely conservative, he didn't do well enough. This is bad for his campaign, and for his chances of becoming the Republican nominee.

I would be interested to see what factors led to Huckabee's loss in Virginia, but I haven't been able to dig up commentary on the subject anywhere.

Anyway, that's about it. I'm looking forward to the Texas and Ohio primaries. It's going to be great to see how those turn out. I'm betting that Obama's awesome speech writer will pull him through. ;)