2008 Primaries Thread

and i have yet to see much hay made of Obama hitting the I LOVE JESUS stuff pretty hard. since we inundate ourselves with all that 'secret muslim' garbage around here that kind of talk really popped out to me as important, but maybe nobody really cares, or wrote it off as 'when in SC' or something

funny nobody seems to be making much of the toni morrisson/'bill's dancing' thing

thank fucking god. so cringeworthy that he let himself get sucked into that

shoulda used the first part of his reponse (Bill had a special rapport with his black constituents blah blah) and left it at that, instead it sounded like Obama wants to check Bill out and see what he's packing

how about some straight-up sexism from france?

http://www.letemps.ch/template/editoriaux.asp?page=1&article=223530

The Issue
By Joelle Kuntz
Le Temps

Thursday 17 January 2008

Neither a woman nor a black man as such will change American policy. Neither race nor gender contain any moral value or specific politics. It's as Democrats, should the presidency befall one or the other of these two candidates, that they will change the hateful orientation of the Bush regime. Representing a current of thought organized for the long term beyond personalities and their characteristics, whoever is elected will be able to give a welcome change in the country's direction. That is Americans' principal expectation: to be done with Bushism. Those who offer the best guarantees for that result will have the best chance.

If the opportunity for choosing between a woman and a black man arouses so much excitement, that's because it brings history into play: a double "premier" that reveals changes within the heart of American society. Neither Clinton nor Obama will change America, but it's a changed America that will elect one or the other.

The campaigns of the woman candidate and the black man candidate, their reception by the public and the reactions they provoke send back powerful images of themselves to voters at this time in history.

Two historic social behaviors are being put to the test: racism and sexism. Which remains the most resistant?

From a rational standpoint, racism has lost all its arguments: no one (outside of the Ku Klux Klan) dares defend any longer the idea of natural inequality between the races and a consequent legitimate inequality in social roles. There's no longer any racist ideology.

The same cannot be said of sexism. If the principle of human equality between the genders is virtually a given, that of equality of roles and functions is not. There remain great currents of thought in defense of the woman at home, mother exclusively, armed with as many statistical and sociological studies as they need to establish their viewpoint.

Rational balance is one thing. But emotional balance is another. Even without any arguments, racism and sexism will endure. In what form? Residual or massive? Which more than the other? We don't know. We explore. We play. Are you Clinton or Obama?

(trans: Leslie Thatcher)

I'm getting kinda annoyed that this is coming down to "old people win again!"

presidency, Oscars, etc

no zombies, no credibility.

cf Real Estate bubble bust may be worse than Dot Com bubble bust

I'm getting kinda annoyed that this is coming down to "old people win again!"

I think I mentioned this upthread, but I remember on the night of the 2004 election -- when, throughout the day, there was so much talk of young peoples' anger at the Bush Admin., and how those new voters would move the country in a progressive direction (and make John Kerry the President) -- that Joe Scarborough said on MSNBC: "I dunno. Looks like the same old voters it's always been." And he was right. So I wouldn't get to excited about a change from "old people win again!" this year.

I was looking at the breakdowns of the New Hampshire dem primary and Obama got 60% of the 18-49 vote. But still lost. Sigh. I guess yeah, same old voters every time, but I'm just so goddamn sick of the baby boomers...

Can't expect people to vote against their self-interest though, I guess.

They do it all the time, though.

Depends how you define self-interest though. You can vote against your economic self-interest in the course of voting for your social self-interest.

I think I mentioned this upthread, but I remember on the night of the 2004 election -- when, throughout the day, there was so much talk of young peoples' anger at the Bush Admin., and how those new voters would move the country in a progressive direction (and make John Kerry the President) -- that Joe Scarborough said on MSNBC: "I dunno. Looks like the same old voters it's always been." And he was right. So I wouldn't get to excited about a change from "old people win again!" this year.

-- Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:26 PM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

uh but this wasnt actually true; record #s of young people voted

Youth voting surged by 11 percentage points in 2004. In presidential election years between 1972 and 2000, the turnout rate had declined by 16 percentage points among young citizens before rebounding by 11 percentage points in the 2004 election.

Bye bye Fred Thompson. Please don't be back on Law and Order k thx.

why Chelsea was talking to Cate - http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/01/22/what_did_they_talk_about.html

LMAO.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dvhuhqaYz2o

"Hilary thinks cats are expendable - can you trust her?"

Yes, Deej, young voting increased in 04, but not enough to carry the day (if you assume they were coming out to vote for Kerry).

in case there's anyone who doesn't understand that O knows what he's doing in these debates - http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064354.php

the young people turning the election thing is still not true, and it never has been. the past week i re-read fear and loathing on the campaign trail 72 for the fourth or fifth time, and thompson talks a lot about the 25 million new registered voters -- most of them, presumably, counter-culture -- which, of course, failed to materialize. the conventional wisdom in how to run a campaign is, by and large, <i>right</i>. i fully believe that the clintons' newfound aggression against obama will, in fact, pay off, because typically that sort of thing always has worked.

anyway, i am definitely an obama supporter (i think hrc would make a better president, but i don't think she could win), and the clintons' willingness to burn bridges to WIN is such a turn off. i know she wants to win, i know bill wants her to win, but there are other ways to go about it ("we stand for dif things," "i have more experience") but instead it's the fairy tale angle that gets prominence -- media-derived to some degree sure, but still the clintons aren't weeping about it -- and so they don't miss a wink of sleep knowing that they're trying to burn an incredibly promising politician/man to the ground in this quest. i shouldn't be surprised, but i am -- i thought/hoped bill was above this.

in the end, i think obama is handling this well. if yr getting attacked like a motherfucker, that's gotta mean yr a threat at least, right?

For those of you hoping that the Democrats' fundraising edge, thus far, will help in the GE. . .

no one's giving money to the DCCC because the Dems are far more interested in fundraising at the Presidential and Senatorial levels - the top of the ticket will bring the bottom along next time. our GE fundraising will easily exceed $250M

so they don't miss a wink of sleep knowing that they're trying to burn an incredibly promising politician/man to the ground in this quest. i shouldn't be surprised, but i am -- i thought/hoped bill was above this.

yeah I'm not surprised at all .... I think in their logic he failed to "wait his turn" after Hillary so this is what you get

I don't doubt the GE fundraising estimate, but this group will instantly negate a Democratic fundraising edge, and likely mean the GOP will have more money than Democrats at its disposal. I mean, maybe not, but look at how much that group will pump into the 08 elections vs. how much MoveOn.org pumped into the 04 elctions. It's a staggering difference.

yeah but moveon didn't actually accomplish anything in 04.

Didn't look to me like Obama's debate performance was part of his strategy, then, because he looked off balance, attacked just as much, and all the reporting & my impression from watching was not that he was looking above the fray, good natured, or calm at all.

this is ridiculous. the only people who give a shit about moveon are karl rove and a few thousand liberals who want to waste their money. it's generally expected taht the sides are going to raise $500 million each. generally people with a lotta money like to throw it to the side they think will win. everyone thinks the dems have the upper hand.

stay calm, daria

"corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart" is his best moment so far

Yes, Deej, young voting increased in 04, but not enough to carry the day (if you assume they were coming out to vote for Kerry).

-- Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:40 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

they were, by like 60%-40 or something, but i never claimed it would be 'enough to carry the day' - if you realize that they're 1. showing up in states where they were already solidly dem and 2. the number of other people voting also rises. acting like its young people's 'fault' or that they failed to come to the polls is wrong

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/01/22/ppp_poll_obama_expands_lead_in_south_carolina.html

taken yesterday - obama beats clinton + edwards

clinton's still winning the white folks, tho

HRC is still plenty ahead in the big sooper tues states tho

acting like its young people's 'fault' or that they failed to come to the polls is wrong

I didn't mean to imply this. I meant that I'm v. skeptical of any claims that "the youth vote" will usher in a more progressive goverment anytime soon.

xposts - yea, and i'm afraid that even if obama wins south carolina (which does seem likely), it's still going to be extremely tough-going for him in the rest of the states on 2/5. i don't think sc will be enough, sadly.

so they don't miss a wink of sleep knowing that they're trying to burn an incredibly promising politician/man to the ground in this quest.

Burn to the ground? Come on, now. It's a primary campaign. They are supposed to not try to win?

daria they are smearing him! you cant possibly defend this shit

rezko??? voting 'present'??? give me a fuckin break

Also, the thing about Wal-Mart.. isn't that a class thing? Most people don't hate Wal-Mart, and the ones who do are already Obama voters, right?

i suppose when you voted for the war its kind of hard to come up w/ some lies to rival that truth

Rezko and voting "present" are going to burn his political career to the ground? Really?

I can't see anyway Obama can honorably accept Rodham's veep spot now. And good luck getting all his fans to vote for her.

yes 'the people' just love the wal-mart corporation, and their loyalty goes well beyond 'low prices'

well since there no chance in hell he'd ever be offered her veep spot, that's some fine analysis xp

Yeah. Besides, would you want him as the VP? Normally that spot goes to the designated "attack dog," and I'm not sure that's a good role for Obama. See, e.g., John Edwards in 2004 (tho, obv., there was more at work there).

"Also, the thing about Wal-Mart.. isn't that a class thing? Most people don't hate Wal-Mart, and the ones who do are already Obama voters, right?"

^^^
this is patently retarded.

lol Bill will be her vp

I mean, he's been friends with this Rezko guy for 17 years and Rezko raised a lot of money for his campaigns. Does that mean he did anything wrong? No, not at all. Does he have a connection to this person who's going on trial on federal charges in February? Yes. If the Clinton campaign didn't bring it up, was everyone else in politics going to just not notice a story that's been on the front page of the Chicago papers?

ppl were fantasizing about Clinbama just 2 weeks ago here.

Fuck this thread.

"I did not have sex with that woman."

Whatevs. Daria will have the second-to-last laugh, I fear, followed by the last-laugh by the GOP.