2008 Primaries Thread

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.

Why is it retarded, now. In a lot of rural America there is nowhere else to buy stuff including groceries affordably, or at all. Doesn't mean people love it but again, I'm not getting how most folks think working for Wal-Mart is so horrible (and FWIW this was before it was the behemoth it is today).

yeah, it certainly looks like Obama can't overcome (ahem) on 2/5, but even disregarding SC Mo, I'm not certain those states have really focused on the race yet. which they might not at all. O can expect to do well in the South. Clinton's probably gonna clean up in the Northeast. California will probably get a fair amount of attention, and Clinton will probably win. it'll be interesting to see what happens in MO, AZ and ND, especially with O's endorsements in these. his winning ND could wake some people up. I guess Sebelius would have endorsed by now if she's gonna? will O compete in his birth state? maybe Richardson still might endorse in NM? not that I know who these guys would endorse. the most interesting state of all should be Colorado - how well does Clinton do in the swing west? shame that Washington and Oregon (and MT?) aren't online yet - I've seen some evidence that O is stronger than Clinton out here.

ppl who had no idea what they're talking about, apparently! there's just no way. there is some serious hate btw the two of them and nobody observing these campaigns expects a veep spot xchange no matter what happens.

+ plenty of folx on this thread, including me, obama superfan #984375, keep saying that they'll vote for HRC in the general if(when) she gets it, no problem. maybe not as 'happily' but that's life

xps

I think there's a fairly good chance Clinton's gonna win all over the map on 2/5 by dint of the national campaign (see folks, those whiteys in Iowa are good for something! the college kids, at least), and Obama's gonna become 'the black candidate' after he wins AL

I will not vote for Hillary in the GE

(the only vote of mine that will have any impact on this is my primary vote, and I'm voting for Obama)

i'm leaning more and more in that direction, esp if bloomberg enters the race, xpost

Politics are a zero-sum game. You'd prefer McCain to HRC?

Daniel, honestly, I wouldn't be for her if I didn't think she could win. When the GOP goes after Obama and he responds with hope and change.. I just don't see how that works for him.

yeah, by accident or design, O is boxed in, even if he wins SC -- all that time and effort to convince black voters he's for real, and coming out of it he becomes the 'black candidate' -- exactly what he has tried (successfully) not to be. meanwhile working class whites and latinos are going with H (if stuff like that ruralvotes post are indicative, this could be pretty nasty)

the attacks on O have been so klutzy and hamfisted it's hard to believe this was the HRC gameplan all along, but who knows.

plus as always, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about.

xps

Obama = college kids? So many college towns in Iowa. So many African-Americans in Iowa.

Obama's great strength, if he can capitalize on it, is that he hasn't distorted Clinton's record to make a point or to market himself. I thought he made that point in last night's debate, and it's a sign of integrity that he can keep playing up in the weeks to come. He's playing a game, but he's not playing Karl Rove's game.

Politics are a zero-sum game. You'd prefer McCain to HRC?

doesn't matter who I vote for in my district - the Dem nominee will win it no question

(and why sully my conscience, that being the case)

Daniel, honestly, I wouldn't be for her if I didn't think she could win.

I know that, Daria. I don't agree, but I hope I'm wrong.

When the GOP goes after Obama and he responds with hope and change.. I just don't see how that works for him.

He wouldn't react that way. From what I understand, Obama's "hope and change" rhetoric is just that: Rhetoric. He knows how to punch back hard, but he doesn't have to (or hasn't had to) in the primaries, because Edwards is there pounding away at HRC. But he would take a very different tact in a GE between just him and the GOP nominee.

And I know that's speculation, but I'll take it every day over what I (sadly) believe to be HRC's dim GE prospects.

a very different tact

do we have to go through 'tack' again?

Well, from my POV blowing the Kyl-Lieberman (which was toothless, gave Bush no authority, and by the way Obama didn't even vote on it) vote way out of proportion is certainly a distortion of the record. There was a back and forth over Social Security where Obama was trying to make it out like the was a crisis, same way GOP did to try and privatize, to attack Hillary for not having a specific plan for a non-problem. Not to mention calling her calculating, triangulating, poll-driven, etc. That stuff, some folks already agree with it and there's no talking them out of it, I know.

Daniel I hear ya, I don't know if he can punch back hard. I see Kerry and Daschle over there in his corner trying to play attack dog & I'm like.. OK, which Democrats know how to beat the GOP and which don't?

wait - when has Hillary ever "beat the GOP", exactly?

and which Dems know how to govern like the GOP

In a high profile New York Senate race, having a pretty key role in Bill's campaigns and war room.

uh, Bill Clinton was fucking impeached by the opposition?!

(I guess I didn't realize you were talking elections as opposed to policy - also Clinton never got a plurality of the vote anyway, he had Perot there sucking off GOP votes)

Perot there sucking off GOP votes

I'm sure that's not how a he-man like Perot would phrase it.

There was a back and forth over Social Security where Obama was trying to make it out like the was a crisis, same way GOP did to try and privatize, to attack Hillary for not having a specific plan for a non-problem.

he wasn't "trying to make it out like the was a crisis." his point was that hillary, who has agreed that she will "address social security" in office - as any Dem president would want to do to avoid leaving the issue to a GOP replacement - has said that she'll ensure solvency through budget discipline, which he considers a punt on the issue. He on the other hand is considering raising the payroll tax. When he first called her on it, instead of responding honestly and saying we know how to run the budget better than you, she played word games and tried to turn his attack into a sign that he's a big old privatization-lover. When she got pushed back on that, she turned to her current approach, calling him a big old taxer.

Daniel I hear ya, I don't know if he can punch back hard.

he punches back with a smile on his face, or at least calmly, instead of looking [insert gendered epithet here]

Yes, I'm aware of the impeachment. There really was a vast right-wing conspiracy. I don't know why it matters if Clinton didn't get a plurality in 1992?

he didn't get one in 96 either

(perot ran in that one too)

edwards clearly came out on top last night

because he's the only person you petty bitches aren't squabbling about like five year olds on a fucking playground

anyway my point is that Clinton never got 51% of the country to vote for him = not exactly "beating" the GOP

x-post