2008 Primaries Thread

Personally, I would have preferred to have an idealized recollection of Bill Clinton's presidency as it was during a time when I didn't pay much attention to politics, but now I'm forced to see Bill's role on the campaign trail now and his handling of reporters as his legacy. He comes across like a demagogue and a bully, quickly spinning out from relatively innocuous questions about Hil's campaign to admonishing the questioner for their shamelessness and how they hate fairness and America. He's like BizzarrO'Reilly at times.

McCain will probably not be able to win a GE for the same reasons that certain people who should know better cream their jeans about him: he won't say anything to win an election, he's not very partisan, and he has nuances. Whoever the GOP puts up their main task is going to be turning out disheartened GOP voters. One of the many reasons Hilldog makes me nervous: the Clintons are great for GOP turnout.

If this analysis is correct, then perhaps the best thing for the Democrats' chances in a Clinton-McCain match-up would be a Bloomberg candidacy, since it would split the Anyone-But-Hillary vote?

HILLARY CLINTON THINKS CATS ARE EXPENDABLE. CAN YOU TRUST HER?

Bill really bugs. Is this prissy paranoia the result of permanent damage from the hyper-partisan whitewater/lewinsky years, or was he always like this?

So I just want to know -- if HRC wins the general election, shall we refer to Bill & Hillary as THE PRESIDENTS CLINTON?

you guys probably already knew this, but:

Super Tuesday Won't Decide Nominations

you know it's really gotten to the point where,obviously, i'm voting for obama or clinton (and support obama), but even if they lose to mccain, I cannot fathom the next four years under him being worse than the last eight years. I could easily be proven wrong I guess.

bill's actions are really surprising me now. i was always unsure what kind of role he would take in hillary's campaign, but i didn't think it would be the all-out attack dog thing he's doing now. i thought he would have rather sat back and let hillary fight her fight.

xpost No, I think Hilldog beats McCain, but Romney might be able to slime up enough energy to get the turnout he needs. Bloomberg's not gonna run, he's just pretending to run to get publicity. (Which I endorse.)

Yeah, Bill was always like this. The problem with the Clintons is that they're solid, dependable liberals, but when anything threatens their power base they'll do whatever it takes to secure themselves. That's how Bill ended up passing so much Republican legislation. He was a good "go Democrats!" booster since Bush got elected, but now that he's got a dog in this fight (no offense meant to Hillary), it's personal.

I think Aunt Maureen's column nails my feelings about the race right now pretty well, which I never thought I'd be saying.

A McCain presidency will not be worse than the Bush years. Of course, the Bush presidency has not been as bad as an Evil Mutant Cyborg That Eats Babies administration, so I don't know what people are complaining about.

uh in other words not solid, dependable liberals

To clarify on McCain: the only reason the GOP won the last two presidential elections was because they were able to boost turnout. The evangelicals are already staying home, and if anyone but Huckabee gets in (which it looks like he won't) they're not going anywhere on election day. McCain will pick up independents but I don't know that he'll pick up more than Hillary. They split the independents, McCain loses a third of his base, Hillary gets 'em all out: H-dog wins.

McCain's record (think his 'we gotta do this right goddammit!!' kind of stance in pushing the establishment of TSA after 9/11) lead me to believe that on the small-ticket kind of stuff that the Bush crew has been laughably, disgustingly awful at, he'd be fine -- no EPA director out there preventing california from tightening emissions, for instance. on the big ticket stuff, i think he'd be pretty bad. at least he's anti-torture. which may mean we won't see a president mccain.

bill has parts of the prince memorized (if not the whole thing)

xpost

uh so does everyone who plays call of duty 3

"never do an enemy a small injury"

Clintons ... solid, dependable liberals

NUTS. Where, in their own minds? What was The Third Way all about?

I generally agree with gff on McCain. He would respect the rule of law and would allow the government to function according to it's mandate. He will also drag us further into a protracted recession and a broken foreign policy. Hyperbole alert: I honestly think, if elected, McCain could be our generation's Herbert Hoover.

http://www.dlc.org/upload_graphics/leaders2007.jpg

Third way was about securing their power base.

i'm coming to think that all the personal jibes against bush have been counterproductive in the long run because it allows republicans to think the problem these days with the economy, with foreign policy, with the corruption of the justice department, etc is just because bush is a fuck-up, rather than the truth, which is that bush has implemented just about every policy that red-meat republicans have been calling for for years, and that we're in the mess we're in because those policies are short-sighted, counter-productive, greedy and wrong for most americans

otherwise why wouldn't mccain be running from these policies as fast as he could?

mccain is pretty big on preemptive war with iran

it's almost like i want a republican to win this time around just so there's no doubt about how bankrupt the whole modern republican outlook is, but then i think about the people who will die and suffer, both in america and outside america, and i realize i'm being childish

Any ideas on possible running mates? I have no idea when a Clinton-Obama (or Obama-Clinton) ticket was ever a possibility but I assume it's completely out of the question now. Edwards? Someone not in the race? Who would McCain pick?

xxpost exactly it's like uh what does it take for you people to learn a lesson??

People die and suffer under any presidency.

isn't the next prez is a 90% likely one-termer because the political cost of trying to clean up even a fraction of this mess will be enormous?

Who would McCain pick?

Governor Pawlenty immediately comes to mind. Not only is he a perfect fit, but the Republican convention is in Saint Paul, and this would give the Republicans a legitimate opportunity to win Minnesota.

yeah look for pawlenty's name to come up a lot in the coming years. if he's not a veep pick i'm betting he'll run in '12

Unless something dramatic happens in between not and 2012 I think its safe to assume he will be running, if John McCain is elected, or not.

xpost No, I think Hilldog beats McCain

I think you're right. Democrats overestimate the appeal of McCain because he appeals to them. Political junkies and journalists love him too, because he's a straight-shooter. But I don't think his appeal really translates all that well outside the media/blog bubble - the fact that he's the nominal front-runner now says more about the weakness of the GOP field than his strength as a candidate in the general election.

I think the basic fact is that the style in which a candidate conducts his campaign matters a whole lot more to pundits, journalists, and political junkies than it does to most voters. Perhaps it's bad form for Bill & Hillary to gang up on Obama. Perhaps it messes up the tidy first-woman vs. first-black for President narrative arc. But the liberal commentators (like Maureen Dowd) who foresee doom and damnation in these lapses of decorum are exactly the sort of complacent, elitist liberals who have never won a national election. There are many well-to-do, college-educated Democrats who prefer the elegant, soft-spoken, high-minded candidate - they are Obama supporters. But I think in the end there really are more Democrats who just want someone who will fight hard for their interests.

yup, he's pretty right wing on the issues but he's charming, young, and managed to hold on in '06 in a blue state. the conservative press loves him. PHEAR THE T-PAW

xp

But the liberal commentators (like Maureen Dowd) who foresee doom and damnation in these lapses of decorum are exactly the sort of complacent, elitist liberals who have never won a national election. There are many well-to-do, college-educated Democrats who prefer the elegant, soft-spoken, high-minded candidate - they are Obama supporters. But I think in the end there really are more Democrats who just want someone who will fight hard for their interests.

+

Half the voting public right now is engaged in a game of guess-what-the-other-hypothetical-voter-is-thinking and the other half has no idea how it will vote so I wouldn't take any "matchups" too seriously at this point.

you guys probably already knew this, but:

Super Tuesday Won't Decide Nominations

That article is kind of dumb, because if either Clinton or Obama won all of the states on Super Tuesday, the other one would be forced to drop out, anyway, just because the momentum would've shifted so dramatically it'd be nigh impossible to mount a comeback.

Thanks, Tracer. I'm going to have to backtrack and read a bunch of comments I missed, but 1) I am not being disingenuous and 2) I guess I've thought the same thing about Obama the whole time, this is true, but fwiw it started way before I was remotely considering supporting Hillary. Let me just go back to our old thread to verify, now, but that's how I remember it, as well as being strongly against HRC only a year or two ago. 3) Gabbneb, who died and made you god, that you think you need to correct my thinking for me?

But I guess I've been here before - lots of us have a disagreement, but it's somehow appropriate to respond by getting personal, telling me I can't think for myself. Why? Have I accused any of you of being myopic or crazy? Furthermore, have you considered that, in general, it's much more likely that others will be more open to hearing your point of view if you don't call them names and insist that they need to be corrected?

im not a hillary clinton supporter but the idea that a person deciding to vote for clinton is somehow crazy, stupid, cynical or lying is pretty far-gone even for gabbneb

no crazier than old dude totes DLC centrist party line til 3 months ago then jumps on obamawagon & starts trashing hil

if either Clinton or Obama won all of the states on Super Tuesday

But barring some last-min scandal/miracle, that's not going to happen

There are many well-to-do, college-educated Democrats who prefer the elegant, soft-spoken, high-minded candidate - they are Obama supporters. But I think in the end there really are more Democrats who just want someone who will fight hard for their interests.

This is about where I'm at. I really want someone who'll fight hard for universal health care. It's so expensive to be poor and when you have a serious health problem on top of it, you're pretty much screwed. I guess for me that's the part that's personal. Even though at this point I'm well-to-do comparatively speaking, despite living paycheck to paycheck, when you get right down to the % of people who have a college degree and a job with benefits.

<i>I think the basic fact is that the style in which a candidate conducts his campaign matters a whole lot more to pundits, journalists, and political junkies than it does to most voters.</i>

but nate, where do voters find out what to think about each candidate other than how the media portrays them? there will be such an obvious narrative arc pre-written in the event of either mccain-hrc or mccain-obama, and i don't think either one will help the democrats. and yeah, mccain-hrc will def mean bloomberg gets in the race, pulling in probably 8% or so, and i would guess that a significant portion of that would be from the democrat side, probably ensuring a mccain victory.

But I think in the end there really are more Democrats who just want someone who will fight hard for their interests.

(jokes, bruv)

milo has proof that Hillary is in fact a 12-foot lizard

a Clinton fighting hard for anything but votes, rofl

I don't think mccain is a "war hawk"...

O RLY?

While I wouldn't counsel ignoring completely what candidates say, an aspie-like over-literal reading of their words without regard to the context is even more off-base. All of these guys are playing a bit against type to try to address perceived weaknesses. Hillary knows that women are perceived as weaker in the national security dept so she hit hawkish notes until everyone had them stuck in their head. Obama knows that black liberals are not generally regarded as paragons of electability, so from his earliest days he's introduced himself as a mainstream unifying figure careful to respect the other side. Edwards knows that traditional Southern whites are not often the first choice of liberal Democratic primary voters, so he consistently positioned himself a half-step to the left of the other two. Hil is now Rovianly trying to turn Obama's pivot towards strength into a weakness. She's saying you want to be the unthreatening black candidate, fine, now you're too centrist for Dem primary voters. (This very cleverly allows her to address her own too-centrist problem with Dem primary voters by making her appear to be the more leftwing candidate without actually making gestures toward the left that would compromise her in the general). She may justify this by saying that such an approach will only help Obama in the general if she loses the primary. But she's also going directly for Obama's strength by trying to turn him back into the black candidate. Oh no, she wouldn't go so far as to marginalize him into Jesse or Al, but she's perfectly comfortable portraying him as a 'very likeable', charming, smooth-talking guy who can't be completely trusted (Vito to Pino on backstabbing in the backroom) and might let you down in the end (you know what I'm talking about, girlfriend!).

As for the Dems who want a candidate who's perceived as a fighter, of course there are more of them than Dems who just like the guy who's perceived to talk flowery (tho the ratio is smaller than it used to be). But that seems irrelevant in a general tho - I don't think either of these Dem groups decides the election. Independents do, and we have a pretty good idea who they like more.

i'm coming to think that all the personal jibes against bush have been counterproductive in the long run because it allows republicans to think the problem these days with the economy, with foreign policy, with the corruption of the justice department, etc is just because bush is a fuck-up, rather than the truth

that's definitely the approach they're taking/will take, but they'd take it regardless of whether we called him a chimp too many times

Apparently Washington state's Dem caucus, four days after Super Tuesday, might actually matter, since apparently it's impossible to determine a clear winner after Super Tuesday. We have just under a 100 delegates to split. Hat tip to Slog.