2008 Primaries Thread

Oh yeah, I'm sorta assuming Hillary's gonna win at this point.

I like that Webb is in our camp and in Congress, but I really, really don't want a dude like that in the White House. If he changed sides once...

CLINTON LIEBERMAN 08

(Southland Tales joke)

fall preview of Surrender Monkey theme:

Senator John McCain launched into a pointed critique of his Senate colleague Hillary Rodham Clinton today, saying that “for the first time in political history” a presidential candidate has called for outright surrender in a war.

“Candidate Clinton has called for surrender and waving the white flag,” he said during an appearance in West Palm Beach. “I think it’s terrible. I think it’s terrible.”

“I look forward to the debate with Senator Clinton on that issue. Americans don’t want to throw away the hard-earned gains we have made against Al Qaeda and Iraq. If Senator Clinton has her way, Al Qaeda will trumpet to the world that they have beaten the United States.”
“For us to do what Senator Clinton wants us to do — that is to wave the white flag -– I cannot guarantee United States security in the region or in the United States.”

Webb is more likely to be a Hillary veep than an Obama veep, if anyone

the Wes Clark fad has always been one of the more bizarre blogosphere tics

The latte-sippin' liberals thing is an exaggeration, but it's not inaccurate that (exception: Iowa) there's a significant class divide among Clinton/Obama voters.

What We Can Learn From The Democratic Exit Polls
If one assumes that Obama is the more likely nominee, it means that he is going to find a way of reaching white working class voters. If he can't, he'll have trouble winning a lot of those Midwestern swing states. Clinton, meanwhile, has to suggest those independents and independently-minded Democrats who don't look back nostalgically on the '90s that she would make a better nominee and president.

NEWS BULLETIN: THERE'S A STARBUCKS IN ALMOST EVERY TOWN IN THE US.

the Wes Clark fad has always been one of the more bizarre blogosphere tics

I’d love to hear why (because obviously this thread needs more of you talking out of your ass.)

For Obama? Doubtful, since Clark already endorsed HRC, I think.

Wes Clark has been campaigning aggressively for Senator Clinton and has been effective in picking up supporters in foreign policy circles. For example, I’ve found many students and factulty at the Kennedy School are strongly supporting Senator Clinton almost solely because of Wes Clark’s endorsement.

It also might be because of 54M4ntha P0\/\er’s currently low reputation and almost blind support for Senator Obama.

so can everyone on this thread stop using "latte liberals," sincerely or ironically?

fall preview of Surrender Monkey theme

the Dem reply should be that "my opponent John McCain has repeatedly called for us to stay in Iraq for 100 years"

are you Wes Clark, Jr., Mr. Goodman?

i'm an americano liberal

mickey kaus proves once again he is the dumbest man in politics

http://www.slate.com/id/2182569#obamaescape

I can't think of a better plan. Can you?

dmr, Camp Clinton has in fact issued that reply.

i've already stated my ideal Obama/Clark ticket, and despite Clark's endorsement of HRC (no surprise since he's been associated with the Clintons for years) i happen to think it would be a pretty sterling choice for obama, as he would lend considerable foreign policy cache to the ticket as well as their having compatible positions on goverment transparency, etc.

no surprise since he's been associated with the Clintons for years

Do you really think that’s his primary reason for endorsing Senator Clinton? Even better, do you think Mr. Clark and his liberalist entourage will bode well with the realists that Senator Obama has surrounded himself with?

I hate when policy is muddled by politics.

I know Clark got trashed in '04 for being a Clinton surrogate, and he was supreme NATO Commander during Bill's presidency and was similarly smeared for actions over Kosovo. But no, I don't know the man's mind. Why, do you know something about his affiliation with the Clintons that I don't?

Also, "liberalist entourage" = I really don't know what you're talking about.

Webb is more likely to be a Hillary veep than an Obama veep, if anyone

Why? HRC doesn't need someone to shore up her hawkish bona fides, so someone like Webb is less valuable to her (unless he brings certain states into the Democratic column that would otherwise likely go Republican).

Webb is a much more ideologically centrist Dem

True, but he could help drive Obama (in voters' minds) toward the center.

By contrast, HRC is already in the center (on many issues, at least), so Webb doesn't help there, either.

I want to change my username to "liberalist entourage".

Haha, I'll stop saying "latte liberal" when people stop referring to the concept without actually using the phrase.

The more obvious move is to find a Sister Souljah--after Saturday--to stiff arm. The most promising candidate is not a person, but an idea: race-based affirmative action. Obama has already made noises about shifting to a class-based, race-blind system of preferences. What if he made that explicit? Wouldn't that shock hostile white voters into taking a second look at his candidacy? He'd renew his image as trans-race leader (and healer). The howls of criticism from the conventional civil-rights establishment--they'd flood the cable shows--would provide him with an army of Souljahs to hold off. If anyone noticed Hillary in the ensuing fuss, it would be to put her on the spot--she'd be the one defending mend-it-don't-end-it civil rights orthodoxy.

I can't think of a better plan. Can you?

P.S.: Abandoning race-based preferences would certainly solve Obama's Boldness Gap, as described by Dan Gerstein.

yeah, he should just skull-fuck MLK's corpse at a klan rally.

that would solve all his problems.

how the fuck does mickey kaus still have a job

there should be an agreed-upon standard that if in your career as a pundit you're flat-out wrong on shit more than 80% of the time you are forced to retired

there should be an agreed-upon standard that if in your career as a pundit you're flat-out wrong on shit more than 80% of the time you are forced to retired

Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol to thread. . .

Clark and Webb are both part of the military and foreign policy establishments writ large, which in general are more comfortable with Hillary than Obama. Hillary needs men, and Webb is an alpha male poster boy. Clinton and Webb have worked together in the Senate. I'm sure there are lots of people who would like an Obama/Webb ticket, myself perhaps included, and I wouldn't rule it out, but I think it's less likely - they have fewer personal connections and Obama is more likely to pick someone with more experience and more outsider cred.

it amuses me that the leftbloggo falls over Clark because a) he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls, b) he was arguably inserted in the 04 race by the Clintons to bring down Dean by splitting his vote, c) the idea that he's-a-general + he's-anti-war = victory is like ron-paul-level simplistic, d) he's a pretty bad politician, and e) cringe at that outkast shit. also the dude just kinda creeps me out.

he doesn't blink

Who will get the crucial Kucinich vote?

his blinking, like the rest of his brain processes, are too fast for mere mortals to observe

c) the idea that he's-a-general + he's-anti-war = victory is like ron-paul-level simplistic

gabbneb.... otm?

You seem surprised.

lol i forget who but i read some smug righty article during the 04 race: "it's so cute when the dems pull out a general or a defense expert. nice going, we've got thousands where that came from."

"it's so cute when the dems pull out a general or a defense expert. nice going, we've got thousands where that came from."

Yes, Republicans have 1000s of generals and defense experts stored away in the closet.

ted haggard, mark foley, larry craig...

they've got lots of things in those closets.

(xpost: damn you!)

So Sly Stallone now supports McCain and Chuck Norris supports Huckabee. Not fair. Every candidate should have an aging action star in their entourage.

So . . . Tom Cruise for Ron Paul, maybe? Others?

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Tom_Cruise.php

kucinich: david carradine

HRC/Cruise. Hmmm. . . Both have crazy bug eyes, sometimes. Could work.

Their laughs are both very creepy.

Good point!

Edwards/Cruise works, too, tho.

It's the hair. And the teeth.

back to race again - hillary's status as white non-ethnic may bode pretty well for her electability, given that white non-ethnics Johnson and Carter are the only Dems in modern history to win with a majority of the vote, and the only other white non-ethnic we've run, our hero Algore, 'won' with a plurality. Scandinavians Humphrey and Mondale and Irish McGovern and Greek Dukakis didn't come close, while half-Czech Kerry missed the cigar. Irish(?) Billy C. won twice, of course, but both times with only a plurality, even after he was an incumbent, and in any event he may have signified as a sort of sui generis figure.

and after Reagan made the Irish safe for America