2008 Primaries Thread

though there's always marc rich.

could have been a supporter not actually involved with the campaign, you know?

Maybe it was Rezko trying to do Obama a solid.

you know what guys? i think hillary's just... i dunno, too ambitious. she seems ruthless. something about her voice.. just rubs me the wrong way.

the last 7 years have really raised the bar for dirty dealing.

Look, we can all agree that the right-wing smear campaign of the 90's was more disgusting than the Clinton's nasty old-school politicking.

Am I crazy or has politics since the first years of this country always been "nasty old-school politicking." Yes? Just because some political figures in the nation's history are remembered with some kind of halo like they were above it all doesn't mean it was actually the case during their time.

Tracer, the problem with Hillary is that she's so calculating. She thinks about her next moves all the time as far as advancing her own campaign, a campaign that's designed for her to gain political power. It's disgusting.

maybe there are lots of people on the left, including the moderate and center lefts, who were happy to support and defend the clintons as long as they were in office and/or the best thing going, but never actually liked them all that much? and are tired of them by now?

daria OTM - its always been ugly and vicious. It wasn't all Lincoln-Douglas debates you know.

x-post

All campaigns are the same. Plus, I am a sexist.

Yes, but, Daria, Jefferson, Adams, and Pinckney had, you know, "substance." Bill doesn't know anything BUT sliming.

My socialist father dad personally dislikes Hillary to the point where he would not vote for her against GWB. The "aging-cynical dad" vote is KEY people.

Semantics dictate that I don't include daria with Jefferson, et al.

see Adams sex-scandal smear against Jackson, etc etc

x-post

I gotta give props to the Obama oppo people for digging up that Rezko photo to try and throw things off-message during the morning chat shows. Zing

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/has-bull-gone-bull-moose/index.html
Matt Bai revisits "Clintonism."

So what changed in so short a time? I doubt there was any strategic decision to make the former president an enforcer; his stump speech now is almost exactly the same as it was a few months ago — cerebral, quiet and as substantive as anything you will ever hear in a presidential campaign. Rather, everything controversial he said in the last few weeks — from the “fairy tale” comment in New Hampshire, to his misuse of Barack Obama’s comments on Ronald Reagan, to his berating a Nevada reporter for asking about race — has come spontaneously in response to direct questioning. This suggests that, after Hillary Rodham Clinton lost Iowa and appeared to be on the verge of sudden extinction, her husband simply reacted, as most husbands would, emotionally. His outbursts have betrayed a smoldering anger. Were I the former president’s cardiologist, I’d be wondering if all this campaigning were really such a good idea.
...
Of course, we’re only talking about a few elite Democrats here; it’s possible that the average Democratic voter still reveres the former president as much as he ever did. Still, the danger for Mr. Clinton is that all the drama may remind voters of what they really didn’t like about the ’90s. If that happens, then it ceases to be a mere issue of tactics and becomes, instead, a part of the campaign’s larger narrative. When I saw Mr. Clinton speak in Walterboro, S.C., yesterday, his “statesmanlike aura,” which had been blinding when I saw him a few months ago, seemed to have dimmed.

the Lincoln-Douglas debates were NOT gentle. Douglas suggested that Abe had an eye for black poon.

Isn't your aging cynical dad in Rhode Island? I'm just saying, I think they can afford to lose a few of those votes there.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/18/1941/63976

I don't care how ruthless a pol LBJ was, if he had the Clintons' "principles" the Voting Rights Act would never have been signed. "They've always been the same" is the ultimate cynicism.

xpost Bill knows lots of things besides sliming. Have you ever heard him speak?

it's not just the diminishment of Bill's statesmanlike aura, it's his willingness to put his chief party standardbearer status on the line, and his learning that a lot of Dems are more than willing to strip him of it. maybe his willingness to go there out of care for his wife would play as more sympathetic or even touching if 'there' weren't so nasty.

"John, it's just politics."

yeah, Soto pls, Clinton's a fucking genius

My aging cynical dad dislikes all the candidates on both sides. Even McCain who he used to like a lot for his alleged "independence" (aka right wing nuttery played as straight talk because the rest of the GOP's gone off the cliff).. but now my dad evidently doesn't even like McCain because he's against dunking the heads of terrorists under water. (I about fell off my chair and then explained what waterboarding really meant but I don't know if I got through to him, and wondering if I should have not bothered so that he didn't change his mind and vote McCain.)

xpost Bill knows lots of things besides sliming. Have you ever heard him speak?

Words, words, words.

Daria, ever listen to talk radio anywhere? I imagine a lot of centrist 50/60 males everywhere would not like to vote for her?

Talking with a friend last night who leans right, he says the conservative talk shows have been slamming McCain nonstop.

xpost C'mon dude.

how old are you again?

daria, the problem is not that HRC does and says things that are politically expedient for her campaign. the problem is when those words and actions don't line up, or when she deliberately misrepresents words or actions (either hers or her opponents) for political gain.

also, don't shit on my home state. thanks.

Re: that MyDD post, the paper wrote that in an editorial and rather misleadingly paraphrased what she said to them, per the newspaper's editor:

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5309

(yes, I read the Hillary sites)

I'm not! I lived in RI for three years dude!

I doubt there was any strategic decision to make the former president an enforcer; his stump speech now is almost exactly the same as it was a few months ago — cerebral, quiet and as substantive as anything you will ever hear in a presidential campaign

This raises a good point - even though a candidate can spend 99% of their time speaking about the issues and making substantive speeches, the 1% of the time they spend making off-hand comments about the other candidate will get 99% of the media air-time.

even that's ok, elmo, but when HRC and Obama's platforms are almost indistinguishable, I'm going to lean towards the naturally more affective and effective speaker, not to mention the one who doesn't have The Screaming Lobster of Hope beside him.

(xxpost)

clintons want to play dirty against the other side, fine. maybe it's justifiable or even recommended for them to do it on our side too. but don't pretend that isn't what they're doing or expect us to like them for it.

The Screaming Lobster of Hope

^^^ changable display names plz :( :(

http://ashpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-reagan-hypocrisy/

http://static.px.yelp.com/bphoto/bdPAXw6aSXPUS5X8tcSb6w/m

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/2370/p/f/bill_clinton.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2006-08/24880490.jpg

http://www.midsouthwrestling.com/jydrip.jpg

gabbneb can you point out any of these nasty things that bill clinton has said in order to help secure the democratic nomination for his wife? examples would help here

in any case, i'm shocked, shocked that there is politics going on in this presidential campaign

i like bill becoming a bigger issue because it highlights the whole banana republic-ness of hilary fo prez.

not that she is w/out merit, but it is a but for cause of her candidacy imo

banana republic?

OK, stepping back a bit. (Hat tip to Ned via off topic chat we had recently.)

Do you guys think there's a chance that either HRC or Obama would lose a 2004 election blue state?

The only one I can see *maybe* going back to red is Wisconsin. But there are more red states that are far more vulnerable to turning blue than vice versa.

Do you guys think, given today's context, that Clinton or Obama will be less popular than *Kerry*? And Kerry still got 49% of the electorate.

All HRC or Obama will have to do is secure the blue states from 2004, and gain one more -- say, New Mexico -- tadah, Democratic presidency. If they lose a blue state, ok, Colorado? Nevada? Virginia? I mean, *if* Florida goes blue this year, which is entirely possible, the Dems are walking in regardless.

Yes, I know there's more to this than just getting a Dem in the Whitehouse. We're voting for personalities, yadda yadda yadda.

Ned brought up the SCOTUS issue. There are many people hanging on to life literally on the left leaning side of the SCOTUS bench. *FOR THIS ISSUE*, I could give a shit if it's HRC or Obama who's president. I don't want more asshots on SCOTUS for the rest of my fucking life. This is the least mutable thing about our country. It's really important to me, personally.

Anyway, back to primary minutae and Daily Kossing.

i take it you haven't heard, tracer, about barack 'fairy tale' obama?

that is a very cute lobster, Alfred

taking sides "the whole banana republic-ness of hilary fo prez" vs "but it is a but for cause of her candidacy imo"

The Screaming Lobster of Hope

photoshop plz lolxxxxxps