2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

A president has very little time in which to use his political capital, and if Obama gets elected I suspect he'll be the most legislative strong-armer since the first six months of Reagan's term. This is where "charisma" and intelligence count. If he wins, a large portion of Washington will genuinely want him to suceed.

(that right-wing media will remain suspicious is a moot point)

xxpost:
http://thecia.com.au/reviews/c/images/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-4.jpg

it's almost like it's being taken away...

Seems to be a common thread among outraged Clintonites.

You know what pisses me off? If HRC's campaign hadn't resorted to being so vicious, I wouldn't have any problem with much of her campaign. I think it very well could be inspirational to have a female president and it comes right back to the whole 'well behaved women rarely make history' bullshit wherein women give themselves an excuse for treating other people as means because the ends justify it. How is that feminist? I'm down with saying that Nixon was a son of a bitch, but not so down on imitating his way of doing business, and if certain feminists want to merely ape the worst behavior of the men who once had the monopoly on power here because they feel entitled to it a priori, they're not only going to alienate people like me but they're selling short the very real transformative possibilities of feminism.

yeah gf & her mom have been reiterating this since december.

fwiw, gf is taking down her clinton signs because she now thinks she's essentially out of the race.

xp

juan williams thinks he should have thrown wright under a bus

Williams, a FOX News analyst, questioned why Obama allowed himself to remain publicly associated with Wright. He said Obama did not address the “judgment and character” issues that he’s running on.

“I think he had to take responsibility … and that’s what he didn’t do,” Williams said.

of course that's what juan williams thinks

hasn't Bill Kristol thrown Juan Williams under the bus yet?

With the Wright thing and HRC basically out of the last several news cycles, I'm def getting a sense of exhaustion from the Hil people.

I think they're ready to get out.

Sometimes it's like MWhite and I share a brain...

I think it very well could be inspirational to have a female president and it comes right back to the whole 'well behaved women rarely make history' bullshit wherein women give themselves an excuse for treating other people as means because the ends justify it. How is that feminist?

Um, seems like you're straw-womaning here, but if any feminist actually uses the quote that way they're obviously distorting it. "Well-behaved women" is supposed to imply women that are too ladylike and afraid of stepping out of line to get anything accomplished, which is in turn supposed to hint at patriarchy. It does NOT suggest that you should be a complete jerk in order to get things accomplished.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_s3qR1IWHXYM/R-A4bXW4ZTI/AAAAAAAAA-k/43afGW3hMZo/s1600-h/Obama-thumb.jpg

fuckin

http://xs225.xs.to/xs225/08122/oreo988.jpeg

Sometimes it's like MWhite and I share a brain...

It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of having half a brain.

Hurting, it shouldn't suggest that, but I hear it all too often. I am so tired of the conflation of ladylike and timid. Some of the fiercest and most stalwart people I have ever known were extremely well-raised and well-mannered ladies.

Opps, substitute shouldn't, plz. My half-brane not work so good today.

Listened to Hannity on the way home. He was REALLY reaching hard today.

hasn't Bill Kristol thrown Juan Williams under the bus yet?

lolz

Listened to Hannity on the way home. He was REALLY reaching hard today

did you see his junk?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/nickstravaganza/magicmissile.jpg

The lazy idea that we should set ridculously low standards for throwing people off the bus, an idea that appeals to the combatative, holier than thou politician and the journalist looking for an exciting fight to cover is pernicious and practically Stalinist. I am quite pleased that Obama eschewed it in this case.

haha meanwhile McCain having trouble distinguishing between Iran and Iraq lolz

Williams, a FOX News analyst, questioned why Obama allowed himself to remain publicly associated with Wright. He said Obama did not address the “judgment and character” issues that he’s running on.

I'm probably stating the obvious, but OF COURSE Obama wasn't going to completely disassociate himself from Wright. What a disingenuous comment to make.

I listened to the whole speech today. I thought he handled it about as well as possible - disavow the inflammatory views but don't turn your back on your longtime pastor. The rest was a pretty good essay on race in America, but I think it could have been written in a more direct language so that it would get through to more people. I'd like to see him find more of a happy medium between his *inspirational* rally speaking style and his headier essayistic style that can at times make him come off like the law school valedictorian giving his address.

http://www.mentorhuebnerart.com/images/pubs/strikeahappymedium.jpg

I'd like to see him find more of a happy medium between his *inspirational* rally speaking style and his headier essayistic style that can at times make him come off like the law school valedictorian giving his address.

The introductory remarks creating a historical context -- the great problem of slavery for the Framers -- was about as plainspoken as one could hope! I wish my high school teachers had been this direct. Hours ago upthread I said that this is the mark of a good teacher.

The Democratic National Committee seized on John McCain's apparent gaffe while discussing Iran earlier Tuesday, saying it raises questions whether the Arizona senator "can be trusted to offer a clear way forward."

The misstep in question occurred during a news conference in Jordan earlier Tuesday, when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee repeatedly said Iran was supplying al Qaeda. Iran is predominately a Shiite country and is not aiding the Sunni dominated Al-Qaeda.

McCain ultimately corrected himself after Sen. Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear.

"I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda. I am sorry, I am sorry," the Arizona senator said.

DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney quickly pounced on the misstep.

"After eight years of the Bush Administration's incompetence in Iraq, McCain's comments don't give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward," she said. "Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn't understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground."

McCain's campaign immediately responded, saying the "Democrats have launched political attacks today because they know the American people have deep concerns about their candidates’ judgment and readiness to lead as commander in chief.”

The DNC later sent out a transcript of McCain's interview Monday with conservative Hugh Hewitt, during which he appeared to make the same mistake.

"As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq," he told Hewitt.

how has obama not used this for a campaign theme?

infuriating responses to obama's speech from the right; all the more infuriating because of the degree to which the speech is being wholly distorted

how has obama not used this for a campaign theme?

-- Jordan, Tuesday, March 18, 2008 5:28 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

he needs to use 'change (makes you want to hustle)' by donald byrd

Shakey, I don't mean to sound like a mere partisan dick to McCain and this is akin to something that Sarkozy said at one point, too, but wtf kind of statement is that, dude? Al Qaeda have less hatred for Jews and Christians than for Shi'ites whom they consider to be apostates and thus deserving of death. It really worries me that something so basic escapes them.

I'm well aware of the Sunni/Shi'ite split - that McCain can't keep it straight (either because he's a bellicose idiot or because conflating all Islamists together as "evil terrorists" suits his political agenda) is pathetic. Also remarkably similar to Dubyaco's neocons traditional inability/unwillingness to recognize these distinctions.

or were you just asking me a rhetorical question

When I say "more direct," I mean he has a tendency to unnecessarily break up sentences with clauses, taking some of the punch out of statements that should be very powerful (not to mention making them impossible to soundbite - is that the intention maybe?). Kerry had a tendency to do this as well - admittedly a much more pronounced tendency. Obama often avoids this pitfall, but today I felt like his speech could have been better edited.

Shakey, I know YOU know the difference but how can Senator Vote-for-me-'cause-I-am-better-on-national-defense McWarhero make such a boneheaded error? It actually frightens me when I hear shit like this. What, if they don't this aspect of the region their visiting, is going on in their heads with people like this? As Abe had it, you can fool all of the people some of the time, etc..., but even his natural electorate has to (or at least should take pause) when for whatever reason their candidate can't count up to 4 or can't remember which one's the brake and which one's the accelerator!

I don't know, Hurting. Both in spoken and written form, there's a lot of beats, lots of declarative sentences.

(xpost)

FWIW a pro-Obama friend of mine seemed less impressed by the speech than I woulda guessed: "Have you read 'Audacity'? A lot of that stuff is right out of the book. It was a pretty good speech but in a general election, independent swing voter sense it still doesn't answer the question of why you put that guy on your campaign steering committee."

Yeah, I'm still concerned about that too. Obviously from a personal point of view I liked the speech, but I didn't need any reassuring about his ties with Wright to begin with.

At very least, he's addressing it extensively and early, and whatever he did seems to be baffling conservative commentators and making it hard for them to counterpunch.

"John Edwards. Senator John Edwards -- remember him? -- who's been conspicuously silent since he dropped out of the race, will endorse a Democratic candidate probably before North Carolina, certainly before North Carolina, possible before Pennsylvania. And our own Mark Halpern on the page says it's going to be Senator Hillary Clinton."

Edwards waited far too long for his endorsement to make much difference.

clintonite clinton-lite to endorse clinton...developing...

is the 'is mccain a warhero really?' thing the left version of the right's 'is obama black really?' ? how likely is it to get more traction than the right's version did? when's the last time a leftwing version of a rightwing tactic worked better than the right's version did?

I haven't seen anybody on the left questioning his war hero status...?

Otoh, I think a fairly strong case could be made that his war experience rendered him totally fucking nuts.

I think McCain was probably nuts long before then.

I haven't seen anybody on the left questioning his war hero status...?

ya rly, where are you getting this, balls?

I mean I saw muttering about it on the RIGHT, but not from the left (who tend to concede national security dick-waving contests)

shakey read above; admittedly i haven't seen this anywhere in the real world. and yeah re: 'nuts', alot of his more personal grudges 'fuck protestors, yes to vietnam/iraq to the bitter end fuxors' i could vaguely nod politely at and not really engage seriously if it was just the cantankerous bitter old vet (the way ppl patronize morbs for example) but coming from someone who can enact policy eh, not so much. that said no need to deny his backstory - guy is the biggest warhero to see november in any of our (excepting morbs of course) lifetimes. and bob dole was funny and reagan was good in the killers and nixon...i can't think of anything nice to say about nixon. point being that nice decent guy whatevah i don't need to tear down the man to vote against him or to get others to vote against him - his politics in general but ESP his politics on the most important issue right now (war or economy - take yr pick) are fundamentally wrong and (perhaps)(thankfully) out of step w/ the american ppl and THE VERY THINGS he is making the cornerstone of his campaign. obama isn't gonna have to work very hard to paint mccain as '4 more years of bush' since mccain's half determined to do it himself. which is why the one thing i really like about obama's speech today is that while yes, yes nuanced, genuinely thoughtful speech actually dealing w/ race in america in a way noone in our (excepting morbs) lifetimes has given, but what i really take away from it is how it works into the (unspoken? i don't know) central theme of obama's campaign ie. (gabbneb get ready to cream all over yr pate) 'change vs. more of the same'.

although lol even at this the right is better at it than the left since the left version of questioning mccain's warhero status is hippydippy 'is there such a thing as a warhero really?' whereas the murmurings on the right were 'maybe perhaps he was a collaborator w/ the viet cong?'. you will never beat the right at limbo.

admittedly i haven't seen this anywhere in the real world.

then why suggest it here...?

xpost PROJECTING, MUCH?

What's most horrifying about McCain is that, of the generals we've elected president (Washington, Grant, Eisenhower; I won't count Taylor), he's the only one whose war lust is part of his campaign. Goddamn Grant, one of our least impressive presidents, had as his campaign slogan, "Let us have peace"! A banality, sure, and it signalled his party's later betrayal of Lincoln's principles, but telling.

More and more the only Cold War president I admire is Eisenhower, who still did his share of fucked up shit in Guatemala and responding to Brown vs Board of Education, but he'd seen enough blood in his lifetime to pause before committing American troops ANYWHERE, even in Little Rock.