2008 Primaries Thread

Lez Zeppelin takes Americans Abroad

MBV to headline 'Mile High' Democratic Convention

Hmm.

Hillary widens lead in Gallup tracker:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/020608DailyUpdateGraph2.gif

And remember -- she's NOT the establishment candidate anymore, lol, everyone on the same page, plz.

I do understand that plenty of perfectly reasonable arguments against her have been made on this thread and elsewhere..

You know, I can totally see the effect this primary has had on me and I'm pretty outspoken about politics, but the sheer avalanche of criticism from the media and on every politics site gets exhausting, especially when some of it is personal and vicious - and it is - much more so than for the other candidates. After a while the impulse is to just tune out, let the conversation go on without you, and vote for her anyway. But if that's how the atmosphere is, I think it could be a lot harder to stand up at a caucus than in the privacy of a voting booth, now.

wau, xp

lol at you guys needing to explain again to daria why you hate/don't hate hillary.

A large part of why I prefer Obama to Hillary lies in the fact that he's an Ivy League-educated, relatively laid-back, liberal-leaning black man. Like me.

"This is our moment! We are the agents of change! Yes we can! Where the titties at?"

-- Pleasant Plains, Wednesday, February 6, 2008 10:26 PM

t/s lol vs. O_o

A large part of why I prefer Obama to Hillary lies in the fact that he's an Ivy League-educated, relatively laid-back, liberal-leaning black man. Like me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:James_Toofer_Spurlock_from_30_Rock.jpg

Ah, fuck it.

http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/27/89/0000042789_20070911163124.jpg

ouch that poll! people like a winner, i guess

it's okay because hillary doesn't pay attention to polls

errr, that's a worrying poll.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Unlike_Mark_Penn.html

Imho, all of these candidates have limited vision and excessive corporate connections and until this country realizes that it's democracy is reeling towards plutocracy at a dizzying pace and puts real, meaningful, maybe amend-the-Constitution limits on the money in politics, that's what we're going to get, but I have a certain sympathy for the Clinton/Blair argument that keeping your hands perfectly clean while your opponent is ammassing a warchest is equivalent to saying, "No, I don't need any armor. Armor is what has made the sport of jousting as dull and unmanly as it is to-gahhhhhhh, ugggghh!" Politics, perhaps in a democracy as much as any society, is a reflection of that society as a whole and let's not flinch to much at the reflection our candidated are casting upon the people. Let's not be so appalled and ashamed that we become impotent in the process. I don't mean to say we should cut any corner or condone any skullduggery but I don't want to end so squeamish and prissy that I end up, however distantly, in the demise of a woman's right to choose (i.e., privacy rights), or the de facto end of habeas corpus, or a zillion other things that the Repubs will never fully account for on their own.

yeah but the news going into last night was that hillary "won" super tuesday, but now its a lot closer.

xxxxp

I couldn't vote in the primary, but I lean towards Obama because his speeches, books, and bearing suggest levelheadednes. Not for a second do I think he's a pacifist, though. Quite the contrary: something in his determination suggests that he could handle a conflict that takes years of continued US military might.

Plus, let's remember our history: you don't get to be a "great" president without a major conflict, and if there's one thing -- the only thing -- that Obama's got in common with JFK, it' san angling for greatness.

My mom called me to say that she cried while voting for Hills yesterday.

aw

ice cold, hoos

naw dude for srs!

Not for a second do I think he's a pacifist, though.

actually, the most batshit thing i recall him saying thus far was suggesting the use of american troops in pakistan's nw frontier whether musharraf/whomever liked it or not

HOOS is a champion of the aw thread.

it was bombing, not troops iirc

x-post

and frankly given Pakistan's totally fucked up regime and public pronouncements that they have no interest in getting Bin Laden, I think that's totally justified policy (probably not too smar to say so on the stump tho)

you are an internet hard man

Shakey, did you read the piece on Bhutto in The New Yorker a couple of issues back?

nah I don't read the New Yorker

(altho I was never really a Bhutto-booster if that's what you're getting at)

actually, the most batshit thing i recall him saying thus far was suggesting the use of american troops in pakistan's nw frontier whether musharraf/whomever liked it or not

Or this could have been the oft-used Dem tactic of hitting from the right (i.e. Kennedy blaming Eisenhower-Nixon for a "missile gap," Mondale suggesting during the debates that Reagan was soft on communism).

rather similar to McCain suggesting we could have troops in Iraq for a 100 years.

Gallup Poll Daily tracking will not begin to reflect the impact of Tuesday's voting on national Democratic preferences until tomorrow.

Shakey, check it out, for real.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_coll

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

Real Clear Politics polling averages show Hillary's national lead shrinking to 2.7 points.

Hillary's eating tacos! - http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Cant_wait_for_Texas.html

A smart political scientist at Chicago gives some thoughts on Obama's "metapolitics" that I think say clearly what some of Obama's supporters on this thread have been getting at:

http://sgrp.typepad.com/sgrp/2008/01/politicsmetapol.html

I have to admit that although I'm fine with either candidate, there's something a bit depressing about the idea of a Clinton/McCain race, the idea that what's seems like such an important election might be between two candidates that their respective parties just can't get that excited about.

("fine with either" meaning Clinton/Obama, obv)

I'm finding it interesting how often people are conflating Bill and Hillary (Billary) and it makes me wonder what kind of influence he has in her campaign and in what ways she is substantially different from him?

she doesn't bang interns

(btw I'm still making my way through that NYer piece but I'm not entirely sure what you were getting at by posting it...? I'm aware of Bhutto's history, the complexities of the relations between various parties, Musharraf's intransigence, etc.)

Given how fucked up Pakistan is and the fact that they have the bomb, bombing the NW frontier might end up us giving us far worse blowback than any pay-off we might get.

I'm finding it interesting how often people are conflating Bill and Hillary (Billary) and it makes me wonder what kind of influence he has in her campaign and in what ways she is substantially different from him?

Perhaps, Michael, because the Screaming Lobster of Hope insists on the conflation?

Yeah, no shit. Americans get so trigger happy with aerial bombardment, like it's got no consequences.

otm

this makes me optimistic:

Five reasons Hillary should be worried

but i imagine you could just as easily write up a "Five reasons Obama should be worried"

Given how fucked up Pakistan is and the fact that they have the bomb, bombing the NW frontier might end up us giving us far worse blowback than any pay-off we might get.

there is obviously that potential. all kinds of scenarios are possible. I am reminded of the time we allegedly "let Bin Laden go" when a drone plane couldn't get permission to bomb a convoy, a scenario which is quite different from a "shock and awe" campaign. I'm not advocating anything specific - and Obama's comments were clearly calculated for political effect - but at the same time I agree with him in principle that we shouldn't take any options off the table, particularly in regards to an illegitimate regime that has no real control over much of its territory.

Should we bomb them before or after we stop giving Musharraf billions of dollars?

And what is this table people are always putting bombs on?

I guess my point is there are ways we could deploy force to capture Bin Laden that wouldn't necessarily result in an insane nuclear disaster (just as there are ways we could do it, clumsily, and subsequently screw ourselves and Pakistan). What would some of you guys posit as a best-case scenario? Clearly things are fucked as they are now, the Taliban is operating with impunity and we're propping up an increasingly delegitimized and useless military dictatorship that is undermining the very democratic institutions we would most like to see established. A worst case scenario is obviously insane Islamists in charge with the bomb, somehow getting one delivered via terrorists to America (which, I gotta say, seems highly HIGHLY unlikely for all kinds of reasons). Is there nothing better than these two scenarios, given how complicated things are...? Should using our own special forces in the way they're intended - quietly and deliberately and carefully - not play any role here?

I can't believe I'm advocating for some kind of military intervention at all, but the fact that Bin Laden hasn't been caught seems completely fucking ridiculous and galling to me.

NBC reports youth vote tripled in GA and quintupled in NY