2008 Primaries Thread

Shakey, you sound exactly like the GOP folks who used to write to Letter To The Editor of the Orange County Register when Clinton got reelected in 1996.

And in conclusion:

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-01/34570416.jpg

so gonna happen

It reminds me of the way sportswriters -- in a mindhive -- annoint a team as the inevitable champion of a 7 game series after they win Game 1.

That's because in the twenty-first century, elections are covered like playoffs. Dunno if it was always like that, but it sure is now.

I think Hillary Clinton doesn't quite get that to be talking change while completely surrounded by Bill and his cabinet might not be the way to go. That stage setup was like a wax museum piece from the Clinton library.

It won't happen, but I would love to somehow see Al Gore put a dagger into the back of Hillary's campaign and drop an endorsement on Obama in the next couple of days. Not that I am sold on Obama, but I sure don't want the Clintons to get back into the White House.

It's possible, I guess; Gore really dislikes HRC. In fact, one of my law partners is apparently connected to some Gore insiders. He says that Gore was considering a Presidential run, but he couldn't bear the thought of losing to HRC, who seemed all-but-inevitable at the time.

gore can still be veep again right? lol awesome

NO CHANCE.

Ominous Signs in New Hampshire for HRC

Doesn't mean she won't win. But the Obama wave is cresting, and I don't think she has enough time to break it. I keep hearing that New Hampshire is a rougher, tougher state to campaign in, that going negative works there, that HRC's more conservative leanings will play well there, but from what I've read, I don't see it.

I wonder what will happen if HRC loses the first three (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina)? What if she doesn't win a state in January? Does she hang on for Super Tuesday, where her organizational strength and DLC-establishment connections might catapult her forward?

daniel go to sleep and/or lay down and relax.

you deserve a medal for these links though. you're basically my RSS reader.

man i couldn't even imagine the palpable tension on that stage after the second boo.

hill & bill need to change their look back to this

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0907/hippieclintonsImage1.jpg

OTM.

do you think hillary ever smoked w33d??

Thanks for the kind words, J0rdan. I'll sleep, tho I get less and less of it these days.

Can't resist one more link. Check this out, HRC is "directing" ABC News to alleged evidence that Obama's 'Too Liberal' (because he supported the abolition of minimum mandatory sentences for convicted criminals). To be fair, I'm not sure HRC used the words "too liberal," but she's now drawing that comparison between herself and Obama, which I think shows where her mindset is.

By the way, on the few video feeds I've seen today of HRC, she sounds bad. Flat and forced, I guess, are the best ways to describe it. Even if I can't get behind her as a candidate (I find her uninspiring), there's a soft spot in my heart for the Clintons. Bill Clinton won -- twice -- in a country that was in the middle of a long, hard rightward drift. Times are different now, and a more progressive candidate, like an Obama, might be the right man for the era. But what Bill Clinton did then was masterful and gave many of us hope. HRC losing the nomination is okay (indeed, I don't support her candidacy), but I really don't want to see their legacy tarnished with unseemly tactics against a rising star in what I suspect is a losing cause.

Okay, end of rant. I will get some sleep now.

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/01/Romneypacksudgeyes.jpeg

70's era Clintons should be played by Will Ferrell and Hope Davis in any future biopic.

xp
so gonna happen....but what?

omg @ jergins pic

One more: John Edwards delivering a pointed and good speech in New Hampshire. His message: He's the fighter on the Democratic side.

The scrapy underdog role suits Edwards well. I know his problems (too young looking; some find him insincere; too smooth), but he has a lot of upside. I also like his strategy of trying to now frame this as a two-person race: Obama v. Edwards. It (obv.) isn't true, but it's a way for him to provide a new twist to his message and to make him seem vital.

Alright, now sleep.

I also like his strategy of trying to now frame this as a two-person race: Obama v. Edwards.

the only prob with this i think is that he's really come back into the race as the dem's really viable anti-hillary/establishment candidate.

"really viable" meaning not kucinich or dodd etc.

the one thing I really actually appreciate about edwards taking the silver in iowa is that he can continue to put forth his ideas and people have to listen to him; if he had gotten third as expected no democrat would have actually talked about issues in any substantive fashion until January 2009

(not because they have nothing substantive to say, necessarily, but because there is nothing substantive separating obama and hilary on the policy front that everybody doesn't already know)

even after the total nightmare that has been bush, i have to admit that none of the candidates inspire me with any sense of confidence whatsoever. :(

(and, on a different note) does anyone beside me look at the race in the historical context and think: after

bush 1988 / clinton 1992 / clinton 1996

i was uncomfortable with bush 2000. but after

bush 1988 / clinton 1992 / clinton 1996 / bush 2000 / bush 2004

i am REALLY uncomfortable with clinton 2008, almost regardless of what her policies would be. can we at least play at democracy a bit more convincingly than having two families run the country for 20 years? and i liked clinton.

mitya, your discomfort is not unique at all. It seems with the turn of the new year, a lot of Dems have suddenly felt "oh shit this is the year isn't it" and had a second scan of "HRC: Prez" and didn't feel right.

I admit I feel the same as you, even if I like HRC as a candidate.

an appraisal of obama's political experience, getting legislation passed in the illinois senate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

and a hesitant critique of that experience:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

good article but you posted the same one twice.

Say, are any of you going to do something locally asides from just voting? I.e. voter-reg, headin' to some sorta local meeting, something like that?

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0907/hippieclintonsImage1.jpg

hillry ckinton mad uugky 1976

bill lookin mighty christlike

Interesting analysis of what's at stake in New Hampshire

Anyway, the above-linked article sets forth what I think is HRC's remaining move against Obama (n.1): That he's "too liberal." HRC, who now must react to Obama's Iowa win, can't move to his left, and she didn't gain enough traction with her No. 1 argument (that she's more "experienced" and "ready to lead from Day One"; maybe this argument works better in New Hampshire, but I doubt HRC thinks -- at this point -- she can rest on it). So the natural move is to Obama's right. And she can frame that argument in a way that doesn't necessarily isolate the left base, by arguing that she's better positioned to respond to the right's "attack machine," then trotting out all the things that machine supposedly will say about Obama.

I see the reasoning. But I think it also opens another line of attack for Obama about how the fight between HRC and him is about the past v. the future. HRC (and Bill Clinton) grew up politically in an era when the country was moving right, and if liberals were going to succeed, they had to move with it. That led to "triangulation," where Bill Clinton appealed to a diverse group of voters by distancing himself from both the Democratic and Republican parties. But now may be a different moment, giving an opening to a more progressive candidate, like Obama. The question, and the legitimate debate, is which direction the country is prepared to go to: center-right (HRC) or center-left to left (Obama). That question can also be seen as whether the country is where it was in the 90s (or even further right), which would support continuing the politics of the past, or at a different point, and ready for something new, which would perhaps support a more progressive Democrat.

__________________________________
(n.1) I say it's her "remaining move" not because she's desperate, but because there are only so many options available to a candidate. She's already deploying her strongest argument: That she's more "experienced."

you didn't sleep much huh

lol. Sorry if I'm bombarding the thread too much.

About 5 hours of sleep. I'm up getting ready for a guitar class for me, and a piano class for my daughter. Then, sadly, probably to work.

bill lookin mighty christlike

He looks like Sam Beam, of Iron & Wine! I knew I liked that guy.

daniel, esq 2008 = kingfish 2004

lol

Will someone liveblog the debates tonight? Maybe on another thread?

daniel, esq 2008 = kingfish 2004

Hm. Not sure what this means, but it doesn't sound flattering.(n.1)

_______________________
(n.1) Nothing against Kingfish, btw. I only recognize the name.

hillry ckinton mad uugky 1976

FUCK YOU!

does anyone remember that britishes poster in 04 who used tell us v eruditely all this CW stuff we already knew? who was that guy again?

Ed

Tom Cl3veland or something wasn't it?

whatever happened to that guy?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2008-01-05T134259Z_01_N04274456_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-POLL.xml

FUNFUNFUN

http://i13.tinypic.com/71pt75g.jpg
FUNFUNFUN

til Daddy takes the T-Bird away

We've come on holiday by mistake

NIGHTMARE VACATION