2008 Primaries Thread

bottom line about all the supposed Rove psy-ops is that Rove doesn't really know for sure who the stronger candidate will be and also doesn't know for sure who the Republican contender will be, so there's no point in trying to read him.

kerry endorses obama
bush 'endorses' clinton

haahahaaaaa

ned lamont (the guy who bumped lieberman from the dem party in '06, then lost to him) endorses obama

bottom line about all the supposed Rove psy-ops is that Rove doesn't really know for sure who the stronger candidate will be and also doesn't know for sure who the Republican contender will be, so there's no point in trying to read him.

OTM. Myths of Rove's omniscience way, way overrated. The tortured analysis that people are applying to his every comment is overdone. First he criticizes Hillary (then the front-runner), and people assume that he is trying to boost her by criticizing her. Then he criticizes Obama (at that time the front-runner), and people assume that, well, he is still trying to boost Hillary. Maybe he just likes to criticize Democrats?

That's just what he wants you to *BANG*

haha

in other news:

kucinich wants an nh recount

Rove doesn't know what's up, but Hurting's got the bottom line

i dont know when gabbneb's being sarcastic anymore

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/report_az_governor_janet_napolitano_endorsing_obama.php

At this point, Obama has enough high-profile endorsements to be considered -- if not "the" establishment candidate -- at least "an" establishment candidate.

If she picks Cuomo for AG, who else is going to get in there? I'm for a fully dynastic cabinet. What position can we give to Patrick Kennedy?

If they weren't burning bridges so furiously, a Pres. Obama could appoint Bill or Hillary Clinton to cabinet posts.

Supreme Court

Yeah, I heard that, too. It would be a great role for Bill Clinton.

like he'd take it

Schwarzenegger for McCain? http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/11/first-action-hero/

w j clinton appointment to scotus would be a fucking laff riot

the confirmation hearings wd be like Clarence Thomas crossed with the impeachment trial, ie, I would move to Canada

mayb they could take a case that would legally define "is"

hahaha clinton would never shut up during oral* argument, it would be hysterical but I'd feel bad for the transcribers.

*NYUK NYUK NUYK

Like I said, if it weren't for the new hostility between their camps, I'm not sure why Bill Clinton wouldn't consider a Supreme Court appointment by Obama.

As to Obama's viability, to me, this is one of his biggest Achilles heels. But I suspect that, in a GE, the stakes are high enough were all angry Democrats will fall into line behind him, even if they preferred a more aggressive candidate. It's getting to the GE that will be the challenge here.

um, wasn't Clinton's law license revoked? Would you want someone on SCOTUS who perjured himself?

I'm beginning to have my doubts that Obama can make it. He really needed a blitzkrieg quick kill. He needed to deliver the coup de grâce in NH, when Obama fever was high, the JFK comparisons were thick on the ground and the media was on side. Now it's going to be a long slog, and I'm pretty sure Clinton is going to be better at the long slog.

Bill Clinton Eligible Again to Practice Law -- 2006

having a former leader of the executive branch appointed to the highest court of the judicial branch? excuse me but i'm sure even the most sympathetic congress would block that nomination.

He's a convicted liar!

he's not William Howard Taft.

(who was made Chief Justice and had been campaigning for it his whole life, but whatever)

man, people really hate Bill Clinton.

guys, Clinton wants to travel the globe palling around with influential people and receiving adoring crowds/groupies. he does not want to be a supreme court justice. hillary theoretically might.

lots of young interns work for SCOTUS.

yeah i could see Hilary doing that.

they call them clerks Alfred

"I did not have inappropriate contact with that plaintiff"

"i'd love to grant your petition for certiorari, hot stuff."

I'm pretty sure Clinton is going to be better at the long slog.

And it will never seem sloggier. Hundred-Years Mac vs the Change Agent might prompt a record number of minor-party votes even w/out Bloomberg.

btw, you Bloomie semi-apologists -- you did read that his Ambition Adviser is KISSINGER, right?

Now it's going to be a long slog, and I'm pretty sure Clinton is going to be better at the long slog.

i dont know why this is assumed considering hillary's never rly been in a long slog in either of her election bids. as far as money and organization it's a wash. if obama can take nv and take sc decisively (which looks probable), he takes back the momentum heading into colossal fuck tuesday.

I'm pretty sure Clinton is going to be better at the long snog.

Do people Democrats genuinely believe that Hillary Clinton would be capable of winning a general election and regaining the White House? Honestly?

on one hand, you have to beat Somebody with Somebody. Dems' best hope would be that the GOP has a nominee who can inspire nearly as much hatred as Hil does.

I'm beginning to have my doubts that Obama can make it. He really needed a blitzkrieg quick kill. He needed to deliver the coup de grâce in NH, when Obama fever was high, the JFK comparisons were thick on the ground and the media was on side. Now it's going to be a long slog, and I'm pretty sure Clinton is going to be better at the long slog.

-- Zelda Zonk, Friday, 11 January 2008 16:20 (17 minutes ago) Link

I'm having a hard time seeing the connection between your metaphors and reality.

There's no evidence that a "quick kill" in Iowa and New Hampshire, or a lack thereof, determines outcomes.

Maybe not, but perceived wisdom was that an Obama win in NH would have been a mortal blow to Clinton.

u ppl are trying to reach a Chris Matthews level of random thought, aren't you?

"perceived wisdom"

Dems' best hope would be that the GOP has a nominee who can inspire nearly as much hatred as Hil does.

That or a GOP nominee who will keep much of their base unmotivated/won't inspire much enthusiasm and who won't peel off too many independent and/or Democratic votes.

So Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani would be fine. McCain, as I've said, is the GOP candidate I don't want to see.

what evidence is there, exactly, that either on of them will be better in the "long slog"? neither one of them has had a tough contest before. a tough contest between popular national democrats is uncharted territory for either one of them anyway!

let me say "either one of them" 1 more tiem

"colossal fuck tuesday"

i think we need to retitle this thread

I wonder what total posts # will be on S.F.Tuesday. NERDS!