2008 Primaries Thread

What about the path Reagan put us on was positive? Did he do anything positive to deal with "excesses" of the 60s and 70s or is it my limited knowledge of, you know, gutting social services and turning a bunch of mentally ill people out on the streets. I was in grade school the whole time, I don't know. I saw Obama bringing him up, I guess as a way to present himself as potentially the same kind of transformative figure, and.. that's again where I get lost, because policy wise none of the three candidates are that different.

Daria, let's let Obama answer your question:

What I said — and I will provide you with a quote — what I said
was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure
because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic
interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda
that I objected to. Because while I was working on those streets
watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a
corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: I was fighting these fights. I was fighting these
fights. So — but I want to be clear.

So I want to be clear. What I said had nothing to do with their
policies. I spent a lifetime fighting a lifetime against Ronald
Reagan's policies. But what I did say is that we have to be thinking
in the same transformative way about our Democratic agenda.

We've got to appeal to Independents and Republicans in order to
build a working majority to move an agenda forward. That is what I
said.

Still lost?

I mean seriously: "As a veteran, it disgusts me that the Swift Boats we loved while we were in uniform on the Mekong Delta have been rendered, in Karl Rove's twisted politics, an ugly verb meaning to lie about someone's character just to win an election."

Huh? What's wrong with it?

Clearer would be:
"As a veteran, I am disgusted. Karl Rove's twisted politics turned the Swift Boats of the Mekong Delta into an ugly verb. Swift Boat now means to lie about someone's character just to win an election."

Kerry's formulation is much better. If he lost because he favored sentences of more than five words then it's the country that has a problem, not him.

yeah, that's gore's excuse too.

Kerry's formulation is much better. If he lost because he favored sentences of more than five words then it's the country that has a problem, not him.

+

Let's just say that if you wrote like Kerry in my class, mullah, your ass is getting kicked.

as for the Reagan chatter: dudes, Bill Clinton's been praising Reagan's oratory for years!

and Hillary's been praising Reagan's presidency, as I pointed out upthread, which Obama's never done

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Groups_internal_memo_points_to_Obamas_0122.html

but you know, far be it from the chief practitioner of rovian politics to be fair

Obama did a good thing in last night's debate with his body language, as far as raising a finger (or was it a hand) as a way of objecting to what Hillary was saying without interrupting her.

He's lucky; if his last name was Gore, that raised hand or finger would have been replayed in slow-motion all over the news for days and referred to as "finger wagging", and we would have been told that voters are "turned off" by that kind of "condescension". "Does he think he's better than everyone else?"

Let's just say that if you wrote like Kerry in my class, mullah, your ass is getting kicked.

Skerry.

He's lucky

no, his body language is far superior to Gore's

from Mark Halperin's The Way to Win:

When Clinton's team anticipates a challenge from a critic, it assumes that the attacker inevitably will make a mistake that can be exploited. Then, when the accuser has been forced to lose control of his or her public image, there are benefits to reap. (Bush's team has followed this same strategy.)

First, the Old Media begins to see the critic as some combination of goofy and extreme, and everything the person does, says, or writes is viewed skeptically. Rove's operation, for instance, used derisive humor, scornful Internet videos, and tirelessly repetitive talking points to turn liberal icons such as MoveOn.org, Al Gore, and Howard Dean into wild, left-wing caricatures. rue, not everyone in the Old Media was swayed, but the opinions of many Old Media-ites could be colored this way.

...

A second benefit of counterattack: The activists on the same political side as the disfigured accuser are demoralized and defanged. Ed Klein's over-reaching gave anti-Hillary Clinton reporting a bad name, just as CBS News's bogus piece on Bush's draft record served to put that topic off-limits. Pros on both sides who understand the game (such as Morris) realize that the capacity to criticize, on any topic, is undermined after such a well-publicized misfire.

...

Finally, demoralizing the other team and polluting your accusers are great ways to rev up your own base. Every new embarrassing error exposed or outlandish statement uttered just makes your base more committed. Each additional Old Media reinforcement of a foe's negative image gets the base jazzed up, because sophisticated supporters rightly see such coverage as a victory.

hence
Obama-ites: Clinton's weak, defensive, angry, and not someone people like or feel easy around; we don't need that shit
Clinton-ites: thatssexist.jpg

Obama-ites: we could be map-changing game-changers like Reagan; she's never gonna get past 50+1
Clinton-ites: lol, you love Reagan

Obama-ites: thatsracist.jpg
Clinton-ites: Obama's the black candidate; I'm the candidate for everybody

You're satirizing yourself now, right?

Bill Clinton enacted more of Reagan's agenda than any prez ever had or will, the triangulating stone-liar motherfucker

i know that you withdraw from engaging in all this analysis, Tracer, but are you actually challenging the notion that Obama is a better politician than Al Gore?

Al Gore was a good enough politician to get re-elected three times as my Tennessee senator and good enough to be asked to be vice president of the United States. I'd say that's pretty good. My point wasn't to compare Obama and Gore's "goodness" as politicians but to compare how one gesture can be interpreted by a dysfunctional press corps as revealing the sick soul of a man they hate, on the one hand, and (correctly) as totally irrelevant on the other.

A staggering number of pre-war lies on the 'Iraq threat.'. I wonder how much traction this issue will still have in the General Election? (Obv., can't know for sure until nominees are selected, but still . . .).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/us/politics/23campaign.html?hp

If any of these guys get elected, our economy is truly fucked.

It's a race to see who will be the next Hoover.

“Every time I’ve seen things really get scary and the markets really collapse, I put aside my fear and say — aha, this is a buying opportunity,”

Yeah, me too Mitt, I can totally identify with that (????????????)

I mean who the fuck is this CEO motherfucker - somebody should ask him how much a gallon of milk costs

Do I have to read that report to find out if they're counting every "I have no doubt Saddam has WMD" as a "lie"?

Al Gore was a good enough politician to get re-elected three times as my Tennessee senator

he had his Daddy's name like a fair number of Senators before and after him. you remember how well he did there in the big show.

and good enough to be asked to be vice president of the United States

quite possibly because he was considered a pushover who wouldn't get in hillary's way

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given," Bush said.

"This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.

^^^ best president ever

For a second I thought he had said that today and I'm all, "Okay..."

I'm confused by this. Is Edwards helping Clinton by spreading insinuations about this Whitewateresque Rezko non-scandal? Or is he helping Obama by letting us all know that Clinton is going full-steam-ahead with running a disgustingly negative campaign against Obama?

did everyone catch the Observer endorsing Obama - http://www.observer.com/2008/february-5-obama?

I mean who the fuck is this CEO motherfucker - somebody should ask him how much a gallon of milk costs

-- Tracer Hand, Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:36 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/images/pics/arrested.jpg

"How much could a banana cost? Ten dollars?"

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/01/post_6.html#more

If the frequency of the use of the phrase "race card" continues at its current pace in amateur interweb political commentary I will take two shits and die before the general election.

Bill Clinton continues angry self-righteous bozo act

article implies that he 'gets upset' - that seemed extremely calculated

But, he's right. Comparing him to Lee Atwater? Obama's people saying that and CNN running with it? Come on. That's worth getting pissed about.

I'm starting to wonder if the Clintons can do no wrong in your eyes, daria

I mean Bill is clearly being Hillary's attack dog, is making up stuff, issuing angry, inaccurate statements, disparaging her opponents, defending highly dubious lawsuits, etc. That is total Lee Atwater shit.

Plus Bill plays sax about as well as Atwater played blues guitar.

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/hw%20bush%20atwater.jpg

always loved this photo

kinda wished he'd died onstage right then and there

classic!

George H.Dubya Bush doin' the G.E. Smith Guitar God Gargoyle Grimace.

I thought Atwater was Dana Carvey for a second.

They look like Mystics from Dark Crystal.

nah they're clearly Skeksi material

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/dark/skeksis2.jpg

More on McCain and Economics.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005124.php

I'm starting to wonder if the Clintons can do no wrong in your eyes, daria

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:59 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

"starting"

Yeah all that I need to know about McCain on economics is that he thinks that slashing corporate taxes by ten points and dramatically reducing government spending while fighting an expensive war indefinitely qualifies as a stimulus package.

The stuff that's been going on is politics, I mostly see it as, the Obama people thinking the Clintons are crossing the line, and vice versa if you're on the other side. If the Clintons are pushing the story about Obama's comments on the GOP and Reagan for political gain, well, Obama made the comments in the first place for political gain, because he certainly wouldn't have brought them up in that way if he weren't using this post-partisan, above the fray campaign strategy. But it's still a strategy, and not even a new one. I've been wondering if the Clintons could do any right in your eyes.

you gotta be kidding me