2008 Primaries Thread

Edwards is great in a lot of ways. I wish the other candidates were tackling the issues he is. There are aspects to his plan that I like as well. I am also totally accepting of the fact that his positions have shifted and strengthened, but ultimately, this guy is comes off as a dilettante.

I can't support anyone in the primaries who not only voted for the Iraq resolution, but who actively made the administration's case for the Iraqi threat in public. Edwards was on the same intelligence committee as Durbin!

I'll actively support whoever wins the nomination, but I have good reason not to trust Edwards and Clinton. I have no reason to expect Obama to leave us high and dry. That's something, at least. (and no, that is not the only reason I support Obama)

"The Democratic Party: We Have Different Interests Than the American People" might not be the best slogan ever.

the democrats' constant "little dog" inferiority complex is the real problem and i think it goes beyond strategy to something deeply psychological. in a fascist system, power is the only arbiter of validity, so if you're the party of the powerless -- in broad strokes -- you need to call on something pretty profound to not end up with a bad case of stockholme syndrome

Well, for 6 very important years there the dems were the minority in every single branch of government, and completely shut out from any decision-making, so there's a certain validity to it in context. (The fact that the GOP acting unilaterally led in no small part to its downfall could be brought up more.) Saying shit like "While the Democratic Party's interests may at times coincide with that of the American people, they are clearly not synonymous" is just getting behind the very successful GOP strategy of convincing Dems that the perceived majority of public opinion is virulently against them on certain issues, and that if they don't vote a certain way they'd be drawn and quartered. This wasn't true, and again, proceeding on assumptions like this screwed the GOP in a major, major way. It really needs to be re-emphasized the degree to which the GOP's seemingly successful tactics got it kicked out of Congress and, soon, the White House.

(And the Dems aren't the party of the powerless--they're supposed to be the party of the people, which in a democratic system means you're actually the party with power. To say nothing of their historical support of such powerful institutions as unions, the middle class, and government itself.)

Obama's couching bipartisanship in inclusive terms, but in practical political terms bipartisanship means there's someone to share the blame with. That's why the war has ultimately not been as bad for the GOP as it really should be, given public opinion.

La Noonan:

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.

But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, "How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?"

Those final Noonan paragraphs are a bit much, no? I mean, candidates have negative campaigned against each other during primaries for decades. Why will this particular instance "tear the party apart," and even if that's true, why should Obama respond in kind? Wouldn't that make the tear even more damaging and irreversible?

The far left (including its mouthpiece The Nation) has always disliked the Clintons - big surprise there. Noonan's overblown rhetoric is ridiculous. Oh those nasty Clintons! Who will think of the children?!

(I'm not condoning the Clintons' distorting Obama's words and record, mind you. I just don't draw the sweeping conclusions from it that Noonan does (but I also sort of hate Peggy Noonan, so maybe I'm bias)).

well, remember: Noonan agrees with Limbaugh that a McCain nom would destroy the Republican Party. These are not people who rest easy at night.

If both parties get torn apart: Best Election Ever.

And if McCain wins the GE? Does she think that will destroy the GOP?

that way a new Reagan can rise from the ashes.

(xpost)

Noonan is a hack.

"Hillary hits all the morning shows, gets hit with a surprise on NBC: An old photo of her and Bill next to disgraced Obama associate Tony Rezko. NBC's Matt Lauer says that the network "received" the photo and that its date is uncertain; the same pic also popped up on Drudge this morning."

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

hahahaha oh that is good

Whatever Pegster, I'm annoyed at Bill right now but I'll totally tear up to see him in the White House again.

were you quoted on this week's Onion front page?

http://www.drudgereport.com/rez.jpg

i'm starting to think all of this "the clintons are dirty fighters" stuff is an attempt to defang hillary in advance so that any fightback of hers on any issue or accusation whatsoever can be painted as the actions of a vile gutter-brawler

"received" the photo

i've been wondering what role the O campaign had in the demise of its Senate opponents

It seems to me that anything that keeps the Rezko story in the headlines is good for the Clintons (as long as it doesn't turn out he's been a major supporter for years). Maybe the Clinton campaign sent the photo to NBC?

its just turning something she's promoted as a virtue (her "strength", "toughness", "ability to handle the Republican attack machine") into a liability - the flipside of what Obama's opponents are trying to do to him.

x-post

i'm starting to think all of this "the clintons are dirty fighters" stuff is an attempt to defang hillary in advance so that any fightback of hers on any issue or accusation whatsoever can be painted as the actions of a vile gutter-brawler

well, yeah!

it's a symbolic gesture broadcast to elites to convince them not to write obama off as weak/defensive/etc. people have already pretty much made their minds up as to whether the clintons are dirty dealers or not. (and most dem voters know they're not.)

the real weakness of the clinton strategy right now is that they're using bill to do it. it may be more effective in the short term, but in the long term hillary's usual strategy of using associates to put out slams is much more devestating.

people have already pretty much made their minds up as to whether the clintons are dirty dealers or not. (and most dem voters know they're not.)

Because they have short memories?

uh, whitewater?

Hey if Obama wants to keep Rezko in the news, fine. AFAIK the Clintons didn't have a connection to the guy for 17 years.

xp: Rose law firm, nursing home scandal, refusing clemency to brain-damaged con -- all whistleclean to me!

Obama should sidle up to Hil and use the line from Vidal's The Best Man : "I'll use whatever I have to. I can't let you be president."

What's the deal with Whitewater? Nothing came of it other than Ken Starr wasting millions of dollars. Far as the Nation and a lot of the blogosphere goes, I am starting to wonder what the deal is with the so-called liberal left not only disliking the Clintons (OK then, fine if there's a policy issue) but happily dredging up the worst BS attacks of the vast right-wing conspiracy like they were valid.

look, the investigation into the clinton scandals ended up in an impeachment for oral sex. that's the clintons' problem.

xpost what daria said.

it's an easy but risky assumption that the obama campaign provided the photo -- could have been a supporter not actually involved with the campaign, you know?

It seems to me that anything that keeps the Rezko story in the headlines is good for the Clintons (as long as it doesn't turn out he's been a major supporter for years). Maybe the Clinton campaign sent the photo to NBC?

WTTLGHP

though there's always marc rich.

could have been a supporter not actually involved with the campaign, you know?

Maybe it was Rezko trying to do Obama a solid.

you know what guys? i think hillary's just... i dunno, too ambitious. she seems ruthless. something about her voice.. just rubs me the wrong way.

the last 7 years have really raised the bar for dirty dealing.

Look, we can all agree that the right-wing smear campaign of the 90's was more disgusting than the Clinton's nasty old-school politicking.

Am I crazy or has politics since the first years of this country always been "nasty old-school politicking." Yes? Just because some political figures in the nation's history are remembered with some kind of halo like they were above it all doesn't mean it was actually the case during their time.

Tracer, the problem with Hillary is that she's so calculating. She thinks about her next moves all the time as far as advancing her own campaign, a campaign that's designed for her to gain political power. It's disgusting.

maybe there are lots of people on the left, including the moderate and center lefts, who were happy to support and defend the clintons as long as they were in office and/or the best thing going, but never actually liked them all that much? and are tired of them by now?

daria OTM - its always been ugly and vicious. It wasn't all Lincoln-Douglas debates you know.

x-post

All campaigns are the same. Plus, I am a sexist.

Yes, but, Daria, Jefferson, Adams, and Pinckney had, you know, "substance." Bill doesn't know anything BUT sliming.

My socialist father dad personally dislikes Hillary to the point where he would not vote for her against GWB. The "aging-cynical dad" vote is KEY people.

Semantics dictate that I don't include daria with Jefferson, et al.

see Adams sex-scandal smear against Jackson, etc etc

x-post

I gotta give props to the Obama oppo people for digging up that Rezko photo to try and throw things off-message during the morning chat shows. Zing

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/has-bull-gone-bull-moose/index.html
Matt Bai revisits "Clintonism."

So what changed in so short a time? I doubt there was any strategic decision to make the former president an enforcer; his stump speech now is almost exactly the same as it was a few months ago — cerebral, quiet and as substantive as anything you will ever hear in a presidential campaign. Rather, everything controversial he said in the last few weeks — from the “fairy tale” comment in New Hampshire, to his misuse of Barack Obama’s comments on Ronald Reagan, to his berating a Nevada reporter for asking about race — has come spontaneously in response to direct questioning. This suggests that, after Hillary Rodham Clinton lost Iowa and appeared to be on the verge of sudden extinction, her husband simply reacted, as most husbands would, emotionally. His outbursts have betrayed a smoldering anger. Were I the former president’s cardiologist, I’d be wondering if all this campaigning were really such a good idea.
...
Of course, we’re only talking about a few elite Democrats here; it’s possible that the average Democratic voter still reveres the former president as much as he ever did. Still, the danger for Mr. Clinton is that all the drama may remind voters of what they really didn’t like about the ’90s. If that happens, then it ceases to be a mere issue of tactics and becomes, instead, a part of the campaign’s larger narrative. When I saw Mr. Clinton speak in Walterboro, S.C., yesterday, his “statesmanlike aura,” which had been blinding when I saw him a few months ago, seemed to have dimmed.