2008 Primaries Thread

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.

the Lincoln-Douglas debates were NOT gentle. Douglas suggested that Abe had an eye for black poon.

Isn't your aging cynical dad in Rhode Island? I'm just saying, I think they can afford to lose a few of those votes there.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/18/1941/63976

I don't care how ruthless a pol LBJ was, if he had the Clintons' "principles" the Voting Rights Act would never have been signed. "They've always been the same" is the ultimate cynicism.

xpost Bill knows lots of things besides sliming. Have you ever heard him speak?

it's not just the diminishment of Bill's statesmanlike aura, it's his willingness to put his chief party standardbearer status on the line, and his learning that a lot of Dems are more than willing to strip him of it. maybe his willingness to go there out of care for his wife would play as more sympathetic or even touching if 'there' weren't so nasty.

"John, it's just politics."

yeah, Soto pls, Clinton's a fucking genius

My aging cynical dad dislikes all the candidates on both sides. Even McCain who he used to like a lot for his alleged "independence" (aka right wing nuttery played as straight talk because the rest of the GOP's gone off the cliff).. but now my dad evidently doesn't even like McCain because he's against dunking the heads of terrorists under water. (I about fell off my chair and then explained what waterboarding really meant but I don't know if I got through to him, and wondering if I should have not bothered so that he didn't change his mind and vote McCain.)

xpost Bill knows lots of things besides sliming. Have you ever heard him speak?

Words, words, words.

Daria, ever listen to talk radio anywhere? I imagine a lot of centrist 50/60 males everywhere would not like to vote for her?

Talking with a friend last night who leans right, he says the conservative talk shows have been slamming McCain nonstop.

xpost C'mon dude.

how old are you again?

daria, the problem is not that HRC does and says things that are politically expedient for her campaign. the problem is when those words and actions don't line up, or when she deliberately misrepresents words or actions (either hers or her opponents) for political gain.

also, don't shit on my home state. thanks.

Re: that MyDD post, the paper wrote that in an editorial and rather misleadingly paraphrased what she said to them, per the newspaper's editor:

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5309

(yes, I read the Hillary sites)

I'm not! I lived in RI for three years dude!

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

This raises a good point - even though a candidate can spend 99% of their time speaking about the issues and making substantive speeches, the 1% of the time they spend making off-hand comments about the other candidate will get 99% of the media air-time.

even that's ok, elmo, but when HRC and Obama's platforms are almost indistinguishable, I'm going to lean towards the naturally more affective and effective speaker, not to mention the one who doesn't have The Screaming Lobster of Hope beside him.

(xxpost)

clintons want to play dirty against the other side, fine. maybe it's justifiable or even recommended for them to do it on our side too. but don't pretend that isn't what they're doing or expect us to like them for it.

The Screaming Lobster of Hope

^^^ changable display names plz :( :(

http://ashpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-reagan-hypocrisy/

http://static.px.yelp.com/bphoto/bdPAXw6aSXPUS5X8tcSb6w/m

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/2370/p/f/bill_clinton.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2006-08/24880490.jpg

http://www.midsouthwrestling.com/jydrip.jpg

gabbneb can you point out any of these nasty things that bill clinton has said in order to help secure the democratic nomination for his wife? examples would help here

in any case, i'm shocked, shocked that there is politics going on in this presidential campaign

i like bill becoming a bigger issue because it highlights the whole banana republic-ness of hilary fo prez.

not that she is w/out merit, but it is a but for cause of her candidacy imo

banana republic?

OK, stepping back a bit. (Hat tip to Ned via off topic chat we had recently.)

Do you guys think there's a chance that either HRC or Obama would lose a 2004 election blue state?

The only one I can see *maybe* going back to red is Wisconsin. But there are more red states that are far more vulnerable to turning blue than vice versa.

Do you guys think, given today's context, that Clinton or Obama will be less popular than *Kerry*? And Kerry still got 49% of the electorate.

All HRC or Obama will have to do is secure the blue states from 2004, and gain one more -- say, New Mexico -- tadah, Democratic presidency. If they lose a blue state, ok, Colorado? Nevada? Virginia? I mean, *if* Florida goes blue this year, which is entirely possible, the Dems are walking in regardless.

Yes, I know there's more to this than just getting a Dem in the Whitehouse. We're voting for personalities, yadda yadda yadda.

Ned brought up the SCOTUS issue. There are many people hanging on to life literally on the left leaning side of the SCOTUS bench. *FOR THIS ISSUE*, I could give a shit if it's HRC or Obama who's president. I don't want more asshots on SCOTUS for the rest of my fucking life. This is the least mutable thing about our country. It's really important to me, personally.

Anyway, back to primary minutae and Daily Kossing.

i take it you haven't heard, tracer, about barack 'fairy tale' obama?

that is a very cute lobster, Alfred

taking sides "the whole banana republic-ness of hilary fo prez" vs "but it is a but for cause of her candidacy imo"

The Screaming Lobster of Hope

photoshop plz lolxxxxxps

Tracer, you're on this thread, therefore you presumably follow the races. If you haven't heard or read B. Clinton's remarks, get off this thread.

cryinglobster.jpg plz

Do you guys think there's a chance that either HRC or Obama would lose a 2004 election blue state?

I think McCain would threaten in multiple blue states, and that Wisconsin might be less of a worry than some others

Do you guys think, given today's context, that Clinton or Obama will be less popular than *Kerry*? And Kerry still got 49% of the electorate.

No, of course not. But the opponent will be more popular than Bush.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/raising-mccain/index.html

So how seriously can we take a poll showing Senator McCain running ahead or even with Senators Obama and Clinton? While voters want change and favor the Democrats and their positions, a Republican candidate who is seen as an agent of change and not strongly associated with orthodox conservative beliefs could put up a strong challenge to a Democrat in November.
In a national Pew survey conducted in January, voters were asked to judge the political ideology of President Bush and each of the leading Republican and Democratic candidates. While President Bush, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were placed on the far right end of the ideological scale, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani fell in the middle — where voters placed themselves. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were considered liberal — and placed about as far to the left of voters as President Bush was to the right.
...
But to some extent these strengths are a problem for John McCain in gaining the Republican nomination. The Pew survey found that Republican voters do not think Senator McCain is conservative enough. Ideological ratings of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee fall pretty close to the ideological self-identifications of the average Republican voter. And in many closed primary and caucus states, these are the only voters who count.

(Check out the results of where voters place themselves. Actually to the right of moderate.)

tho Clinton certainly would be less popular than Kerry with certain parts of the electorate on the other side

I think it's highly likely a Dem will be our next Pres, but assuming that it's going to happen makes it less likely to happen.

No, of course not. But the opponent will be more popular than Bush.

How so?

I think it's highly likely a Dem will be our next Pres, but assuming that it's going to happen makes it less likely to happen.

How so?

(Check out the results of where voters place themselves. Actually to the right of moderate.)

looking at the results of elections over the last 60 years will tell you the same thing. yet people still live in this dreamland where the great left-thinking public keeps rejecting the Dems because they are insufficiently ideological.

btw I'll pay $2 to anyone who designs a Screaming Lobster of Hope graphic.

I know Bush is really unpopular, but have you guys even checked out one of the GOP think tank sites recently? Talk about tension and despair.

"just a bunch of dumb old white guys"

You may disagree, but Bush, as unpopular as he is, is still a more likeable dumb old white guy in the GOP than the current GOP runners. (And Huckabee is an android planted to fuck things up for the GOP, I'm convinced.)

"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.

"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"

"Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.

"So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.

(Check out the results of where voters place themselves. Actually to the right of moderate.)

looking at the results of elections over the last 60 years will tell you the same thing. yet people still live in this dreamland where the great left-thinking public keeps rejecting the Dems because they are insufficiently ideological.

-- gabbneb, Friday, January 25, 2008 6:32 PM

^ yezir

I could Photoshop something, but it'd have the Obama campaign logo in it, is that OK?

No, of course not. But the opponent will be more popular than Bush.

How so?

cos bush was immensely popular with a sizeable subset of conservatives but massively unpopular with dems and many independents (enough to catapult a moribund kerry campaign to 48%).

I think it's highly likely a Dem will be our next Pres, but assuming that it's going to happen makes it less likely to happen.

How so?

i will cite precedent in the case of tortoise v hare