2008 Primaries Thread

http://www.glumbert.com/media/romneyarnold

I'm debating whether to go down to the Obama-rama tomorrow. I have a meeting at that time, but it's just a school thing that I can easily skip out on.

Jay-Z merch at Easy Street should fly tomorrow

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004171450_clinton08m.html

RON SIMS, ET TU?

No mattah, I'm kinda happy to see Hillary cutting out some bullshit in her appearances. (Bill being in Tacoma helps) She's sharpening herself. Although I'll hold that thought until Obama at noon tomorrow.

No endorsement of Hillary from Gov. Gregoire yet

HMMMM

lolz Ann Coulter on "The Today Show." Matt Lauer is soooooooo in love with her.

most of you have probable read up on it all already, but here's an article that sums up the clintons' funding situation fairly well

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120244004594552909.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox

here's another:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a7Fp3OexFdD0

Obama "has more than 650,000 donors. That's far more than the Clinton campaign, which won't release the numbers."

the pessimism in me thinks that it's going to be neck and neck until the end, with clinton winning because of the michigan/florida delegates

"One thing about the current debate debate: Obama's has agreed to the two debates in which Clinton is probably least interested -- ones held in states where she leads, Ohio and Texas.

Meanwhile, he's not going to risk a game-changing debate moment until after the next run of votes, in which he seems to have an edge, is over."

karl rove, as he's stated before, thinks it'll most likely be hillary:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/karl_rove_on_the_democratic_race.html

Gee, I wonder why.

yep

Clinton and Obama are threatening America's peace and prosperity, says GWB.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/bush-peace-and-prosperi_n_85646.html

Jesus God, the conventions aren't til late summer. Who the hell can take this for so long?

great Dennis Perrin quote: "the Most Important Election Ever In Our Lifetimes, More Important Than The 1932 German National Election And You Know What Happened Then"

also, re "Who need more debates?" Uh, maybe if they actually discussed the major issues they've hardly (if at all) touched on? Israel, campaign finance reform, the need to raise taxes on the wealthy, Russia, the trillion dollars of US debt China holds, etc.

Who the hell can take this for so long?

haha maybe don't check the thread 100 times a day then! for an unimportant coke vs. pepsi taste test you sure seem to keep up on the news about it

I gotta keep busy somehow til exhibition baseball starts, dude.

<i>How many folks here have blown out a lunch for a campaign event? The only time i can think of doing so was when Ralph Nader visited Ann Arbor sometime in 2000, and we sat around in the theater for an extra 30-60 'coz he was delayed.</i>

I once skipped class to see Fonzie stand on a box in the middle of Peace Park and preach about the strengths and abilities of Bill Clinton.

'The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.' Noted without further comment.

i hope the press will follow up on Obama's suggestion for Clinton to release her tax returns

WA Gov is endorsing Obama, apparently. maybe this was mentioned and I missed it, but I know people were speculating the Clinton conference today was to announce his endorsement...guess not

oh is that the noonan article from today? xxpost

xpost - yea i thought that endorsement was in the bag for the clintons camp!

actually maybe i didn't hear that

Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.

And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"

Way to go, Noons! Jeez: "Hillary's an incarnation of the dire, atavistic will to power. No, scratch that -- she's a psychopathic cunt LOL." o_O WTF I'm not one to defend Hils but that's some wacko sexist shit, Peg.

Ra, ra, Hill-a-rey...

Married to a love machine...

Former Sen Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) may change party and endorse Obama. Local news, I know, but may help to balance the delegate totals here on March 4, small though they may be.

(He was the only Republican senator to oppose the authorization of the Iraq War, FWIW)

Great Hendrik Hertzberg piece this week. This is basically what I've been saying to Clinton supporters within the last few weeks (although less articulately):

Obama’s Democratic critics worry that his soaring rhetoric of reconciliation is naïve. But, as Mark Schmitt has argued in The American Prospect, Obama’s national-unity pitch should be viewed as a tactic as well as an ideal. It might lengthen his coattails, helping Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate in marginally red districts and states. It would not protect him from attack, of course, but it would enable him to fire back from the high ground. And, as a new President elected with a not quite filibuster-proof Senate, he would be in a better position to peel off the handful of Republican senators he would need to make meaningful legislative progress than someone who started from a defensive crouch. Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one.

Barack Obama just might make a transformative one.

While this is a big reason why I have and will continue to support Obama, it's also the reason one of my colleagues isn't supporting him. He supports Clinton because he thinks she can screw up a lot less in 4 or 8 years than Obama can. (He assumes that a Republican will screw things up worse than either.)

Lincoln Chafee is kind of awesome.

He supports Clinton because he thinks she can screw up a lot less in 4 or 8 years than Obama can. (He assumes that a Republican will screw things up worse than either.)

this is also the thinking of my "true conservative" friend, who was unhappy with the post-rudy republican options and is pissed at bush for damaging "true conservatism." (i've pointed out that this sounds suspiciously like unreformed marxists saying that failures in the ussr/cuba/etc don't matter because "they weren't true communists," but to no effect)

Lincoln Chafee is a really amazing guy IRL too, for what it's worth

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/06/should-democrats-fear-a-long-race.aspx

Should Democrats Fear a Long Race?

I've seen a few people suggest that it'll be a disaster for the Dems if the primary drags out until the convention in August. See, for instance, Ed Morrissey, who predicts a "coming meltdown" if, say, superdelegates hand Clinton the nomination, black voters revolt, McCain gets ample time to win over conservatives, and the Dem nominee has only a short window to raise funds and consolidate support. That's an extreme scenario, but I've heard other versions, too.

I'm not sure. One could, alternatively, imagine that the absence of a clear Democratic opponent would make it much harder for McCain to start attacking (back in 2004, the GOP was able to coalesce around the Kerry flip-flopping meme early on, which gave it time to sink in). Meanwhile, it seems that as long as the Democratic nomination is up in the air, dissatisfied conservatives are more likely to spend time airing their grievances with McCain than training their fire on his opponent.

Clinton and Obama would also have time to sharpen their message on the economy, in a debate waged largely on their terms—McCain's ability to change the subject here would be minimal. And they'll presumably get positive press so long as it's a horse race. Obviously there are wild cards (if the Clinton-Obama slugfest got much, much uglier, that would hurt; and Morrissey's right that it would be a fiasco-and-a-half if superdelegates unfairly swung the race, or if the Michigan/Florida controversy explodes), but on its own, a drawn-out Dem race isn't necessarily a problem for the party—and might even be a boon.

normally I'd be inclined to support the "practical" candidate, but 2008 isn't a normal election year.

Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one.

Notice the difference in verbs though: "would make" vs. "just might make". This is kind of how I see it too. It's hard to imagine that Clinton wouldn't at least be a competent, effective President, but she's unlikely to change the nature of the political conversation. Obama, OTOH, is a more speculative bet, but with more upside. He might change the political landscape - or he might be an ineffectual idealist (shades of Carter, perhaps).

isn't Zbignew Brzezinski one of Obama's top advisors? lol

clinton: low risk, low return
obama: high risk, high return
mccain: high risk, low return

?

Should Democrats fear democracy?

"competent president" = things continue to get worse, more slowly

well gradual decline (which is inevitable) is better than a freefall... hilary is the safe choice

"A Clinton Presidency is going to be unexciting, not especially idealistic and only better by comparison with Bush. But it will break no one's hearts."

interesting sentiment from some livejournal linked by some blog

not that i agree, but a perspective to understand the obama-wariness in most traditional dems

It will break conservatives' hearts, and delight GOP fundraisers.

Gov. Gregoire for Obama! w00t.

see this is what confuses me: clinton: low risk, low return, but i take it this assumes she'll get elected. i've never understood why clinton is seen as a low risk candidate -- sure, she's likely to run a competent presidency and in that regard she is low risk.

but yea, that's assuming she gets elected, which is huge fucking assumption. as a candidate in a general election, she strikes as being the higher risk by far. as others have mentioned 1000x, it just doesn't seem likely that she'll win over any new supporters apart from the normal democratic constituencies, i.e. exactly what gore and kerry won previously, i.e. not enough to win the general election i just don't see her winning over anybody that mccain couldn't win more easily.

isn't Zbignew Brzezinski one of Obama's top advisors? lol

Obama was one of his star students