2008 Primaries Thread

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

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

I understand that this is all part of the "experience vs. change" narrative, but what is the actual 'high risk' w/ Obama? That he'll crumble under the pressure, or not put people more experienced than him in the cabinet? I'm just trying to imagine what the nightmare scenario is with him, and other than him failing to clean up the Iraq mess really well or magically save the economy (things I'm not entirely sure any president would be capable of right now, at least in one term), I'm not sure what that is.

Brzezinski was against the Iraq War from the beginning, I believe. And he's a smart guy, if perhaps a bit too dove-ish for some.

Reading the Wikipedia Jimmy Carter page, it's interesting to note other parallels:

- Like this year, in 1976 there was a wide-open field in the Democratic primary.

- Carter started the campaign as an underdog with low national name-recognition.

- A key to Carter's success was favorable coverage by the national news media:

The media discovered and promoted Carter. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

"What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months."

On the economic front, it's not hard to see parallels between the stagflation that confronted the Carter administration, and what will likely be the situation facing the next President.

also, they've both got big ears and a funny smile

I was pleased to find out last night that my mom voted for Obama. She's roughly Hillary's age and is an ambitious businesswoman, so I guess I just assumed that she'd vote for one of her own. She said she was on the fence until election day, but in the end she decided she wanted to send a message that she wanted more than just politics as usual. And she compared Obama to JFK, saying that she's confident that if he is the nominee that he would attract "the best and brightest" to work for him.

I'd really like to know more about Carter's presidency, he's such an interesting figure.. whats a good book on the subject?

they've both got big ears and a funny smile

Huckabee, too. In fact, Obama and Huckabee could create the BIG-EARS UNITY TICKET that the country so desperately wants.

I convinced my grandma to vote for Obama.

I'd really like to know more about Carter's presidency, he's such an interesting figure.. whats a good book on the subject?

The Poseidon Adventure

The mass media also torpedoed Carter's last year w/ the incessant castration-fear drumbeat of AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE

(j/k). Carter was perhaps underrated. Unlike the Presidents to follow him, he had too much humility and modesty to pass off responsibility for bad happenings on other people (e.g., his famous "the economy's woes are my fault" speech, which you can't imagine a President giving today).

Alex in Baltimore OTM. I've had the same discussion with the very smart but weirdly neocon-ish dude in the office across the hall. I guess I understand some of the apprehension w/r/t to Obama, but it seems weirdly vociferous among otherwise reasonable indies and even Dems (this is all personal experience. I don't have any polls to back this up).

At the very least, dude couldn't do worse than the last 8 yrs even if he called a press conference each and every morning of his term to let the American public watch him take a dump on the White House lawn.

xp: wait a sec, Carter's "malaise" speech was widely interpreted as putting blame on the American public. (also unimaginable today, as was his winning the nom with NO MONEY)

For anyone who's studied political science, the Carter comparison makes you cringe--the Carter administration is a legendary source of cautionary tales. Neudstadt's (and someone else's) book Thinking in Time contains so many critiques of Carter's actions that at one point they actually apologize for picking on him.

Point is, there are important differences, not the least of which is that Obama's been a senator and so has national experience, whereas Carter came from Georgia and tried to change Washington with new people. Unlike Carter, Obama is shying away from talking about timeframes for getting things done, which is good. And he does seem more savvy about how Washington works than Carter was. Obama's strategy thus far has been underappreciated and savvy as hell. Carter took advantages of new electoral rules and post-Watergate cynicism to come from behind. Clinton came from behind on a message of hope as a southern governor too. And he had many of Carter's problems. I think Obama's smart enough to avoid them. He'll make his own mistakes.

Ambinder offers a list of potential McCain Veeps:

1. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)
2. Gov. John Huntsman (R-UT)
3. Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
4. Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson
5. Ex-Sen. George Allen
6. Gov. Bobby Jindall (R-LA)
7. Mike Huckabee
8. Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL)
9. Mitt Romney

Carter was a nice guy but a horrible president.

Obama's message isn't "Washington is Broken" but "Let's All Stop Being Such Dicks For a Half-Second, OK?" He's more looking to return the system to some sort of stability than he is in reforming it. (Which makes uh certain folks here see red, I'm sure.)

Haha uh I guess I should say is a nice guy, huh.

ok, HALF my bus on the way to work was vacant. I was the youngest person on the bus, I'm usually in the older half. Obamahooky in effect.

(if I wasn't already caucusing for O, going to work, and knowing that half of the city is going to the rally at noon today, I'd be playing hooky too)

Brzezinski is NOT by any stretch a "dove."

Maybe I'm mis-remembering it, but I thought he took blame for at least a large portion of the economy's woes during that speech.

I'll look into it later.

(xp)

You're right, Alfred. But Brzezinski was against the Iraq War from the beginning (I believe), and he's been pilloried for it.