2008 Primaries Thread

Yes, we can, Colin, and we need more HRC/GOP supporters on this thread, I think (they enliven the conversation). Seriously, Obama's as deep on policy issues as HRC is. She's a bit wonkier in delivering her message, but he's no slouch in that regard, either. The fact that he is a hypnotic, powerful speaker shouldn't be held against him.

(See, e.g., last Democratic debate in California).

who is the jim gaffigan of politics?

ron paul is the doug stanhope of politics

I think that you can tell a lot from someone's body language...

http://www.softe4u.com/images/blm_cover.jpg

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3317122.jpg

"Ask not, what your monkey business can do for you..."

shocker wikipedia entry is empty yo

The fact that he is a hypnotic, powerful speaker shouldn't be held against him.

Exactly. But, to be fair, he's so incredibly good it's kind of spooky. I don't know that I've ever heard such an intrinsically attractive, inspiring voice. I can see how it might be alarming to more paranoid types.

I don't know that I've ever heard such an intrinsically attractive, inspiring voice.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Hitler11cx.jpg

HI BOYS HERE I AM

shocker wikipedia entry is empty yo

Add a closed parenthesis at the end.

Sure. I'm also nervous about "cults of personality," and in some respects, I can see that concern about Obama. But he isn't a screaming facist, or an intentionally dense partisan. He's cool and rationale and appeals to the same "high-minded reformist" that many before him have appealed to, without raising the slightest concerns.

(xp)

Colin is basically making a dumber-sounding version of the argument my mom was making to me the other day. She said that she was intersted in Obama, but was turned off watching one of his speeches, which she said felt empty (would have rather heard him talk policy than general change/hope/etc., I think). She's voting Hilary on experience + being a woman.

ok my non-troll-kill response is to quote matt yglesias one more goddam time:

One anti-Obama meme that I notice has gotten a lot of support even among people sympathetic to his cause is the notion that he's somehow shallow or insufficiently well-versed in policy matters. Obviously, I can't crawl into either candidate's brain and take a look around, but this idea doesn't seem to me to be especially well-supported by the evidence. Instead, it seems to draw support from a kind of implicit Law of Conservation of Virtues -- the pretty girl can't be smart, the not-so-good-looking guy must be really nice -- that has people notice that Clinton is well-versed in policy but isn't a charismatic figure, and Obama is charismatic so it "must" be that he's not well-versed in policy. He's cool and she's the nerd.

This suits the media's taste for parallels and lazy narratives into which events can be squeezed. But there's really not much basis for it.

For one thing, these takes tend to have a certain vague quality to them and often are offered by people who don't, themselves, have a particular aptitude for policy.

...

UPDATE: On the conservation of virtues point, note that everyone agrees that Bill Clinton is both very well-versed in policy (like his wife) and a charismatic figure. There's no fundamental tension here.

That youtube ad = "I Am Trying to CHANGE Your Heart"

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Hitler11cx.jpg

HI BOYS HERE I AM

-- Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:40 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/godwins-law-9796.jpg
xpost

Three blue is ridiculous. One colorless.

Does Godwin's Law apply if you ACCUSE someone of calling someone a Nazi?

just to clarify: the Counterpunch column was about the history of the Dems thwarting the will of the voters for the nomination, not equating fucking Hart's oratory to fucking Obama's.

i guess not, you can't play the card for them xpost

Yglesias' take seems equally vague?

dude i broke godwin's on this thread like two weeks ago!! it's all alles sturmabteilung alles zeit in here now, fair game

xp the part under ellipsis there is several paragraphs about obama and policy experience/knowhow. i clipped it.

the history of the Dems thwarting the will of the voters for the nomination

A candidates reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a super delegate for?

Yglesias' take seems equally vague?

-- daria-g, Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:46 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

how so? its a critique of other ppl's take. or are you referring to his views outside that post? if so i also disagree

XP -- is that youtube clip a campaign-sponsored TV ad or an independently made viral-video clip?

the Walter Karp book about Carter-Reagan detailed how the superdelegate system was put in place, and it was done largely to prevent upstarts like Carter from snatching the vote democratically.

I'll have to go read other things Yglesias wrote.. I haven't been following him for a long long time b/c his writing has always seemed sort of.. like JMM, pretty middle of the road. But here I guess from the quote he says there's not much basis for it without offering much to disprove.

People who have good resumes or on the surface have everything going for them, and are LOVED by the masses, but you can tell after hearing them talk for five minutes, or looking at them that they are full of shit.

Ok, I'll grant you that Obama has this going on, because he is a politician, and if you have such razor-sharp insight into human behavior, then good for you, it'll serve you well in life. But why pick on Obama in particular about this? Have you been watching McCain give speeches lately? He may be convincing at his own special things, but being a dyed-in-the-wool conservative is not one of them.

why are you giving that to him kenan? "dude he's so fake" = wtf?

I'm only granting that to say that the other two candidates are (very, I think) arguably much more full of shit.

I don't know.

You guys always seem to be smarter than me, that's why I post here.

I'm probably in the wrong regarding my views as expressed above. I guess I shouldn't place so much emphasis on my personal liking or not liking of Obama and let it color my more rational judgements.

Still, I wasn't trying to create a clamor, just wanted to see if I was the only one who felt that way and gage how everyone else felt.

When I make a statement I'm not always making a declaration that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, very often I'm trying to create a dialogue...

I brought up my thoughts not because I was sure in them but more out my own insecurity about the way I felt.

"35 Years of Experience"

colin, it's cool, i just think the dane cook analogy was really reaching and kinda hilarious. i mean, there are plenty of examples of charismatic hucksters you could cite without having to bring up the accursed star of Employee of the Month.

lol yeah that was a little overboard

also he doesnt hold up the shoker:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_cook#Style

I seem to be posting this video all over, these days, but anyone who thinks Obama might not be a thinker, might not be able to wade through complicated issues and find a nuanced, wise and maybe even visionary path through it, ought to watch these 40 minutes. it's a speech in front of a christian charity group. he talks about politics and faith and it's not the standard stump thing. and while you could accuse it of being vague i think more accurately it's wrestling with something subtle and difficult, trying to figure out the rightest way for a nation like the usa to proceed - and without just hand-waving an answer that's meaningless.

i think it's rather remarkable.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938

Thing is, when it comes to "authenticity", the only difference between Obama and the other front-runners is that Hillary/McCain have actually proved themelves at least somewhat politically duplicitous over time. With Obama, such charges are just speculation. So they seems particularly unfair.

The fact that he'd have made a damn fine snake-oil salesman shouldn't be held against him...

that whole "empty suit" argument is so full of shit, because if you actually cared to know what he thinks about the issues you can just VISIT HIS FUCKING WEBSITE where he as all of his ideas laid out, and videos of him talking... there's a 2 hour video of him & his advisors outlining his foreign policy plans (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/)!

No one really wants the candidates to go into great detail in their stump speeches....

if O makes it to the GE, it's going to be a blast watching the fundies fanning the idea that he's the modern anti-christ incarnate: secularist (in the not overtly born-again sense), attractive, miscegenational, gifted orator making appeals for progressiveness and unity.

i don't know. maybe I'm the one being paranoid.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2vsraz5.jpg

That's what I tried to explain to moms, but what can you do.

xp

lol

that video is impressive,

So OK, for the Democratic party to overturn an Obama victory would require that...

1) His campaign is a "mutiny." It's not.
2) Significant portions of the Democratic machine have a vested interest in Obama not being the nominee. I don't see that they do.
3) The Democratic establishment unanimously supports HRC. They don't. The Clintons are powerful but have powerful enemies too, and they've made more of those over the course of this campaign.
4) Obama won't be aware that this could happen. He is very much aware--they're already courting the superdelegates.
5) That everyone necessary to pull off this coordinated effort thinks that putting HRC up as the nominee is worth putting a Democratic victory in November, which seems highly likely at this point, in jeopardy. Will they?

Also, did Hart actually have more of the popular vote or pledged delegates than Mondale in 84 heading into the convention? Tad Devine claims that Mondale was only 40 votes short of a majority at the end of the primary season, and that's why the superdelegates swung in a bloc:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html

(Based on Cockburn's post, I mean.)

No one really wants the candidates to go into great detail in their stump speeches....

the thing that's so frustrating is that the Democrats haven't had a cadidate who rly understands this in the last two runs. we get a candidate who is AWESOME at stump speeches but there's still ppl like my aunt and uncle (who caucused for hrc in nevada, lol old) who are all wanting 10-point plans on shit.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938

^^^ i'm elmo argonaut and i approve this clip, many thanks to sean for posting it

thats frustrating as hell too cuz the idea that nuanced policy decisions, many of which will be reliant on any number of variables and priorities that could change all of a sudden, demand something a lot more flexible than some reductive 'ten point plan' xp

Perhaps just saying what that "beyond partisanship" crap means is what ppl are waiting for. I want more partisanship, the Dems do "reaching acrioss the aisle" as an ugly habit.

whereas republicans are the kind who will fuck a dem in the ass and not even have the common courtesy to give him a reach across.

if you want to draw contrasts between obama and clinton in terms of how they would govern (and I know you do), i think obama has a clear advantage here because i think he would be so much better at creating alliances in the legislature than hillary clinton -- the electability / polarizing argument playing out in the primaries now has implications that reach well into the presidential term. hillary in the oval office, i feel, would turn the aisle into an impenetrable barrier

not to mention the amount of political hay gop congressppl could make off of standing up to hillary

"standing up" in scare quotes