2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

I hate O Reilly, but that exchange with the caller may be the most reasonable thing I've ever heard him say.

Should I vote for Dan Perry, if I am a periodontist?

Dan Perry '08 - he promised he would run!

dude, lying politicians.

meanwhile, RuPaul reminded me of this guy (sad picture though)

http://i27.tinypic.com/2zoxma0.jpg

But O'Reilly's like this! He can get protective in the oddest times and with the most unexpected people. I think he genuinely likes Obama. Slate ran a feature in 2004 about how EASY it is to get on his good side: you flatter his swollen ego (just not in a hotel room).

his throbbing, swollen ego

For an example of the power of frames, think of what a field day the press would be having now if it was Clinton who was waffling on a pledge to take public financing in the general.

Vote Clooney and you're sexy and racy.

When I watched Super Tuesday results with Jenny and Jesse a few weeks ago, I suggested an Obama/Clooney ticket and they both liked that.

...what a field day the press would be having now if it was Clinton who was waffling on a pledge to take public financing in the general.

-- o. nate

You mean like the MASSIVE field day they had when Clinton abstained from the immunity vote? Yeah, that got front page coverage from coast to coast. Totally unfair.

Um, she didn't abstain, she just didn't vote. Also, I think that Obama himself made public financing a much bigger issue when it was politically expedient for him to do so, and now that he's in a different situation, and it doesn't seem so expedient, he is back-pedaling. I don't really see the parallels in the case of the telecom immunity vote - hardly something Clinton made a cornerstone of her campaign.

For an example of the power of frames, think of what a field day the press would be having now if it was Clinton who was waffling on a pledge to take public financing in the general.

omg this ^^^ is priceless - i can see why u are such a strong believer in the power of media distortion nate - obama never pledged to take public financing

lololololololololololololololololololol

I was gonna say...

More about the idea that the press seizes on every possible angle to attack Clinton, while giving Obama a pass. The press (mainstream, as a whole) ignores most opportunities to attack both, which is as it should be.

Abstain: To refrain from voting.

This seems to be a pretty fair fact-checker article:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/the_obama_pledge.html

It's conclusion:

The Pinocchio Test
The Obama campaign has said different things at different times on the issue of public financing. While there may have been a little wriggle room in some campaign statements, Obama's affirmative answer to the Midwest Democracy Network seems unequivocal. Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned.

Two Pinocchios for the land-of-Lincolner

obama has an op-ed on his stance on public financing in usa today -- he reiterates the 'aggressively persue an agreement' line and expands on what he means, i honestly don't think he's been inconsistent on this point

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html

Nobody here is saying "I like Obama 'cuz teh TV told me to."

if anybody had, it would be pretty funny!

enthusiasm /= pledge

stop fraaaaaaming god

nice dig at the Supreme Court in there - ah Con law professors

Brillo, who is the hortatory leader of reactionary white ethnic males, with a history of 'controversial' racial commentary, is not so stupid as to call in even a veiled way for the lynching of anybody, but he is certainly sharp enough or sufficiently inclined to say something outrageous to introduce the notion on the fly by putting it in someone else's mouth, then distancing himself from it.

new york post: Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned.

obama: im still v interested in perusing public financing so long as the agreement includes soft money too.

me: lolwtf

washington post, rather - although that blog post is more on the ny post level

is it still in "good faith" if he's betting on mccain's obvious need for soft money to spoil the agreement?

eh who knows what hes betting on? it seems like a pretty stupid and pointless bet if thats the case.

And about a half-hour into a speech here, the Illinois Democrat announced that he had to take a quick break. "Gotta blow my nose here for a second," Obama said.

Out came a Kleenex (or perhaps it was a hankie), and he wiped his nose.

The near-capacity audience at the Reunion Arena, which his campaign said totaled 17,000, broke out in a slightly awkward applause.

XD

but i really dont think this is a good fight for mccain considering the deceptive (possibly illegal) shit he pulled w/those loans.

rofl @ nosewipe applause

but i really dont think this is a good fight for mccain considering the deceptive (possibly illegal) shit he pulled w/those loans.

-- jhøshea, Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:59 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Perhaps this is why Huckabee is biding his time.....

no, to Republicans all money is FREE SPEECH!

(to most Dems too)

The Republican National Convention isn't till September. I can see Huckabee getting the nom if McCain taking a severe beating in the press, esp. if he faces criminal liability. (all unlikely tho)

i keep forgetting that stupid RNC thing is going to be where i live, or almost, goddamn that's gonna be so fucking annoying.

obama: im still v interested in perusing public financing so long as the agreement includes soft money too

But the potentially misleading part is that Obama doesn't seem to have raised the soft-money issue before. Maybe he had it in mind all along, and he is a smart enough lawyer that his statement on the matter was crafted to allow for just such an exception, or maybe he hadn't thought about it. But he did make a big deal of being more committed to public-financing than his rivals, which was perhaps a bit disingenuous if he foresaw that there would be these other hurdles to making it happen.

lol m@tt i'm thinking of making some "GOP GTFO" tshirts. i bet there's gonna be some fun protests.

it's 'potentially misleading' only if you consider soft money to be beyond the purview of campaign finance reform, which would be singularly retarded.

lol m@tt i'm thinking of making some "GOP GTFO" tshirts. i bet there's gonna be some fun protests.

-- gff, Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:22 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

a friend of mine was actually trying to organize a "formal" protest, where everyone has neatly computer-printed signs and wears a suit and tie (male) or dress/pantsuit for women to counter-act all the "liberals are wacky hippies" stuff that will make the news...it's a good idea i don't know if he ever got very far with it though i should ask him...

I don't understand your point. Soft money is outside the purview of the public election financing law, which constrains the amount the candidate can spend, but not the amount outside groups can spend. If Obama now thinks that public election financing only makes sense if it also includes a limit on soft-money spending, then why didn't he say so before? Especially when answering "Yes" to a questionaire that asked whether he would accept public financing if his opponent did.

xpost

yeah not to sound like a blue dog or anything but if the protest is all wobblies and code pink types i'm gonna be a little disappointed. hopefully the dfl or the nominee can throw a party or two at least! it should be a fun time. welcome to the twin cities! have a drink, we hate you! now go lose!

xp

obama's playing the public finance thing like a good politician. when you're down, you make noises about public financing. when you're up, you sort of shrug. it's part of the game. the point of the game is to win. not to get all hung up making a stand on the principles of the rulebook. if obama thinks he's gonna have a money advantage in the general, which he probably would, then he'd be dumb to relinquish it. he doesn't seem dumb.

o. nate, i'm not trying to be legalistic about this, just reasonable. any general election agreement to campaign spending limits / public financing that did not ALSO limit soft money spending would be a hollow gesture. if the objective is to impart some measure of fairness, then just limiting expeditures of the campaigns themselves would not be enough, because those very limits would cause a unprecedented influx of soft money from countless parties.

in short, agreeing only to campaign spending limits while letting soft money flow freely would obey the letter of campaign finance law but betray the spirit of fairness that is its objective.

“Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.”

Machinists' Union pres Tom Buffenbarger

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/684411.aspx

ANNOUNCER: What do you think of Howard Dean's plan to raise taxes on families by $1900 a year?

MAN: What do I think? Well, I think Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading...

WOMAN: ...body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freakshow back to Vermont. Where it belongs.

He's a poet, not a fighter.”

i think this consistent underestimation of obama's willingness and ability to mix it up is only gonna help him. i don't know why it's been so under-noticed, he's had plenty of dust-ups. i think he kind of likes a little tough-guy stuff, that's what's not getting picked up on. and the longer people go not picking up on it, the better for him.

(but maybe i'm just biased toward poker players.)

yeah lolz Chicago politics is for pansies dontchaknow

Mayor Daley? PUSSY

it's part of the game. the point of the game is to win. not to get all hung up making a stand on the principles of the rulebook.

yeah see this is the kind of calculating machine politics way of thinking that we need to move beyond

Damn, the shithead's name is Buffenbarger. I guess I'd be pissed too.

The silver-tongued orator from Kansas, Hawaii and Illinois?

Is the fact that Obama claims three states supposed to be a knock against him? Because you could say the exact same thing about Hillary (Illinois, Arkansas, and New York -- not to mention D.C.).

yeah see this is the kind of calculating machine politics way of thinking that we need to move beyond

mm-hm. look, it's not so much that obama is a different kind of politician than hillary. it's that he is possibly a better politician than her. they're all playing the same game, but their skill sets are different. you use what you've got. (you know, within legal limits etc etc.) if obama bound himself to public financing and lost, i don't think there'd be a bunch of happy pro-public-financing liberals.

i mean, let's not confuse obama's message with his means. if you can play the game but present yourself as being above the game, that's some high-level playing. if you can win the game while seeming to be above it, that's some jedi-level stuff. but you still do actually have to play the game.