2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

sorry maybe im misunderstanding but why on earth does it matter whether or not a) mccain actually will spend 100 years in iraq or b) whether or not we actually believe him??

It means you don't have to pay too much attention to it. Some things are worth ignoring. Did you expect McCain to say anything else?

he said something really dumb and theres no reason not to repeat it as many times as possible in the hopes that enough people either believe it enough to not vote for him or on the other hand recognize it as representative of an unacceptable attitude about the situation. or is that too cynical?

the cynical side of me tends to agree with you max. I mean I guess if I were working on a campaign I'd absolutely grab hold of that line.

taken straight from the Republican playbook. Fuck yeah, play that shit on repeat 'til everyone's sick to the back teeth from it.

I haven't mentioned this yet (or on the other thread either), but I thought some of you (and the press, of course) blew HRC's remark about LBJ and MLK way out of proportion: reading Caro's LBJ biography this week, I realized it was impossible for any other president without LBJ's mastery of Senate parliamentary procedure to have signed such landmark legislation. But the commentariat's motif tha week was "the Clinton campaign is RACIST omigod." I mean, these things are STUPID, ultimately, and a distraction.

and I'm second to Morbs in loathing for HRC.

taken straight from the Republican playbook. Fuck yeah, play that shit on repeat 'til everyone's sick to the back teeth from it.

-- will, Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:20 PM (59 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

O yeah I keep forgetting how the GOP invented campaign tactics

the LBJ vs MLK thing was just a kind a dumb comparison for her to say, it was very clumsy. She would've been better to point out that JFK couldn't get civil rights legislation passed, but LBJ could, and left MLK out of it entirely. Altho lolz in the popular mind because of Nam LBJ will always be considered the lesser prez of the two.

(LBJ also a funny, nasty motherfucker)

I guess really the underlying issue with each of these rhetorical blunders is not the nature of the blunder itself, but the fact that the candidate said something stupid without giving it much thought. It belies a certain political ineptitude.

like "duh, when you're trying to win black votes don't belittle MLK"

eh when taken in the context of the other nastiness they were spreading around s. carolina i dont think the reaction was inappropriate.

in fact id go so far as to say the clintons permanently damaged their reputations w/that shit.

again, smoke and mirrors. It's obvious to me what she meant, but, as Shakey said, her statement was clumsily worded.

"It's all a parlor game."

http://www.jfk-online.com/100xlewin.jpg

if it was just that sure but there was a obv pattern w/the clintons and their surrogates to demean obamas candidacy by putting him in a little black box - then they got spanked in s carolina and rethought - but fuck them for trying it anyway

These candidates must dazzle their bases -- it's the only way to surprise the public (and bases) when they're president. Remember, these people grew up believing that the presidency is the most powerful office in the world; they invest in the myth of presidential greatness. Once they're president, they want to be great, and will stop at nothing to get it.

How else did Nixon triumph in China or Reagan negotiate with Gorbachev (Reagan was even willing to cut ALL ballistic nuclear missles when negotiating)? They'd spent YEARS appeasing their base and scaring the left with belligerence. If you want an example closer to our hearts, it's how Clinton got away with gutting welfare, don't-ask-don't-tell, and bombing a pharmaceutical plant (even if the extreme left was already suspicious).

what are we talking abt now

shit said on the campaign trail has little bearing on reality, so we should stop wondering about banalities.

I do think there was something elitist about her quote, putting the slightly greater emphasis on the president who merely passed the legislation than on the people who fought to make it possible. Obviously it took some courage and political skill on Johnson's part, but it took a much greater amount of courage and political skill on the part of a whole movement to even get Johnson to that point in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

In a way the fact that she clearly didn't MEAN any harm by the quote, that she didn't think she was saying anything that would dishonor the memory of the civil rights movement actually belies a certain elitism.

you know I just read a bio of Mao that painted a pretty ridiculous picture of Nixon's "triumph" in China - explicitly noted that Nixon gave Mao everything he was asking for (diplomatic recognition, seat on the UN council, promises to withdraw US troops, etc.) while getting basically nothing in return. Nixon seemed like kind of an idiot to do this. China at the time was poor, isolated, and desperate for military technology and political legitimacy.

(not to totally derail this thread or anything)

hillary was speaking on the subject of who's going to make the best president, not who's going to lead the most effective grassroots civil rights organization

i mean, if i had to choose right now between hilz and obama i'd go with obama but some of you guys are knee-deep in some bullshit right now

On "100 years", I guess I didn't quite get across what I meant. I'm all for hammering him on it, but there's a way to be all repetitious and Rovian about it without being that kind of disingenuous. He did not mean 100 years of full out war. But he did mean that "Hey guys, it'll be just like Japan, those bastards love us now!" and it shows he's thinking about the middle east, (again, or at least just talking about the middle east) in a really wrong and stupid way. Hammer him on that! He's an old fucker who either doesn't grasp the fact that we're not fighting the old wars, or he pretends not to grasp it.

If spun right, this could be even more damaging than "He's just a crazy hawk" because it ties into a narrative wherein he's way too old for this country and will deal with all of our problems, including war, in all the old, broken ways.

It's a triumph for inanity that the fact that Nixon was an unlikely president to open talks with China became "Only Nixon could go to China," and that that in turn became conventional wisdom.

yeah rly, Mao would've accepted ANY President from the US handing him all his demands on a silver platter

see that's the thing, those attacks from HRC end up looking like rookie mistakes in not-very-distant hindsight. whatever the merits of her statement, and the theater of overreaction to it, why would you want to get near saying: "don't you SEE, that other candidate you're maybe nervous about voting for, he's like martin luther king"

i mean, apparently i can never really know anything about a politician, but really the big overall narrative of HRC's failure is a failure to even live up to her own memes (the hideousness of her externally-generated memes notwithstanding).

this is where obama's branding (perish the thought) is actually pretty clever: make it about a few supposedly intangible things, and it can't be disproven! talk about hope, and voila, people feel some hope! this drives a lot of people nuts. on the other hand, talk about experience when you're fucking up left and right, talking about having it in the bag and then losing a bunch, talk about being canny and tough when your attacks are backfiring in the press -- not a good look.

many xps

shakey i've not read what you have about nixon in china specifically...and i can't believe i'm about to defend richard nixon! but the point of going to china wasn't to play hardball with china but further deepen a rift in the communist world.

Also Nixon going to China were a direct causal event to the creation of "Nixon In China" which is both awesome and has been a gateway in my life for extra $$$$.

This book made a fairly strong case that Mao was already completely at odds with the Soviets by the late 60s, and had been ever since Kruschev denounced Stalin. By the 70s they weren't getting any more military technology, Mao had withdrawn all his personnel from Russia, was paranoid that they were going to invade/assassinate him, etc. Mao's goal was to court an image as a "champion of the global poor" in direct opposition/contrast to the Soviets. The Sino-Soviet split had been in place pretty much since the late 50s.

without being that kind of disingenuous

hasn't Obama (or Clinton too, not sure) used a line something like "I would pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible .... my opponent sees us having troops in Iraq for 100 years."

is that disingenuous? seems fair to me. would mccain even argue the point?

The best part about that line is that you can turn around and say "We've done the analysis and the soonest we can start pulling troops out of Iraq is 100 years from now" after you win.

i mean, if i had to choose right now between hilz and obama i'd go with obama but some of you guys are knee-deep in some bullshit right now

-- Tracer Hand, Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:38 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

your whole 'hillary would be the nominee if it werent for THE MEDIA' thing is pretty out of hand dude

So anyway, McCain fucked a lobbyist and called in a few favors for her:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp

Or, you know, such is the implication.

The plot thickens.

Learning the full details of the Keating Five story was a treat, but the charges of infidelity seem insubstantial, despite the presence of, according to the NYT, two sources.

couldn't find any pics of Carol Mccain but lolblondefetish anyway.

anytime anyone says "the plot thickens" i think of matthew lilliard's awkward delivery of same in 'hackers'

this 'scandal' is a nonevent

does anybody have a link or can maybe gimme a rundown re: this "obama pledged to use public finance then didn't" or somesuch stuff

this 'scandal' is a nonevent

^^^^ This. STOP GETTING MY HOPES UP, NYT AND WASH. POST.

it's just the times treatment. it's so nyt to be like "ok here's the sex scandal for 2008 -- wait, read three pages about ethics, first."

this is a real scandal - mccain fucked a lobbyist!

pretty otm http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179402.php

talk about soft money

mccain fucked a lobbyist!
mccain fucked a lobbyist!
mccain fucked a lobbyist!
mccain fucked a lobbyist!
mccain fucked a lobbyist!

v satisfying to write!

that mccain, he's shifty

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/20/us/20mccain-190a.jpg
i fucked a mccain!

looks like a mccain fucked you

What a country!

2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE FUCKENING

this is maybe why huckabees been sticking around?

She looks like a younger version of his wife.