2008 Primaries Thread 3: The Rejecting and Denouncening

Morbs is otm about obama's failing but waiting for a dem who is fdr lefty rather than a liberal is somewhat foolhardy unless you go with the tombot analysis and assume the next prez is hoover and that preciptates a new fdr.

I'd add to morbz list a point about the danger of obama (or clinton) persuing a protectionist trade agenda. Sure free trade has hurt jobs in the devloped world but some of the blame lies at the feet of organised labour for not standing up for the rights and wages of the brothers and sisters in emerging economies, in effect globalising itself to deal with the globalisation of capital.

yah sure try and unionize china see what happens

TOm I feel you that the next president's going to have a lot on his (or her) hands, possibly more than we can even comprehend at this point in 2008. I know what you mean about the Democrats being set up, LBJ style, to pull out of Iraq leaving an inevitably messy situation, so that for the next 40 years we get to hear about how Democrats are defeatists, how they left before the job was done, they don't have the stomach for a fight etc etc et fucking cetera. And that could well happen.

But think about 1860 for a moment. The same logic would obtain. Why throw a once-in-a-lifetime politician like Lincoln into that fire? But thank fvck we did. We might need Obama, or Clinton, more than we think.

yah sure try and unionize china see what happens

you know, I have nothing better to do today, really, I think I'll do this and report back to you

sweet!

deej and nrq, which US political parties supported integration in the '20s? The Commies and Socialists, right? Whatever their other failings, would you have similarly sneered at them for their "irrelevance" on that issue then?

-- Dr Morbius, Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:18 PM (50 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

The commies and socialists deserve credit for the new deal too.

-- Gavin, Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:24 PM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

actually i think the communist and socialist parties opposed the new deal, but in both cases these were powerful forces in the unions. i don't think they were irrelevant or wanted to be.

jhøshea otm re chinese unions.

American union leaders cut a deal in the 1930s that we're still living with the consequences of today -- to forget everything except a bigger slice of pie for their own membership. And now that is biting them in the ass.

also: Taft-Hartley.

good luck j0hn!

pravda.ru headline, tomorrow: Mountain Goat Unionizes China

Morbs is otm about obama's failing but waiting for a dem who is fdr lefty rather than a liberal is somewhat foolhardy

No liberals are running for prez (Ted Kennedy '80 might've been the last who had a shot, Feingold opted not to this time). And I think the only lefty in FDR's family was Eleanor.

But I'm not waiting for Lefty, the corporatization of "democracy" has made that a fantasy as far as the presidency (and most everything else) goes. I just evaluate every 4 years if I can hold my nose while voting for the Dem, and I haven't managed it since '84. All I'm looking for is a prez who can be pressured into doing progressive things, which is what many libs expected they could do to Bill Clinton to be before he shat on them by triangulating into Abolish Welfare/Promote School Uniforms/Bomb Kosovo territory.

I am yanking your chain, slightly, on the Liberal thing, I dislike the US definition of Liberal as Progressive. For me liberalism is something that should have died with the rise of the labour party but keeps coming back to haunt us. It is a US/UK semantics thing.

the UK labour party has been "liberal" (as much as any party has been -- ie not much by C19 standards) for nigh on a century.

I would disagree, I think it started off social democratic but has trended liberal since at least the 60s. Now is the most liberal of three highly Liberal political parties.

anyway this is a derail

Obama announces road trip, gabbneb swoons

if you think that any presidential candidate can get elected on the palestinian thing you are psycho

does it suck, maybe, but thats the reality of the situation

there is always going to be a balance between idealism and electability and the sooner morbius realizes this the sooner his ranting doesnt sound so tired. i dont even mind (and would in fact PREFER) if he continue to bring up issues like the four he listed above that you might consider Obama's missteps or flaws but couching them in damnation of any candidate who positions himself as 'electable' is just futile

Hey Mary:

We don't need people like you in PA either. You are so full of hate. YOu must live in the Alabama portion of the state.

Posted by Andrew | March 24, 2008 8:16 PM

I'm sympathetic to Morbs' intransigence because Bill Clinton was enough to sour any liberal on the Democratic party for a generation.

Also both Obama and Clinton deserve a slap for supporting 'clean' coal although I understand you can't be anti-coal in PA if you want to remain 'electable'.

but a "progressive" will never get elected. In this country, whether you're Lincoln or LBJ, you need to be nudged towards expanding civil rights.

universal healthcare is expanding civil rights.

are you scoffing at the idea of 'electability'?

I am scoffing at the idea of anyone of intelligence (not funded by the coal industry or trying to win votes in mining areas) actually repping for the idea that clean coal is economically or technologically possible.

I have not "damned" Obama (aside from saying He's a Politician), would be comfortable doing so to Rodham and McBickle.

ed, what's your problem w. liberalism anyway:

Sure free trade has hurt jobs in the devloped world but some of the blame lies at the feet of organised labour for not standing up for the rights and wages of the brothers and sisters in emerging economies, in effect globalising itself to deal with the globalisation of capital.

-- Ed, Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:11 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

plus obvious scoff @ "oh, it's easy, just globalize organized labour"

man you guys I've only been at this for an hour or so but it turns out China totally does NOT want me to unionize them, Beijing is totally not even talking to me any more

this sounds like a job for billy bragg, tbh

ha!

Oh well. Thanks for trying. You still coming to our Olympic Games Girl- and Boycott? (xxpost)

btw Ed OTM that "clean coal" is a steaming load of bullshit

the last thing dems need is to split the 'people's party' and 'environmental party' vote

Liberalism is light on compulsion and redistribution, it's kind of progressive but only at the whim of those who hold the resources.

A Peoples party and an enviromental party are one and the same.

poll has O up 20 pts in NC. if that holds and IN is close, or if he wins by 10 and wins IN, it's over.

but the peoples party and environmental party votes are not

theres a reason that developing countries have a harder time dealing w/ environmental issues than developed ones. coal miners are not about to throw out their livelihoods

peoples party votes and environmental party votes are not

Coal Miners are going to have to be transitioned into other jobs because no one has a future if we keep burning coal.

What's over, gabbneb? A Rasmussen poll from last Thursday had Clinton up 28 points in West Virginia, and I'd wager that she'll do well in Kentucky, too. Unless Obama manages to win these states, too, I don't think you can call it.

Coal Miners are going to have to be transitioned into other jobs because no one has a future if we keep burning coal.

-- Ed, Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:51 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yeah i agree but if you want to elect someone who gives a shit ...

I don't disagree with that at all, that is realpolitik, but Obama, at least, is meant to be a charismatic leader, not a panderer.

This belongs on the veep thread, but it's hilarious: Romney as McCain's #2:

Where the fuck do Republicans get the impression that Romney knows a good goddamn about the economy?

Well, it's unlikely that Mitt will flip Massachusetts to red, but in addition to having great fundraising network, and being ten years younger and a tireless campaigner, he brings one heck of a message. Romney's mastery of economic issues and rep as the business turnaround guy could prove highly valuable to McCain. (Not to mention the healing to party divisions it might prompt.)

While McCain hogs the campaign trail spotlight, Romney could quietly barnstorm the most depressed areas of the country laying out a plan to tackle economic woes. His expert knowledge here and relentlessly upbeat demeanor would probably go over well. Further, his expertise means he could go out on the attack against the other candidate(s) on the issue with confidence and ease as the McCain camp needs him to.

Once elected, Romney could continue to deal with the issue. Being weighed down with concerns over the domestic economy is probably not what McCain wants anyway. President McCain would then be able to focus in on the issues he cares about — the war, national security and congressional/fiscal corruption. Romney would have to be careful not to overshadow McCain, but if the economy improves he could take some measure of credit for it and end up with an elevated profile to set him up for his own run at the White House, which could prove crucial if McCain ends up going one term.

There's bad blood still left over from the primary, but Romney appears willing to bury the hatchet. If McCain's smart, he'll look past that and start objectively weighing the merits of Veep Romney now.

xpost

clean coal is a little more complicated than that -- I doubt anyone would disagree that ideally we'd have discontinued coal burning entirely. but there's the increasingly likely scenario that coal will soon be so much cheaper than oil that people are just going to _start burning it no matter what_

in which case, the best-case scenario is that clean-burning technologies have already been put in place. and the politicians who are really thinking ahead are already looking into ways to cheaply distribute the same technology to China & India

There are clean burning technologies in terms of desulpherisation but there is no economic way of dealing with the CO2. The two should not be conflated.

strike at the root of the problem. wipe out half the population and burn down the internet, presto, CO2 emissions from coal become "manageable"

and quite frankly, although we could put resources into clean coal technology, we could equally put that money into renewable energies that work now. (although there is a promising line in biofuels based on algae that grow in CO2 rich environments which could be a limited CO2 sink, but lets not kid ourselves that this is going to be cheap).

strike at the root of the problem. wipe out half the population and burn down the internet, presto, CO2 emissions from coal become "manageable"

World heading this direction anyway.

Obama pwning the shit free online gamer vote 2:1

http://i28.tinypic.com/2u7x105.gif

http://www.miniclip.com/games/street-fight/en/

http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/?src=top

any ed posts about carbon footprints etc are hilarious.

Indeed, I am a colossal hypocrite